House of Commons Hansard #99 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.
Amendments to Bill C-8—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that three Conservative-proposed amendments (CPC-2, CPC-5, and CPC-15) to Bill C-8, concerning cybersecurity, are inadmissible because they exceed the bill's scope by transferring executive authority to the judiciary, thus declaring them void. 1300 words.
Combatting Hate Act Third reading of Bill C-9. The bill, Bill C-9, aims to address hate crimes by strengthening the Criminal Code and protecting community spaces. Liberal Party members argue the targeted legislation is essential for security. Conversely, the Conservative Party and members of the NDP criticize the bill, warning that its language is dangerously vague and threatens freedom of expression. The House passed the bill following the defeat of a Conservative amendment. 12200 words, 3 hours.
Adjournment Debate - Public Safety Conservative MP Andrew Lawton criticizes the government for appealing court rulings that found the invocation of the Emergencies Act unlawful and a violation of Charter rights. Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio defends the government's actions regarding the 2022 blockades, stating the matter is before the courts and shouldn't be debated. 1500 words, 10 minutes.
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main 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.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), there will be no Private Members' Business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to have been ready and willing to rise on this adjournment proceeding on behalf of the good people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.
The question on which I am following up is one that has become even more timely since I asked the original question of the government in question period, although if we look at the response, we realize that question period is not an appropriate name for it. The question was dealing with the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act.
One may wonder why I was asking in question period about a four-year-old decision by the government. That would be a very good question. It is because, in the interceding four years, the Liberal government has failed to accept what now two courts have determined, which is that it violated the fundamental charter rights and freedoms of Canadians.
That is so important because the Federal Court and then the Federal Court of Appeal said that not only was the usage of the Emergencies Act by the Liberal government unlawful, meaning it did not meet the tests set out in the Emergencies Act, but the measures it invoked and deployed using the Emergencies Act violated the fundamental rights of Canadians.
The right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peacefully protest are things that in a free society, all Canadians should hold dear. It is especially timely at this exact moment, because moments ago the Liberal government voted for and advanced through Bill C-9, which is a bill that it has been giving very similar assurances on: that it will not violate charter rights because the charter is there to protect those rights. However, in the case of the Emergencies Act, that same pledge did not result in real protection.
Just last week, the Attorney General, the justice minister, filed for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision on the Emergencies Act. It was on the last day by which the government could ask the Supreme Court to take on the case. It was in the last hour of the last day that the government made this move. In doing so, this so-called new government is forced to wear the decision of Justin Trudeau. The so-called new government has a new Attorney General, whom members may know from such extraordinary work as he brought to the immigration and housing files before the Prime Minister decided to put him in charge of justice. He has now had to wear the decision by David Lametti and Marco Mendicino that two courts have found to be unlawful.
This is so important because we have had a discussion in this country about how strong the charter really is and how well the charter will protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
I am a firm believer in the rights enumerated in the charter. These are rights that predated the charter. I would argue they are natural rights, things that need to live in the hearts and minds of Canadians, in the institutions of Canada, including the courts, and certainly in the hearts and minds of those who make the laws. We should never, as lawmakers, pass legislation or make decisions in the hope that the courts will save Canadians from their rights being violated. We must actively seek out ways to protect them in all terms.
In the case of the Emergencies Act, suppose that the government gets its appeal and the Supreme Court hears this case, and suppose that the Supreme Court makes the same finding that the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal did: that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians. What good would that do five years later? The infringement has already taken place.
Why will the government not accept this ruling, vow to uphold the charter and, in doing so, listen to what two courts have said?
Patricia Lattanzio LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, for three long weeks in early 2022, our national capital region was not merely disrupted; it was shaken to the core. Illegal blockades seized our streets, paralyzed our capital and choked off critical trade corridors. Law-abiding Canadians were trapped in their own neighbourhoods, while workers feared for their livelihoods, and families feared for their safety.
At a time when our country was still recovering from the devastating impacts of COVID-19, a pandemic that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians, including grandparents, parents, spouses, siblings, sons and daughters, and whose very reality, by the way, the member opposite posing this question has astonishingly continued to cast doubt upon, these actions struck at the very heart of our economic and social stability.
We have of course taken note of the decisions of the lower courts, and Canada has now sought leave for the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in. As the member opposite knows very well, given that this matter may soon be before the court, it would be inappropriate to comment further.
On this side of the House, we respect our institutions, with legal arguments before the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons, but if the member opposite is truly concerned about the rights and freedoms of Canadians, I have to ask why he wasted valuable time filibustering at the justice committee, talking about cats and dogs, just to run out the clock, instead of focusing on protecting those very same rights and freedoms.
Let me be clear that we are the party of the charter. We are the ones who enshrined these rights and freedoms, and I, along with my colleagues, will always stand proudly to defend the rights and freedoms that Canadians have relied upon for over 43 years.
Our government is taking concrete action. Through the combatting hate act, we would strengthen protections for Canadians' fundamental freedoms, especially the freedom of religion and the right to live safely and be who they are. The bill would make it a criminal offence to obstruct lawful access to places of worship. If individuals attempt to block the entrance to a synagogue, a mosque, a church or any other place of worship, law enforcement would have the clear authority to intervene, remove anyone obstructing access and ensure that Canadians can gather and pray in safety and dignity.
The bill would also introduce a new stand-alone hate crime offence. This means that when a crime is motivated by hatred, whether based on someone's religion, race, sexual orientation or identity, that hate would be recognized directly in the offence itself, with longer and tougher penalties, and yet the very member who claims to stand for charter rights and freedoms just voted against that legislation. My goodness.
Canadians are paying attention. Canadians know for a fact that there is no greater freedom than the freedom to be who we are, to love whom we love, to practise our faith and to live without fear of being targeted because of our identity, full stop.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with those fundamental freedoms. I just do not believe the government is being authentic in its desire to protect them.
The parliamentary secretary wanted to weave a narrative in talking about the use of the Emergencies Act involving COVID measures and the nature of the convoy, but I would note that even if all of that were accepted in the same way by everyone, which is not true in Canada, that does not mean that the use of the Emergencies Act was legitimate. I would refer to lawyer Paul Champ, who was and still is a very strong critic of the convoy. He is a lawyer representing a proposed class action against the convoy. He said, “I fully agree that the Emergencies Act is a dangerous tool that was not required.”
The condemnation of the federal government's track record on civil liberties has come from the left and from the right. It has come from multiple faith groups. It has come from people who would identify as traditionally Liberal. Therefore, why do these groups, in the parliamentary secretary's eyes, not take her and her government seriously on this?
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear. It is inappropriate to comment any further on this issue.
On this side of the House, as I have mentioned before, we respect our institutions. Legal arguments belong to the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons.
It is rich that some of these comments and questions are coming from the member whose intervention, I find, denotes a certain character. He referred to the memorial for the École Polytechnique massacre as a fake feminazi holiday. He went on live radio and suggested that denying the Holocaust is simply a matter of free speech. In 2017, in the wake of the Quebec City mosque shooting, in which six men were murdered because of their faith, he stood with Pegida, a far-right extremist movement linked to the ideology that inspired the attacker. That record speaks for itself.
I have a simple question for the member: Is this a—
Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands and Courtenay—Alberni not being present during the Adjournment Proceedings to raise the matters for which notices have been given, the notices are deemed withdrawn.
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:16 p.m.)