House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was communities.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 Members debate Government Motion No. 12 to accelerate Bill C-30. Liberals defend the bill as good news for economic growth. Conservatives reject these procedural constraints, citing economic mismanagement and the need for greater parliamentary oversight. Todd Doherty amends the motion, arguing that Parliament should thoroughly scrutinize the government's agenda rather than rubber-stamp it. 8100 words, 1 hour.
Used Car Tax Cut Act First reading of Bill C-285. The bill proposes amending the Excise Tax Act to eliminate GST on used motor vehicles, which the sponsor argues addresses double taxation and provides financial relief to Canadians struggling with rising automobile costs. 100 words.
Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion Members debate a time allocation motion on Bill C-14, affecting bail and sentencing. Justice Minister Sean Fraser argues for urgent passage to implement reforms, criticizing opposition delay tactics. Conservatives push back, labeling the closure anti-democratic while arguing it neglects necessary scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois and NDP question the necessity of truncating this parliamentary process. 5400 words, 30 minutes.
Ukrainian Heritage Month Act Report stage of Bill S-210. The bill proposes designating September as Ukrainian heritage month. While members unanimously support its intent, Yvan Baker appeals to MPs] to accelerate its passage due to the [senator's failing health. Conservative MPs generally support the motion, though some criticize the government's procedural tactics and argue for tangible aid to Ukraine. The time for the debate subsequently expires without the House reaching a final vote. 8900 words, 1 hour.
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Members debated and adopted Senate amendments to Bill C-14, legislation focused on bail and sentencing reform. Conservatives opposed the changes, arguing that loopholes regarding sureties undermine public safety. Conversely, Liberals and the Bloc Québécois argued the amendments maintain a necessary balance, urging immediate passage to adequately address ongoing crime issues and rectify previous policy shortcomings. 8400 words, 1 hour.
Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Act Second reading of Bill C-27. The bill, Bill C-27, formally recognizes the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę government in the Northwest Territories. Ministers presented the legislation as a vital step in reconciliation and self-determination. Conservatives, while supporting the bill as consistent with established northern devolution principles, criticized the government’s broader regulatory approach for creating economic uncertainty in the energy sector and failing to protect private property rights. 6800 words, 45 minutes.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143 and 1144 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for return and that they be tabled immediately?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would then ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
Central Nova Nova Scotia
Liberal
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the Bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side.
Members should keep their interventions brief, and they may speak more than once. I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Bow River.
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know the provisions of Bill C-14 have great utility for the people of Canada right now. They have suffered for a decade or more under Liberal rule and a system that allows repeat offenders out on bail to wreak havoc in communities. What I do not think is acceptable is the lack of transparency and the use of routine, normal negotiations to get this bill through the House expeditiously. I find the concept of closure anti-democratic, and the lack of transparency is absolutely against the interests of Canadians.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I heard a question in the intervention; however, I am happy to address the issue the member put forward.
It is very clear, given the limited nature of the amendments, that there is no need for a multi-day, months-long debate that would extend into the fall the measures that every premier in this country is demanding the House take action on, that members of all parties in the House are asking us to expedite and that have been studied in depth at the committee. There are a small number of simple amendments that are easy to deal with. We have an opportunity to do something to promote public safety and to do it today.
I hope we will not waste this particular moment in time because as the House very well knows, given the remaining sitting calendar of the House, the consequences of delaying further the consideration of this bill would delay its implementation for many months, which Canadians and communities across this country cannot afford.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the amendments returned to us by the Senate are relatively simple to deal with. Like my Conservative colleague earlier, I was of the impression that the House would likely pass this bill fairly quickly once it returned from the Senate.
I wonder what message the government is sending by imposing time allocation on a bill on which there otherwise seems to be consensus. What does that say about the government's way of doing things? When the government decides to impose closure, even on bills for which there is a consensus, it seems to me that this sends a very bad message.
Can the minister tell me if discussions on passing Bill C-14 were stalling? I really do not get that impression. Imposing time allocation at this point in time seems all the more unjustified, to me.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I agree. The recent amendments made by the Senate are, indeed, fairly easy to deal with.
It is my view that we can ill afford to risk the potential consequences of delays now. Even one or two days of delay in this chamber could lead to a months-long delay on the measures when it comes to violent repeat offenders. We just heard a petition read out in this regard.
We have an opportunity to make a difference. The only choice that we have before us, given the seeming collaboration of different parties, is whether we are going to make the difference today, this week, or we are going to kick the can down the road and delay the implementation of the protections that Canadian communities are asking for and that every premier in this country has forcefully argued must be implemented right away.
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, while I agree that there is a time and place where time allocation makes sense, this is not one of those times. This is an important piece of legislation that does not have unanimous consent in the House and therefore needs debate.
Can the minister please explain why the Liberals want to shut down debate on the legislation at this point in time?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am finding it fascinating that the position the Conservatives have adopted in this debate is to delay the implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act. This is something for which they have been asking for many months now. It is something that premiers of all parties, including conservative parties across the country, are saying in public must be implemented right away. There is widespread consensus among many members of the House that the measures included in this bill would lead to a greater degree of public safety for Canadians. Communities are asking for this bill.
I have no appetite to delay further after many months of filibustering at the justice committee. We have an opportunity to make a difference, and we cannot let this narrow window of time before the House rises for the summer months prevent the protections for Canadians from coming into place expeditiously.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting, listening to Conservatives talk about accountability and how dare we use this opportunity to move closure. Yesterday we moved closure on Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, which was supported unanimously in the PROC committee and then got to the House. They forced us to move closure on it just so they could vote on it as well. It passed unanimously in the House too. It is clear that all the Conservatives are doing is using any possible delay tactic, regardless of whether they even support a bill.
Would the minister not agree that perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to put down the tool of forcing us to use time allocation just because they know they can delay until the point that we have to do this, so they can then use the 30 minutes to stand in the House and say, “Oh, how dare you disrupt accountability?” Meanwhile, it is all about the games that they are playing.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, let me be specific in response to the member's question, the spirit of which I agree with wholeheartedly. Over the past few days, we have seen repeated dilatory motions put forward in the House to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House for the day, knowing the limited amount of time that must take place before a piece of legislation can move forward. In particular, the protecting victims act was delayed by an entire day in going to the Senate, which further jeopardized the possibility that those protections would be in place before the House rises for the summer.
We cannot, on the one hand, have the Conservative Party demanding that we take action, that we move more quickly, and, on the other hand, accept sincerely its position in this debate that we need to further delay the implementation of these measures. The Conservatives' argument has become self-defeating. What is most important, though, is not the procedural tactics at play. It is delivering protections to Canadians to make communities safer.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister was concerned that the House might adjourn on Friday, June 19 without having passed Bill C-14. There are still five sitting days left next week, and I was really under the impression that Bill C-14 would pass following the normal process by June 19. I am having a hard time understanding this time allocation motion.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, the reason is that there is a heightened degree of anxiety on my part, given the procedural tactics we have seen play out in this chamber over the past number of days. I just cited an example, in response to the last questioner, of a very specific series of motions that in fact delayed the advancement of criminal justice reforms to the Senate in hopes that we can adopt them before the end of this sitting. I do think there is risk, depending on the level of collaboration that we see or do not see with other parties, but it is a risk that we can ill afford to take.
There is no world in which I would feel good going home in the summer knowing that we did not do everything we could to ensure that we advance measures that protect against the harms from violent repeat offenders. The kinds of things we are talking about are harms to first responders and tougher bail rules. I see I am running out of time, but I think the member gets the spirit of the response.
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
First, Mr. Speaker, no one is arguing the importance of this bill. However, there are Senate amendments that are very good and that we support. The government rejected them. Now it is proposing closure instead of having proper debate on the bill. We want to get it right. I think that is important. I think we all want to work together in the House to make sure we have the best legislation and in moving it forward quickly. At the same time, this is not the right tool for us to have the proper debate, which has not been held in the House. Closure is not the right tool.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the opposite coast of this country. We have many issues of common concern. I am glad he recognizes the importance of the bill, but just as a matter of fact, I do need to correct the record. He suggested that the amendments are simply being dismissed.
With respect to the amendment on the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, that is an amendment that we are accepting. With the proposed amendments impacting the role of sureties, that is something we are willing to accept. When it comes to doing a better job of collecting and reporting on bail data, we are not just accepting the amendment, but we are actually going to be funding provincial governments, which are the custodians of that data.
Given the widespread agreement among members of the House, and given the work that we have done in collaboration with the Senate, there is not a significant need to debate endlessly the narrow set of reforms that have been proposed. We need to move and we need to move quickly if we are going to ensure that this bill becomes law expeditiously.
Bill C-14—Time Allocation MotionBail and Sentencing Reform ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will remember that several times in the House I have raised the issue of a three-year-old little toddler in my riding who was brutally raped and beaten and left for dead. About a week and a half ago, survivors of sexual assault from early age to adulthood came to Ottawa to talk to members of the House about their stories of survival. This is not a partisan issue for me. This is something that we need to do as a country. These survivors came to Ottawa and asked me to ask the Minister of Justice why it is that we continually see people being given bail after being convicted of sexual assaults against children and adults.
Will he commit to ensuring that if this legislation does not go far enough, there will be amendments made in the future to ensure that for the perpetrators of these vile crimes against children, it never happens again?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, let me signal, as a sign of good faith, that it is not a partisan issue when we are dealing with something as heinous as sexual crimes committed against children.
Though this bill is focused more squarely on bail and sentencing, I would point the member to changes that would be made in this act when it comes to conditional sentencing orders for sexual offences, including sexual offences against children, which would no longer be available should this bill pass. In addition to the issue that squarely addresses the member's concern, in this bill we are proposing a series of changes that would make it more difficult for violent and repeat offenders to receive bail and would result in harsher sentences.
The spirit of his question is reflected in the text of the bill. I hope we can use that as motivation to quickly implement the measures so families and survivors, as he has referenced, have the protections that this bill would provide.
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
Mr. Speaker, just today, I received multiple calls from my constituents about why this bill is delayed. For months, it has been on the table.
Could the minister explain to us why this bill is so crucial to pass and how it would help Canadians?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her continued advocacy on behalf of public safety in the community she represents. She has been a tremendous advocate, saying that we need to ensure the bail provisions in the Criminal Code and the sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes she has witnessed in her own community, with a view to improving public safety.
Very specifically, we have an opportunity to ensure the Criminal Code treats more seriously violent and repeat offenders and gives courts the tools they need to ensure that when public safety is at risk, there are stronger grounds to detain a person so that we do not pass the risk on to the general public. Whether we are dealing with home invasions, auto theft, violent extortion or crimes committed against our first responders, there is a very clear need to ensure that we strengthen the criminal law reform as part of the public safety strategy, which would also include more support for the front line and upstream investments to end violent crime in the long term.