Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
House of Commons Hansard #67 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hate.
House of Commons Hansard #67 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hate.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
École Polytechnique de Montréal Members mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, commemorating the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre. They highlight the ongoing crisis of gender-based violence, noting a woman or girl is killed every 48 hours. Speakers discuss its disproportionate impact on Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, which the NDP calls an ongoing genocide, urging collective action to end violence and ensure safety for all. 4700 words, 45 minutes.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Members debate a Conservative motion for the Justice Committee to travel across Canada to hear testimony on Bill C-9. Conservatives argue the bill and a proposed amendment to remove the Criminal Code's religious exemption threaten religious freedom and accuse Liberals of obstructing committee work. The Bloc supports removing the exemption, citing public consensus against incitement to hatred. Liberals accuse Conservatives of filibustering to delay hate crime and bail reform legislation, and spreading misinformation. 26200 words, 3 hours.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 Second reading of Bill C-15. The bill implements budget provisions, drawing criticism from opposition parties. The Bloc Québécois rejects it due to insufficient support for Quebec’s demands, increased fossil fuel subsidies, and environmental backsliding. Conservatives denounce the bill for failing to address the affordability crisis, soaring food prices, and record national debt. They also criticize government spending and the impact of taxes on families, seniors, and key economic sectors. Liberals defend the budget's investments in social programs and the economy. 22800 words, 3 hours.
Criminal Code Second reading of Bill C-246. The bill would mandate consecutive sentencing for those convicted of sexual offences. The sponsor argues it would strengthen the justice system and ensure each crime and victim receives full recognition, as current practices allow multiple sentences to be served concurrently. While the Bloc Québécois supports sending the bill to committee, the Liberals argue it is unconstitutional and overly rigid, preferring their own legislative reforms that aim to address similar issues. 7500 words, 1 hour.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. At least he is clear, straightforward and honest, unlike the Liberals. He says what he thinks. He debates. The Bloc Québécois is the same. I think that the objective behind our proposal to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code is straightforward, honest and clear.
As we have seen, the Liberals do not want to work. They are making sure that there will be no committee meeting, and I think that their caucus is bickering a little. Once again, the Liberals are not being very clear. That being said, let us come back to what my colleague said.
Quebeckers who are watching this debate in the House are having a hard time understanding why Conservative members are missing the point. We are not attacking any religion. I have met with people from the Jewish community. Some people from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs support the Bloc Québécois's proposal. Irwin Cotler does.
All we want is to remove a religious exemption from the Criminal Code, nothing more. No religion is under attack. Does my colleague get that?
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, for my friend from the Bloc, the defence is this:
if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
The section itself arises out of section 2 of the charter. It is not only an extension of it; it is effectively part and parcel of it. I have not seen a situation where this has been used to defend against the type of speech our Bloc friends are concerned about. This simply has not happened. Adil called for the killing of people is incitement to violence. No one has ever suggested that he hid behind paragraph 319(3)(b). It just has not happened, so—
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, for the better part of two years, in that member's riding, there has been a lawless mob that has functioned with complete impunity through the streets calling for the genocide of its own citizens. There have been gunshots into a school and firebombings into businesses. We do not have a law problem in this country. We have an enforcement problem and a government that stands at its pedestal to pour fuel on the fire of that enforcement problem.
Rather than it focusing on enforcement, why does the member think the government is bringing in a bill that is going to be weaponized against the very community it purports to protect?
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is conformity of thought. It is like my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North. There is either Liberal think or no think.
Like I said, in the Soviet Union, the only religion allowed was communism, which is why the holding of a religious text would have been punishable by labour camp.
The Bais Chaya Mushka school for girls in my riding has been shot at three times. When we first came to Canada 30 years ago, we came to the intersection of Sheppard and Bathurst, and now, at that very intersection, every Sunday, a group of mass thugs come to incite violence against the Jews.
We do not need this legislation. We need to enforce existing legislation on incitement to violence and assault.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate, which the Conservatives tossed onto the floor at the last minute. It is an attempt to do what I have become witness to the Conservatives doing for the better part of 10 years now, which is to obstruct and prevent government business from occurring. They look for opportunities to participate in preventing the government from doing anything. The member before me said he was going to speak professionally about everything and talk about the politics of this. I am just going to lay out what has occurred to this point, so the public can be the judge of whether what is going on is suspicious or not.
Bill C-9 was formally passed by the House at second reading and went to committee. There were three meetings at committee. There was over eight hours of meetings with witnesses where all political parties, the government, the opposition and the Bloc, were able to ask questions. What happens after that, typically, is that we would go into clause by clause. This would have been an opportunity for members to start looking at the actual bill with the perspective of what they had learned through their deliberations with the witnesses over eight hours and three meetings.
The chair of the committee said that he would like everybody to submit their amendments to the bill, and everybody had until November 24 to submit their amendments. The amendments, by nature of the way that our committees work, are submitted in confidence and kept in camera until the committee reports out. If I were to move an amendment at committee, nobody would know about it. If it were an amendment that did not make it through to the bill, in theory, nobody would ever find out about it because it all happens behind closed doors in camera. November 24 was the deadline.
By November 24, when the amendments were distributed to all members on the committee, the Conservatives would have become aware of the amendment that was put forward by the Bloc. Three days later, on November 27, the committee met again. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South decided he needed to filibuster the whole committee. The only new information that member would have had between the preceding meeting and the meeting on November 27 would have been all of the amendments that had been put forward by the members of the committee.
That is how we get to where we are now. The committee had this filibuster instead of clause by clause. The committee had listened to 23 witnesses, which would have been 33 witnesses if there had they had not filibustered. The minister even attended and answered questions directly. Then we get to this point. Now I hope the public understands.
The bill went through second reading here. The bill went to committee. The bill was studied for over three meetings and had over eight hours' worth of witnesses. The minister appeared. The request went out for amendments. Everybody submitted their amendments to the committee.
After all that happened, suddenly and out of nowhere, the Conservatives showed up today, during Routine Proceedings, to say they would like to ask the House for permission to tour the country to get feedback on this bill. The ship has long sailed on feedback. The committee, the pre-committee and the subcommittee would have met to determine what the goals were in studying this bill. The committee members would then have had opportunities, before the witnesses even showed up, to say that they thought the committee needed to take this on the road to go to visit various communities throughout the country.
The committee members could have asked any of the witnesses, or the minister for that matter, if it would be helpful for the committee to tour the country to ask about this. Do members think any of that happened? It did not happen once. The only time the Conservatives suddenly demanded to now delay the committee and clause by clause to go tour the country came after they became aware of the amendment put forward by the Bloc.
The question is why.
What I said was all completely objective. It is all information that happened. It just occurred. Now I will share my opinion as to why the Conservatives are suddenly trying to put the brakes on this. The parliamentary secretary who spoke before me brought this up too. She made a very good point. She said they are divided.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
No, we are not.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, now they are yelling that they are not. Maybe they will allow me to table some social media posts from their members that have contradicting views on that. I bet they will not do that. Just like earlier, when this started, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked if they wanted to work until midnight. They jumped up and they said that they did want to work until midnight. One of the members said, “Right on.” Then, within 20 seconds, the exact same parliamentary secretary stood up and asked for unanimous consent to move a motion that we stay until midnight for the rest of the session. All it takes to defeat unanimous consent is for one person to yell out no, and they all did.
That is what happened in the House. It is theatre to them. They do not understand what their role is in the House. They think their role is to obstruct and to stop, at every possible opportunity, anything that the government does. That is not their role. Their role is to encourage people to make better legislation.
I gave a speech on this once not that long ago. At the end of my speech, in the last three or four minutes, I talked about how these Conservatives are nothing like Flora MacDonald, who came from my riding, and they are nothing like Brian Mulroney. I laid it out there and told them what I thought of them. What showed up in my constituency office two days later? It was a portrait of Brian Mulroney. It was signed, “Mark, keep giving those speeches—Brian.”
This is not the Conservative Party that existed when our parents were heavily involved in politics. This is an extension that is much further right than the Reform Party, and Canadians do not need to look at much more than what we have heard in the House today to support that. This is the reality of what we are dealing with.
We do not have a Progressive Conservative or even just a Conservative Party anymore that genuinely believes in Canadians and wants to make this place better. We have a bunch of MPs that have come here under the blue colour and the Conservative name and logo, and all they want to do is obstruct all day long. They want the government to accomplish absolutely nothing on behalf of Canadians. In reality, their job is to try to make the lives of Canadians better by challenging the government and by suggesting things that could be done differently to make the circumstances for Canadians better. They are not doing that.
Moments ago, I talked about the divide between the Conservatives. I would like to point that out, and I will not even bother to try to table these because I know I will never get unanimous consent. However, the reality is that the member for York Centre, who spoke before me—
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
An hon. member
It was a great speech.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, that member should ask the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South if he thinks the same thing. The member for York Centre was basically saying that this bill does not go far enough. If we look at his private member's bill, we can see why. He is calling for even tougher penalties and restrictions in there. Then we have the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South calling this bill a censorship bill. That is the problem.
The parliamentary secretary said it earlier. She said there is a divide, and there really is a divide. It is maybe not among the members who happen to be sitting in this room right now, but there is a divide within that party on this issue. It is the only thing that explains why Conservatives refuse to let this go to clause by clause and to play out like every other bill does. It is the only thing that explains it.
To conclude, the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North made a comment earlier about my faith. He made a comment about Liberals writ large. He made a comment about the Liberals' approach to religious freedom and those who practice that freedom. That member knows nothing about me. That member does not know where I was baptized, and he does not know what school I attended. He knows nothing about where I was married or the advice that I seek from time to time from my pastor. He knows nothing about that. He knows nothing about the school that my children go to and the religious teachings they receive there.
Do members know why he knows nothing about that? It is because it is my choice. It is my faith. I keep my faith to myself, because it guides me personally. I do not bring it in here and weaponize it like Conservatives do and like that member does when he does his “Restore the North” tour, going around the country, trying to stoke fear and division amongst community members because he knows he will be successful at it and he can continue to grow that alt-right base that we see on the other side of the aisle. That is the reality.
I have no interest in coming into this place and divulging to everybody here what my religious beliefs are or how I practice faith, because our system is designed to specifically not allow that to be part of the debate in here, regardless of the fact that the Conservatives routinely try to bring it up.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Mr. Speaker, I found most of that member's speech totally unnecessary. I will explain it very succinctly. Conservatives are here to oppose bad laws. Bill C-9 has become a bad law because of this bad amendment that the Liberals have agreed to, clandestinely with the Bloc, as reported by the National Post.
When the former chair of the justice committee said that he thinks some religious texts are hateful and should be banned, we found that appalling. We thought he was on his way out. He has since been elevated to cabinet, and apparently it is now the position of the government and the Prime Minister that some religious texts are hateful and need to be banned in Canada.
I have a very simple question for this member: Who was the Prime Minister when the religious exemption was put into section 319?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member found nothing in my speech to be of use to him, but I would be lying if I suggested that I thought anything otherwise when I was giving it. I was trying to inform the public to perhaps give people a better understanding and view of what is going on, what has happened and how we ended up here today.
For that member to say that his job and the Conservatives' job is to oppose legislation, he does not have the benefit of those of us who have been here for many years and who have seen this over and over again, such as their getting up and calling people a “trust fund baby”, as the Conservatives did to refer to the previous prime minister, and giving out personal attacks over and over. The Conservatives have never actually offered anything of substance. They do not offer anything of substance, and as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader said earlier, one would think they would have learned something after the last election. Canadians actually want substance; they do not want what this party has been offering for 10 years.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to the government stepping up, telling us what it really thinks and taking action. I do not think that is too much to ask.
The government is delaying meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that it can take action. It is procrastinating and bowing to pressure from religious lobbies. It does not know what to do; there is infighting within the caucus.
What kind of mess is Canada in? Religions are controlling democracy. What kind of world are we living in? The matter has been settled in Quebec. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously agreed that hate speech must be regulated and cannot benefit from the exemption that currently exists in the Criminal Code. That is quite clear. In fact, 75% of Quebeckers agree on this point.
What we want to know from the member for Kingston and the Islands and his government is whether they support the motion that they said they would support, or whether they are going to chicken out and back down.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I take issue with there.
If the member had listened to what I said, he would have heard me talk about the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South filibustering the committee to prevent it from going. We were in clause-by-clause. The Conservatives come in here and start this charade at the very last minute to try to delay the fact that they inevitably have to come to a conclusion on this, and they are going to have to vote on it. Some of them will be voting different ways, and they do not know how that is going to play out in their party. That is what they are afraid of.
Also, for the member to say that religion is influencing our politics, I can tell him that my religion does not influence my politics. My religion is a faith that I practice with the guidance of my pastor and in the confidence of myself, my wife and my family. It has nothing to do with this place.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I wanted my colleague to expand upon an idea. If we have a flashback to the election just a number of months ago, the Prime Minister and Liberal candidates across the country made a commitment to bail reform, which was supported by provinces, law enforcement officers and Canadians as a whole. Today we have bail reform legislation. The only thing preventing it from becoming law is the Conservative Party of Canada, just like the hate legislation, which is supported by many.
Can my colleague provide his thoughts on how Canadians are the victims of Conservative self-serving interests?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is what I was talking about earlier. The Conservatives just obstruct. They are so afraid because a law being called for by so many throughout this country might actually get passed, and it might be a win for the government. That is all they are afraid of.
We do not take the same approach. A perfect example is yesterday when the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola had a private member's bill. We thought it was a good bill. We stood up and voted for it. Our objective here is not to oppose everything that Conservatives bring forward. That is why that bill passed unanimously in the House yesterday, because we all stood up one by one for a Conservative bill. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola can take the win. I do not care. It makes better policy and better laws for this country, and we are a better Canada as a result of it.
This all goes back to what I said earlier, which is that Conservatives are only here to obstruct. They do not care if the bill is called for by the police. They are mocking me now as I say this. All they care about is that we do not get anything done so they can say that the government could not do anything.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we put forward a motion to travel and discuss Bill C-9. At the heart of the request to travel is the agreement between the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois on paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which provides an exemption, “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”.
My question to the member is very simple: Does he believe that Bill C-9 will be strengthened by the elimination of this clause from the Criminal Code, or will it be weakened, yes or no?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member was going on a few minutes ago about how he wanted to stay here until midnight. When the parliamentary secretary said that he had an idea and asked if we should stay here every day until midnight to get work done for Canadians, the member jumped out of his seat and said, “yeah”—
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. It was a very clear question. He is asking for a yes or no answer. Will the member simply answer the question?
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. We have lots of time for questions and comments. Let us stay on track.
The hon. chief government whip.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I got caught up in demonstrating the hypocrisy of the Conservatives, but I could not believe that the member stood up to ask me a question after what I witnessed earlier when he was so much in favour, while heckling, of staying until midnight to get this done, and then he—
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is indicating something I did, in fact, not do in the chamber. Let the record stand that I did not speak up when—