Debates of June 15th, 2023

Seniors

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to private member's Motion No. 45 adopted by the House on June 15, 2022, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the report requested by the motion.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation at the Co-Chairs' Annual Visit in Osaka and Tokyo, Japan, from October 10 to 15, 2022; a report of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting their participation at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Bangkok, Thailand, from October 26 to 29, 2022; and a report of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting their participation at the 43rd General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, from November 20 to 25, 2022.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have made an error, so I will go back to the introduction of government bills.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due respect, I believe we have moved further on in the rotation of Routine Proceedings. Would we not need unanimous consent to go back?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The error was made by me and I am correcting it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you just got advice from the Clerk. Perhaps if you want to elaborate on what happened, I will wait for that.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I can do that. That is not a problem.

What happened is that normally I am given the bill to read and it was not handed to me. When looking at it, I assumed the hon. minister had to stand, and I was waiting for someone to stand. No one stood, so I moved on.

The error was made at this end, not necessarily on the floor. For that I apologize, for myself and my staff. Ultimately it falls on me. That is why I am going back. We discussed it, and according to the Clerk, I have the discretion to go back.

I apologize to both sides for the error. Those things happen. You have a human Speaker, unfortunately. AI has not quite taken over my job yet.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (A), 2023-24”.

Science and Research

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research. This report is entitled “Revitalizing Research and Scientific Publication in French in Canada”. I give a special thanks to the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his motion, for his advocacy and, in fact, for all that he is doing to enhance French-language recognition within our studies.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Canada-Taiwan Relations Framework Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act respecting a framework to strengthen Canada-Taiwan relations.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to introduce the Canada-Taiwan relations framework act. Recognizing the important bilateral relationship between Canada and Taiwan, this bill provides a framework for the strengthening of economic, legal and cultural relations. It would make it a policy of the Government of Canada to support Taiwan's participation in international fora as well as membership in international agreements, including the CPTPP. It would appropriately permit the Government of Taiwan's office in Ottawa to be referred to as the Taiwan representative office and would provide opportunities for the enhancement of diplomacy.

This bill is an important step in recognizing the reality of Taiwan, a vibrant democracy, leading global economy and important ally to Canada. I urge its passage.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, national strategy respecting abandoned vessels.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to table my bill, an act to amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, national strategy respecting abandoned vessels. I would like to thank my NDP colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, for seconding it.

Abandoned vessels in Canadian waters have been left to sink, polluting our oceans, harming wildlife and threatening food security. Canadians who live on our coasts know all too well the harms, seeing what locals call “vessel graveyards” lining the coasts. It is time that something is done about it.

This bill includes the development and implementation of a much-needed strategy to address the ever-increasing number of vessels being abandoned along the west coast of Canada, working in partnership with indigenous governing bodies and the province. The measures include, among others, developing a system to promptly and effectively identify the owners of vessels, developing a mooring plan for vessels and developing innovative recycling initiatives for wrecked vessels and their components.

Derelict and abandoned vessels cannot be allowed to continue to threaten our coasts. Our oceans, marine ecosystems and coastal communities deserve protecting.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Justice and Human Rights

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

The seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights speaks to improving the response to victims of crime. I can honestly say, and I think all Canadians agree, if we believe what we are seeing in the news, that the response of the government to victims of crime has been woefully inadequate. I can go further. When we talk about victims of crime, we are also talking about the victims' families, and that came through loud and clear in our report. Once again, even today we are talking about the impact on victims of crime and their families of the government's soft-on-crime revolving door justice system.

I will speak to some of the measures in our report.

One of the things we heard loud and clear was the need to address the unfair situation of sentence discounts for multiple murders. What that means is that in Canada, someone who is convicted of first-degree murder receives a life sentence but is eligible for parole in only 25 years. What this has led to is a ludicrous situation. For example, in Moncton, New Brunswick, an individual killed three of our Mounties, three police officers, just trying to do their job, and that individual would have received a 25-year parole ineligibility, the same as if they had killed one person. We have seen situations of mass murder in this country where someone kills three, five or six people, and they would receive the exact same parole ineligibility as if they had killed one person.

We believe, on this side of the House, that every life should count, every victim should be counted and every victim's family should be respected. That is why when we were in government, we brought in legislation for ending sentence discounts for multiple murders. This meant that an individual who committed multiple murders would receive multiple consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. It is why the individual who killed the three Mounties in Moncton received a 75-year parole ineligibility. Other mass murderers in Canada sentenced since that legislation have received similar sentences.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down that provision. We all know that a charter dialogue takes place between the legislature, Parliament and the Supreme Court, and it is absolutely scandalous that the government has not responded to that Supreme Court decision. We have called on it for over a year to respond to this decision, to make it right and to listen to victims' families.

When we were studying the response to victims of crime, that came up more often than not. One of our great witnesses was Sharlene Bosma. Many members will remember that name, as it was her husband who was killed by a mass murderer, someone who murdered at least three individuals. What Sharlene said left a lasting impact on me as well as on many members, certainly on this side of the House.

She said that through the whole process of attending hearings every day, attending court and working to ensure a conviction of this individual who took the life of her husband, the one solace she took when he was sentenced is that her daughter would never have to attend parole hearings and face this monster. However, with one decision from the Supreme Court, that has been ripped away. Now this individual will be eligible for parole in what is left of his 25 years, and Sharlene Bosma, her daughter and other victims' families will have to face unnecessary parole eligibility hearings. Once again, the government throws up its hands.

Even in today's headlines it is reported that one of the worst killers in Canada, one of the most notorious, the Scarborough rapist, Paul Bernardo, has been moved, to the horror of the victims' families and all Canadians, from a maximum-security prison, where he should have spent the rest of his life, to a medium-security prison. We see, on the other, side feigned outrage. We see crocodile tears. We hear “How could this happen? We're going to look into this”, but now we are finding out every day that the Minister of Public Safety knew. Now we are finding out that the Prime Minister knew.

Why did it happen in the first place? Part of the reason it happened is the government's own legislation. When the government brought in Bill C-83, which amended section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it meant that, when considering transfers from one institution to another, the litmus test brought in by the government is that offenders have to be held in the least restrictive environment. When the Liberals passed that legislation, and when they refused to act when they found out about this transfer, they made this an inevitability. This is on the Liberal government.

I also want to address bail in this country. This came up again and again in our victims study. There are victims who are unnecessarily victimized. They are victims because our justice system has failed to protect them from repeat violent offenders. Just last week, we had a witness at justice committee, and what she said left an impression on me. She said that we do not have a justice system; we have a legal system, but many victims do not see justice in our system.

Canadians fail to see justice when this government, through Bill C-75, put in a principle of restraint when it comes to bail. It has led to the outrageous situation of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, individuals who have been caught for firearms offences and are out on bail, committing another firearms offence. This is happening in Toronto, and the Toronto police helpfully provided us with the statistics. While out on bail for a firearms offence, offenders commit another firearms offence and get bail again. This is outrageous. The Liberals will say, “This is too bad. It is unfortunate that gun crime is taking place”, but it is taking place as a direct result of both their actions and their inaction, their failure to respond to a revolving-door justice system. I can tell members that Canadians are fed up with it.

There is only one party that is committed to ending the revolving door, committed to ensuring that victims voices are heard, committed to appealing the measures in Bill C-75 that have led to this revolving door, committed to ending the outrageous situation in which individuals who commit gun crime are given no more than a slap on the wrist, and committed to ensuring that individuals who commit arson and burn down someone's home are not eligible to serve their sentence with a conditional sentence. What is a conditional sentence? It is house arrest. Under our Criminal Code, somebody could burn down a house and serve their so-called sentence playing video games from the comfort of their own home.

When we were in government, we brought in legislation to change that, to end the revolving door, to have consequences for criminal actions and to protect the most vulnerable. We made sure that sex offenders were listed on the sex offender registry. We made sure that sex offenders served their sentence in prison and not in the community where they offended.

However, under the current government, with both actions and failure to take action, we have a situation where communities are more and more in danger. Members do not have to take my word for it; this information is publicly available. Violent crime is up 32% in this country. Gang-related homicides are up almost 100% in this country. The approach of the revolving door, of allowing repeat offenders to continue to offend, is not working, and a Conservative government, led by Pierre Poilievre, will address—

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

We do not use names in the House.

Questions and comments, 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, there is great anticipation about our debating Bill C-36, and the Conservatives continue to want to raise issues through concurrence motions in order to avoid government debate on important legislation. What we are talking about in this case is a national child care plan. It is something the Conservatives say they actually are in favour of.

The question I have for the member is this: Why is it that the Conservatives continue to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons by bringing in concurrence motion after concurrence motion to prevent debate on government bills, when they start crying that they do not have enough time to debate? Why is that?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, is the hon. member for real? Does he not ever get outside of the chamber and see what is happening in the real world? In the real world, where most of us live and where our constituents live, people are concerned about the fact that the government has allowed one of the most notorious sex offenders and murderers in Canada's history to be moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison. Canadians are outraged. They want answers. The more we peel back this onion, the more it stinks, and the more we realize how irresponsibly the government has acted. We realize it is their actions that have led to this consequence. Their inactions have led to this consequence.

We make no apologies for standing up every day on behalf of victims of crime.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly am as disturbed, I think, as anyone in this country about Paul Bernardo's being moved to a medium-security prison, but I do think the hon. parliamentary secretary raises a good point. I am sure the hon. member for Fundy Royal was not the architect of this strategy, but when we have repeated concurrence debates in this place, we certainly do lose time to debate legislation that is consequential.

I would also say that I do get outside of this place. I do talk to Canadians who are not in a bubble and Canadians would like to see Parliament work and actually debate legislation, pass legislation and have debates that are consequential. This concurrence motion on a committee report will inevitably pass without any change to our legislative framework, but we will have consumed a lot of time.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any thoughts on that.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think that sometimes situations arise where we have to step up to the demands that Canadians have. I think it is appropriate on a day like today when we are here as parliamentarians, when Canadians are waking up to the news about the situation of Paul Bernardo having been moved to a medium-security prison and the fact that it happened because of the actions of the government.

I think Canadians are entitled to hear the word “victims” in the chamber. I fear that if it were not our party speaking about these issues, they would be swept under the rug and would not be spoken of. Which party raises the issues of victims more than any other? It is our party. Honestly, on a day like today, I cannot make any apology for raising this issue and debating this issue. It is that important.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that we can all agree that it is important that the justice system fully recognize the rights of victims, that they do not feel victimized for the rest of their lives, and that they can thrive over time. Cases involving individuals such as Paul Bernardo are indeed troubling.

There are other cases, however, that do not involve firearms. In those cases, we expect judges to use common sense and to keep things in perspective. Does my colleague believe that judges are able to keep things in perspective, especially when there is no previous criminal record, or does he think that the same rule should apply to everyone?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the hon. member to read the recent Supreme Court decision on the sex offender registry, where judges themselves were calling out other judges on the misuse of the discretion for adding serious sex offenders to the sex offender registry. Many of our judges do a fantastic job, but we in Parliament are elected to do a job as well. It is time the government took defending the rights of victims seriously. We must take every action we can to make Canada as safe as it can be for victims, their families and our communities.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege and honour to speak in the chamber, but, more importantly, to lend a voice to the fine residents of Brantford—Brant. On a topic such as this, with next to no notice, it is even more important that I lend an appropriate voice.

I come at debates on criminal justice issues and victim issues from a place of significant experience. I know that several members have heard me explain my background, but for those who have not, it is important to remark that, prior to being elected in September 2021, I enjoyed a 30-year legal career. In those 30 years, I saw both sides of the equation. I defended the worst of the worst for 12 years. I defended individuals charged with shoplifting, mischief, paintball, tagging and spray-painting offences, all the way up to and including murder.

I decided, after reflecting on my 12-year defence career, that it did not give me a sense of satisfaction, because, ultimately, when I cross-examined victims of crime from all walks of life, from young children all the way to senior citizens, it was heartbreaking to see how our criminal justice system works. It is extremely adversarial. Defence counsel have a job to do, and that job is to ensure that there is a fair trial, but, reflecting on the fairness of trials, sometimes one has to sacrifice one's personal beliefs and morals.

After 12 years, I was at the point when I was about to get married and wanted to start a family, and I asked myself what type of husband and father I wanted to be. I was taking steps to ensure serious violent offenders were escaping justice and responsibility. Although it is ultimately the task of a defence lawyer not only to ensure not fairness but also, hopefully, win the case, it certainly creates havoc with respect to the victim's sense of what type of system we have. My colleague, the member for Fundy Royal, could not have said it better: in our role as a parliamentarians, the theme we hear over and over again is that this is definitely not a justice system but merely a legal system.

When I joined the Crown's office in 2004, every single day that I was a public servant for the Province of Ontario left me with a gratifying feeling. Not only was I contributing to the fairness aspect of our legal system, our justice system, by holding offenders accountable, but also I was, in my small way, giving victims the voice they felt they had lost in being victimized, not being believed by police services, not being believed by legal professionals, or not being believed by judges. I took it as my personal mantra to dispel as many myths as possible when prosecuting, as I said, shoplifting, which has a societal impact, all the way to multiple murders. I have seen it all in my 18 years of Crown experience. I was left with a goal to ensure that, in my small way, I left victims whole again.

While offenders who do get punished usually end up in jail, depending on the nature of the crime, they will serve their sentence and move on with their lives. The same cannot be said for victims of crime. Some victims of crime live with the trauma of this experience for the rest of their natural lives. It was important for me as Crown counsel for the Province of Ontario to equip those victims who went through this horrific process and to give them the tools to put together their lives after this crime.

It begs the question of why I chose to leave a very rewarding, satisfying career as a Crown attorney to enter these halls. The answer is simple. I was sick and tired of seeing the escalation of crime from coast to coast to coast, but particularly in my small riding of Brantford—Brant.

I was born and raised in my riding. I remember growing up, all through high school, my university days, my law school days and ultimately my career as a lawyer and Crown attorney, it was a safe place to live and to raise a family. Literally, in the last 10 years of my practice as a Crown attorney, I was seeing a gradual increase in the prevalence of crime, but more so a prevalence of serious violent crime.

Early on in my Crown days it would be common not to prosecute a homicide for several years. Fast-forward to 2020 and 2021, when I ultimately took a leave of absence to pursue politics, and we had 12 homicides on the books, with a small office of six Crown attorneys. It was overwhelming.

It was not just the homicides. We had shootings, drug trafficking, fentanyl and all kinds of the nasty criminal activity this House speaks about literally on a daily basis and that we read about online or in the papers. That is what was happening. I felt my effective voice as a Crown attorney could only go so far. I wanted to be an instrument of change. I wanted to correct the wrongs with respect to our legal system.

I must say it was completely frustrating for me to arrive in this House and hear the government touting how serious it is about our justice system, about holding offenders accountable and about victims' rights. Everything it does ultimately is the complete opposite.

As my colleague has already indicated, Bill C-5 is a disaster. It is still a disaster, taking the most significant, serious, violent offences and opening up the possibility they can serve it in the comfort of their own homes. I am going to go further on conditional sentences, or house arrest. These individuals are entitled to work, spend some time in the community and go shopping.

That is not holding an offender accountable, so it brings me full circle as to why we are here. We are here because the Minister of Public Safety has lost the trust of Canadians and of this House, and on that basis, I am asking that the motion be amended.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Monday, April 17, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Minister of Public Safety immediately resign given his total lack of consideration for victims of crime in his mishandling of the transfer to more cozy arrangements of one of the worst serial killers in Canadian history, that this unacceptable move has shocked the public and created new trauma for the families of the victims and that the Minister of Public Safety's office knew about this for three months prior to Paul Bernardo's transfer and instead of halting it, the information was hidden from the families.

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

The motion is in order.

The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his years of work on the issues of safety and improving safety throughout Canada.

I can share with him the fact that when I came here, 23 years ago, one of my issues was very much the issue of crime and safety.

I, too, lost a cousin who was an OPP officer in a terrible shooting. The results for the individual who performed the shooting were, I felt, very insignificant. I have talked a lot about these issues. I think they matter a lot to all of us as parliamentarians. At the same time, as we move forward, there is always the issue of being responsible and having to be responsible in how we bring in laws and how we enforce them and that we have to also make sure that we are considering everything, including the victims.

I would like to say to the hon. member, as we move forward, that many of us share concerns about how we improve safety, whether we are talking about Bill C-21, guns and knives or all of the rest of it.

Basic safety is critically important and I would like to look at how we can work better together to improve the judicial system and our laws and orders, and find answers.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, how do we work together? It is incumbent upon me to stress that collaboration on these issues ought to never be partisan. If we all come from a goal of protecting this community known as Canada, from coast to coast to coast, we have to put aside our ideological differences. We have to strive to not only talk about issues that are germane to the concerns of victims but actually implement them. It is listening to victims groups. It is not being dismissive of their concerns.

The fact that so many victims rights groups now do not see this as a justice system but as a legal system should be an alarming call to my colleague and to members of this government.

That narrative needs to change. It changes by not only talking the good game, that you are serious about holding offenders accountable and you are concerned about victims' rights, but walking the walk. When your minister who, in my opinion, has deliberately misled this House—