Mr. Speaker, let us do it again, with a recorded division, please.
House of Commons Hansard #136 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debate.
House of Commons Hansard #136 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debate.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Income Tax Act Second reading of Bill C-269. The bill proposes an investment tax credit for industrial waste heat recovery. Conservative MP Greg McLean argues it creates power while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberal government opposes the bill, asserting it is redundant with existing incentives. The Bloc Québécois favors referring the legislation to committee to clarify its scope and impact on the manufacturing sector. 8000 words, 1 hour.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned Members debate a Liberal motion to end debate on government business. Liberal MP Wayne Long justifies the move by citing unproductive filibustering hindering the cabinet agenda. Conversely, Conservative, Green, and Bloc MPs warn the government is using closure to limit democratic oversight and rush legislation like Bill C-30 without sufficient study. 4700 words, 35 minutes.
Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on BillC‑30 Members debate the government's use of time allocation to expedite Bill C-30. Opposition MPs, including those from the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, criticize the Liberals for suppressing parliamentary scrutiny on contentious issues like pesticide regulation and airline passenger complaints. Conversely, Liberal members champion the legislation's provisions for economic stability and national social programming. 6000 words, 35 minutes.
Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 Members debate a programming motion to expedite Bill C-30. Liberals defend the bill’s affordability measures, asserting that Conservative filibustering necessitates limiting debate. Conservatives reject this, labeling the motion a guillotine on accountability that masks reckless fiscal management. Concurrently, Bloc and Green members express intense frustration regarding both the government's environmental policies and the procedural erosion of democratic processes involved in forcing the legislation through the House. 33600 words, 5 hours.
Bill C-9—Time Allocation Motion Members debate a Liberal government motion to limit remaining debate on Bill C-9, which amends the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda and religious sites. Conservatives allege procedural irregularities and express concerns about religious freedoms, while Liberals defend the legislation as vital for safety and accuse the opposition of spreading misinformation. The Chair concludes the session by calling for a recorded division. 4400 words, 35 minutes.
Combatting Hate Act Bill C-9. The bill amends the Criminal Code to combat hate-motivated conduct and propaganda. The Bloc Québécois supports the legislation for strengthening Attorney General oversight and religious-based hate provisions. While the Liberal government argues it protects vulnerable communities, Conservative MPs contend it creates unnecessary censorship, risks infringing on religious liberty, and duplicates existing laws already sufficient to prosecute hate-motivated crimes. 9600 words, 1 hour.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, let us do it again, with a recorded division, please.
Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30Government Orders
Message from the SenateGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate as follows:
That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint it 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), the Senate does not insist on its amendments with which the House of Commons has disagreed.
Bill C-9—Time Allocation MotionCombatting Hate ActGovernment Orders
Brampton North—Caledon Ontario
Liberal
Ruby Sahota LiberalSecretary of State (Combatting Crime)
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of the Senate amendment 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.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Standing Order 57 says that:
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in committee of the whole, any minister of the Crown who shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his or her intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be....
It is a long sentence. The point of this is that Standing Order 57 is clear that a minister of the Crown must do it. This is the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, who does not have a department and is not the minister sponsoring the bill. I believe that the standing order does not actually permit her to move this motion of closure or to introduce this motion today.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, the good thing is that we have over 150 years of precedent on our side on this. If members go back and look at the precedents, I am sure they will find many examples where ministers of state have moved this motion.
Bill C-9—Time Allocation MotionCombatting Hate ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
The hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime is a cabinet member and therefore may move the motion.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Members will recall that the precedence 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 to approximately one minute and 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.
The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
Here we have the same Liberal playbook yet again. There has been so much opposition to Bill C-9, and now the Liberals are insisting on using their majority to, again, ram it through. It is a majority they got not at the ballot box but through floor crossers.
We have heard from so many groups, including from His Eminence Frank Cardinal Leo from the Archdiocese of Toronto. I am wondering what the hon. secretary of state would say when so many faith groups are opposing Bill C-9. Should the Liberals not be taking a step back on this?
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is a platform promise that our newly elected government made last May. This bill was introduced on September 19, and it has gone through all the democratic channels through this legislative process. I believe it is now time for us to end debate on the bill so that Canadians can be safe in their places of worship.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, one of the most concerning things about the bill is how it has been described by members of the cabinet across the way, including the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who suggested that passages of the Bible and the Torah are inherently hateful and are worthy of prosecution.
I wonder if the secretary of state for thought crime would get up and say whether or not she agrees with that minister.
Bill C-9—Time Allocation MotionCombatting Hate ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I would remind members that we cannot make up titles for ministers. We cannot refer to them in any other fashion than by the specific way that the titles are listed on the cabinet list.
The hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime has the floor.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, this bill is very targeted and would address hate crime with the mens rea, the intent, to wilfully promote hate. I believe that is constitutional and is within the means. It would protect all faiths in this country. The intention of the bill is to protect Canadians and to make sure that people are deterred from committing hate crimes in Canada.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what the religious exemption that is eliminated by Bill C‑9 refers to, because I am hearing things from our Conservative colleagues and I cannot believe what I am hearing. There was never any question of prohibiting people from reading the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text.
What is prohibited is spreading hate based on a religious text. Some people use that as an excuse to spread hate, and that is what is being prohibited. That is the defence that will be removed from the Criminal Code. Reading the Bible, the Quran and the Torah is allowed, it always has been, and I hope it always will be.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would agree. In addition to that, we included, for greater certainty, a clause to clarify that nothing prevents a person from communicating statements on matters of public interest, such as religious, political or scientific matters, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group or wilfully promote anti-Semitism.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, no matter how well-intentioned the bill may be, I do not think I have ever received so many angry and concerned calls, letters and emails from constituents about a bill. I do oppose the legislation, but I would appreciate adequate time to be able to explain the reasons I agree with those from the civil liberties community who believe the bill would create more litigation and more charter violations through the provisions that are unclear about when someone happens to be on the street and does not know that around the corner there is a day care centre or a synagogue, but they are expressing their charter rights to be able to participate.
I cannot support time allocation on this. I know everybody is in a hurry, but rather than push us to bulldoze things through, why not consider keeping—
Bill C-9—Time Allocation MotionCombatting Hate ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but we are debating time allocation. I feel like I am being heckled and cannot express myself properly.
If we are interested in having proper time to debate bills, why does the government want to use time allocation as opposed to allowing us to sit until Friday, which was the original schedule?
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, this bill has had an unprecedented number of hours of debate, whether in the House or at committee. Like I said previously, it was tabled in the House September 19.
Let me be clear, because there is a lot of misinformation about the bill. I too have been receiving a lot of calls, but I have been trying to correct the narrative, because many people misunderstand and have misinterpreted the bill. The intimidation and obstruction offence in the bill would not criminalize expression or peaceful assembly, including lawful protests or other forms of public communication.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. secretary of state bringing forth closure on this very important legislation, it being a key campaign promise. I happen to represent the majority of the Hamilton Jewish community, who are extremely supportive of the bill and the protections it would offer for their places of worship, their synagogues, and the places where they gather and deserve to be safe.
I was wondering if the hon. secretary of state could talk about the consultation that has gone into this legislation and the need for it to be passed as quickly as possible.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, many community groups have been asking for the government to take action, as we have seen a rise in hate crimes against many people of different ethnic backgrounds, religions and races. This is important. The LGBTQ community has also faced a rise in hate in this country.
This is part of a larger set of initiatives that we as a government are taking. There is the Canada community security program, which we have heavily invested in. There is Canada's action plan on combatting hate. We are doing work to collect data. However, it is important to also deter and punish those who take part in hate crimes. Those who commit them will face harsher penalties after the bill is passed.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have risen just this week to talk about why the government's inability to plan a legislative agenda should not become an emergency in the House. This is yet another move toward time allocation. I want to remind everyone in the House that the rush the Liberals did with Bill C-3, when they rammed it through the House and undid the amendments that were done at committee, showing a disrespect for the committee process, led to unintended consequences, creating a large document backlog, confusion for families and a very broad path to citizenship for people with a limited connection to Canada.
I see another bill and another set of unintended consequences, and we have gotten so much mail about this. I would like the member to explain yet again why we cannot take the time to properly consider this important legislation.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been considered in the House. It has been considered in the other place. Amendments have been made in both Houses of Parliament, and the bill has come back for genuine debate.
I know the Conservative Party of Canada has been busy for many months spreading a misinformation campaign, so we have been getting a lot of calls from people thinking stuff is in the bill that is not. It is a short bill. It is very targeted, and it is in compliance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would not limit anyone's ability to practise their faith in this country.
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, many religious groups have expressed concern about Bill C‑9, in particular about the removal of a long-standing good-faith religious expression defence. Now that the Liberals have decided to dismiss these very legitimate concerns, could the Liberal member clearly explain where the line now falls between the lawful expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and a criminal offence?
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, through the committee process, a lot of good ideas came forward. In this bill, we have a clear definition of what hatred means. It was taken from Supreme Court precedents and those from other levels of court as well. The definition of “hatred” has been well established in this country, so it is very clear. Considering the fact that the Attorney General's consent would also be required in this bill, there would be an additional safeguard provided.
Work has been done on the bill, and I thank all parties for contributing, but it is time to get this passed so we can protect Canadians.