House of Commons Hansard #129 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-16.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Veterans Affairs Members debate a report from the Veterans Affairs committee recommending an independent review board for military honours. Conservative Blake Richards demands justice for veterans, especially regarding Afghan valour. Liberals, including Pauline Rochefort, signal support for the initiative. The Bloc Québécois backs the proposal, criticizing the government for delayed action on past recognition requests. The House subsequently adopts the motion unanimously. 11600 words, 2 hours.
Bill C-16—Time Allocation Motion Members debate a time allocation motion concerning Bill C-16 on criminal and correctional matters. Conservatives argue the government is stifling debate and breaking promises of collaboration, while Liberals defend the measure as essential to save lives amidst opposition filibustering. After a contentious question period regarding transparency and parliamentary process, the House initiates a recorded vote to limit further discussion. 5400 words, 35 minutes.
Premature Disclosure of a Bill and its Elements to a Third Party—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that there is no prima facie case of privilege regarding the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-31 provisions to Air Canada, determining that government consultations with stakeholders did not infringe privileges. 600 words.
Minister Statement During Committee of the Whole Kevin Lamoureux argues that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship did not mislead the House regarding Palestinian student visas and asserts that the question of privilege was raised incorrectly without following established procedure. 1400 words, 10 minutes.
Protecting Victims Act Report stage of Bill C-16. The bill, known as the protecting victims act, aims to modernize criminal law by targeting gender-based violence, including coercive and controlling conduct, and enhancing protection for children against sexual exploitation. While Liberals argue the legislation ensures constitutional compliance through a mandatory minimum "safety valve," Conservatives label this provision a poison pill that undermines sentencing consistency and deterrence for violent offenders. The Bloc Québécois expresses cautious support, focusing on improvements to victim-centered justice and addressing court procedural delays. 28400 words, 3 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Fair Representation Act Second reading of Bill C-259. The bill amends the Canada Labour Code to curb employer-dominated unions. The NDP argues this prevents fake unions, but Conservatives warn the proposed low threshold for investigations could induce instability. Liberals emphasize their record of supporting unions while reviewing the bill's mechanics, and the Bloc Québécois supports the measure as necessary to ensure free, independent unions. 7400 words, 1 hour.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Madam Speaker, the good news is that the parliamentary secretary already responded to petition e-6661, stating that the government was willing to move forward.
I believe that the motion we are debating today will simply help speed up implementation. Sometimes, promises do not materialize. This time, I believe that if the entire House of Commons makes a commitment, it would enable us to move faster.
Veterans AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Is the House ready for the question?
Veterans AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The question is on the 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.
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Madam Speaker, we ask that it be carried unanimously.
(Motion agreed to)
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims 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-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), not more than one further day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and at the end of the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading 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-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
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 to approximately one minute, 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 debate.
The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, there was a point in time when the Liberals were in opposition. Those were the glory days, when they were in opposition—
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
And the third party.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, they were the third party, to boot.
They would routinely oppose time allocation motions. They did it every single time. How hypocritical are they now?
I have a question for the justice minister. Effectively, this runs completely contrary to the messaging of the Prime Minister. Literally within minutes of the Prime Minister securing a majority government following the by-elections and the floor crossings by the cowards who left the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister—
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a well-established rule, which the member should know, that we cannot speak of any hon. member in this House in a disparaging way such as that. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that comment.
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I invite the hon. member to withdraw that.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, I withdraw that and replace it with “for their own selfish reasons”.
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations may continue.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Madam Speaker, literally within minutes, this is what the Prime Minister had to say. He pledged to work collaboratively with the House, stating that the government is “open to ideas from anyone”, yet at the justice committee, the Liberals actually shut down debate during Bill C-16. They did not allow additional days for additional witnesses to be heard.
We now have the justice minister shutting down the will of Parliament to voice its concerns over Bill C-16. The question is simple: Why is the justice minister going against the will and direction of his leader?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, respectfully, I find that I have enjoyed a productive working relationship with members of the opposition, including, specifically, the hon. member as the critic of this portfolio. We have accepted a number of amendments from different parties, including from the Conservative Party.
This has come to embody the work we did in government before and after the moment it became a majority. I would note, in particular, the collaboration my office and I have undertaken with the public safety critic, a Conservative member of Parliament, specifically with respect to his work to advance Bailey's Law, Bill C-225. We built relationships with the family to ensure that important protections, including some that are similar to those in Bill C-16, were baked into law to honour the memory of their beloved and departed relative.
We have the opportunity to take good ideas from different members of the House of Commons from different parties. In the present instance, the reason we wish to move quickly is that there are protections that could be afforded to people very soon, or they could delivered months from now.
This comes at a time when, in my home province, in just these past few days, we are seeing news stories about the rampant increase of AI deepfakes depicting people, without their consent, in intimate scenarios against their will. We have an opportunity to nip in the bud growing social problems that are disproportionately having a negative impact on women in the country and are promoting cultures of violence and discrimination, and I think we can do our part to help advance protections as quickly as possible.
I would invite collaboration from all members of the House. Hopefully, the points in debate will be on substantive concerns, rather than a mirage of false claims that we are not being collaborative.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, despite the fine words from the other side of the House after the Liberals secured their much-vaunted majority, the government is moving forward with one time allocation motion after another. At the end of the day, despite the promises to work together, we are seeing more and more committees being muzzled.
I heard someone mention it is happening at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I could say the same thing about the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which is still shut down. For over a month now, it has been impossible to get any public information about what is going on at this committee.
As Minister of Justice, does my colleague not think it is important for there to be transparency in the decisions that are made in the House so that people have an opportunity to speak out on important issues?
Right now, given everything this government is trying to do and despite their talk of collaboration, I get the feeling that, for them, collaboration is a one-way street. We have to do what the government says, and that is the end of it.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, I disagree with my colleague when he says that the government is not collaborating. He also talked about transparency. I want to clarify one thing: There will be six meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights devoted to consideration of this bill. We have an opportunity to improve protection for families and communities.
I will give him an example of collaboration: Some of the ideas in this bill come from critics for the Bloc Québécois and other parties as well. For example, the idea of creating a new offence for recruiting young people to commit criminal offences comes from a Bloc Québécois critic. I think that is a good idea. Indeed, the purpose of the bill is to prevent youth exploitation.
I think we can continue this collaboration, but protection does not stop there.
We have to advance these protections expeditiously if we can afford protections over the next number of months for victims of crime, particularly sexual crime. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to be part of the solution today or we want to kick the can a few months down the road.
I clearly stand on the side of taking action today.
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, this is yet another example of the Liberal government stifling debate. We are here to debate the bill in good faith, and unfortunately, we are in for another time allocation motion, which does not allow members to fully debate their mind. I believe that is not the way to go.
I would like to ask the Attorney General a specific question. He knows that at committee, I brought a motion forward to bring a further amendment to Bill C‑16 to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography. I subsequently read in the newspaper that the Attorney General had, in fact, considered invoking the notwithstanding clause.
I ask the Attorney General this question. If he refused to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography being struck down, is there a possibility that he would ever do it with respect to any legislation? Would he ever specifically invoke the notwithstanding clause, or is—
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, first, I take issue with the characterization of not providing adequate opportunity for debate. I warned the member and his colleagues on the justice committee that their shenanigans and filibustering for months on a separate bill, which tied up work, would delay our work on bail reform, sentencing reform and protections for victims of gender-based violence. Here we are, months down the road. They spent hours upon hours debating whether they prefer puppies or kittens, rather than how we can protect victims of crime. We are now facing a potential delay over the summer, due specifically to the wasted time at the justice committee, including the member's repeated interventions that were designed to chew up the clock, rather than advance protections for Canadians. I disagree with him on his threshold question.
On the substance, we examined a range of different options for how to address the fallout of the Senneville decision to restore mandatory minimums in cases involving child pornography, as well as mandatory minimums that were previously struck down or were constitutionally vulnerable. One of the reasons his proposal would result in weaker protections for victims is the temporary nature of the notwithstanding clause. There is a five‑year term, which would expire when we have the same constitutional challenges that would—