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.
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I have to interrupt the hon. minister.
The hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies is rising on a point of order.
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Madam Chair, the minister opposite is arguing that debating the bill itself—
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
That is debate. The minister has a lot of leeway to answer questions.
The hon. minister.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, finally, in order to drive home the point that we believe we found a better path forward, we did not rely just on guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada. We took guidance from members of Parliament from different parties, including the public safety critic within the Conservative Party of Canada and the justice critic within the Bloc Québécois, who demanded that and implored their colleagues from all parties move forward with what they discussed as a safety valve to provide some residual discretion where there are grossly disproportionate consequences.
That is the path we followed.
Marilyn Gladu Liberal Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON
Madam Speaker, a woman dies by femicide in Canada every other day. We see coercive control on the rise and the deepfakes the minister alluded to.
Can he speak to why it is so urgent to move this legislation forward quickly to save lives?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, let us think about what my colleague just said. There is a woman killed every 48 hours in this country. There could not be a more pressing desire to act, and to act now. We have the opportunity, by criminalizing coercive control, not only to punish wrongdoing after it has taken place, but to intervene in relationships before they become violent and before that violence becomes fatal.
I mentioned during a previous answer that I saw, after debating the specific point last week in scrums and in the Senate, that we need to take action against the proliferation of AI deepfakes. I arrived back in my home province to see that someone is facing 79 charges, with an uncertain outcome through the trial, of using AI to generate deepfakes in horrific and heinous sexual acts without the consent of the person whose likeness is in these images.
We have an opportunity to be part of the solution today. I would urge all parliamentarians to take it.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice will know that I have never seen a debate closure motion that I liked. I think time allocation is overused.
I support Bill C‑16, although I regret that my amendments to extend coercive control to protect seniors from elder abuse were not accepted in this round. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to ask him, since the bill now contains a periodic review, if the justice department would not see fit to bring in a bill against elder abuse, specifically dealing with the coercive control of seniors by those who are close to them or make the pretense of being close to them.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, first, on the closure issue, I have made the case that there was ample study. There was filibustering at the committee. We have an opportunity to take action today, and I believe we should.
On the substance of her question, it is an area where I am genuinely interested in identifying the best policy path forward. However, I did not think it appropriate to copy and paste protections that were developed very specifically for the purpose of combatting intimate partner and gender-based violence when it came to coercive control. It may not be that the exact same test can be replicated to deal with the very serious issue of elder abuse.
I do think the five-year review period included in the bill would provide that opportunity. However, should parliamentarians desire to take action sooner, I do believe a parliamentary committee study would shed light on the best way to address that very serious issue, because elder abuse certainly is a problem in this country. I just do not know that the identical solution for gender-based violence could be applied equally to those circumstances without doing the policy work.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is particularly important to me to rise today on this point.
Number one, Bailey's law is languishing in the Senate. It should be passed by the Senate tomorrow or today, and I hope the hon. minister will help with that.
Number two, I have been quoted on this bill, Bill C-16, more times than I can count. The funny thing is that it is on the issue of the safety valve, and I do not think I have given a single speech on the issue of a safety valve on this bill.
The Liberals, for years, mocked Conservatives when we talked about constitutionality and said that we were out to lunch, so between 2022 and 2024, I spoke about these issues. I did not assert and support government legislation when it came to Bill C-16 and give my imprimatur of approval. I want that to be very, very clear.
In my comment here, I want to say very clearly that I believe my words have been misconstrued. If my words are going to be stated, the whole context of it should be stated, particularly when I was stating it with respect to sex offences against children, which the government refused to legislate for years and years.
The last thing is that I would remind the hon. minister that it is not called “child pornography”; it is called “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, first of all, my hon. colleague has done admirable work advancing Bailey's law. I support it fully. I urge senators to adopt it expeditiously to deliver some of the protections. The member has been working with family members who have been working with me and my team. We owe it to those who continue to advocate on Bailey's behalf to get that bill implemented to become law in Canada to protect victims of intimate partner violence. I want to thank him specifically for his collaboration in honour of the loss of Bailey's life and to prove that it was not in vain.
In addition, my colleague raised his concerns about his words being misconstrued. Thankfully, there is a record of the words spoken in this place. I would note that he tried to distinguish his argument on the basis that his comments previously were about child sexual exploitation and abuse material. That, in fact, was very specifically at issue in the Senneville decision, which motivated the use of the safety valve in this particular case.
I have been curious if he was going to participate in the debate on this issue of the safety valve. I would be happy to dig out the video evidence of his position on the matter, or the Hansard record, whichever manner would demonstrate that, in fact, he previously made the case very strongly, imploring even his colleagues within his own party to adopt a safety valve approach so we can restore, very specifically, mandatory minimum penalties. I would be happy to provide that record to the member or to the House, as it would satisfy those listening to the debate.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Madam Speaker, it is shameful that the government has decided it is going to use a hammer to restrict our ability to continue debating this important bill.
The minister has stated that he wishes there were more, such as a parliamentary study on the idea of elder abuse and coercive control. All he would have to do is read through some of the testimony we have been hearing at FEWO for the last couple months, and there is ample. We have had witness after witness make it very clear that this needs to be put in. We have had tons of stakeholders bring this forward as a massive issue, yet the Liberals say that it is not important and that they are not dealing with that right now. Also, they are limiting any ability to have any further debate on this issue because they want to go home for vacation.
We are here to work, and we expect that, so why is the minister so keen to get out of here, get to somewhere else and go on his vacation rather than stay here and work for Canadians?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, the measures included in this bill have the potential to save the lives of victims who are facing violence. To be accused of wanting to go on vacation when I am willing to sit through the entirety of the summer to get this done, if necessary, is absolutely ludicrous.
I see people in my own community and in my own province facing 79 charges of using AI to create deepfakes of intimate images depicting people in heinous sexual acts without their consent. Shame on me for wanting to take action.
There have been six meetings at the justice committee. After months of the Conservatives' filibustering and denying the progress of this bill, we have an opportunity to deliver protections for people who are facing violence. To be accused of wanting to go on vacation is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, we are here to work. I would suggest all members of Parliament, regardless of party, are here to work, but let us stop the charade of pretending there has not been an ample debate on this issue. Let us move forward with the protections that victims so richly deserve.
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I find it really amusing to listen to Conservatives talk about games being played in the House when they are literally the party that hid people behind the curtain during a very important vote months ago.
Would the minister not agree with me that, time after time, we see the Conservatives refusing to let legislation through, so we have to eventually use a tool like this to advance it? If they were more selective and did their filibustering tactics every once in a while, it might hold a bit more credibility. The problem is that they do it at every single opportunity, so with every single bill, it seems like this is the only way to keep it advancing forward. We will get to the point where the public does not even realize what is going on anymore because the Conservatives do it every single time.
Would the minister not agree that the Conservatives' approach and strategy would probably be a bit more productive if they were a bit more selective in choosing when to use the tool of filibustering to prevent and delay legislation from moving forward?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, my colleague makes an excellent point.
I wish I could say that this is a surprise. Realistically, when we had members of the justice committee filibuster for months a study on a previous piece of legislation that had been adopted by the House, we warned them. We told them that their antics were going to delay the implementation of protections that would be embedded in Canada's criminal law, and that it would delay for victims the beneficial impact of the laws that we are putting forward in the House. Did the Conservatives listen? No, they did no. They continued to filibuster for hours upon hours, talking out the clock and preventing the work of the justice committee from advancing.
We are now exactly where we said we would be because of that delay. We have been forced to move forward, despite the fact that there has been a robust study, by the way. This is the question that is central to this debate: Do we think it is acceptable to wait a few months to implement the protections that victims are demanding we put in place, that judges are calling for from the bench and that law enforcement are demanding, or do we want to implement them today? The Liberal Party of Canada wants to implement them today. It is a shame the Conservatives want to kick it down the road to the fall.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, we all want to prevent discrimination and violence in this country, but fast-tracking and shutting down debate is not going to help improve this legislation. We have a lot of important questions. We do not want to wait until there are complaints, tribunals or criminal sanctions after the fact. We want to talk about what we are going to do to prevent it.
We have not heard from the minister or the government on how they are going to invest in anti-bullying in schools; in mental health supports for vulnerable youth; in housing and homelessness, which is something that we have heard is clearly important on this; in community-based violence protection; in support for victims of hate incidents and discrimination; and in training in federally regulated workplaces, which is under the purview of the federal government and the minister, before complaints happen.
We have a lot of questions that have not been addressed by the government. Can the minister explain when the funding is going to come in on prevention, instead of it happening after the fact?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a thoughtful intervention, which is very important if our goal is to not only penalize bad actors after they have committed a crime but also prevent violence in the first place.
Each time I have introduced a bill to reform Canada's criminal law in the House and spoke about it publicly, I begin by laying out the public safety strategy that the Government of Canada is moving forward with.
The first pillar is to strengthen Canada's criminal laws, but we recognize that, largely, this has an impact after a crime has taken place. We also want to give tools to law enforcement and community organizations on the front line to support victims and to investigate and prosecute crime, but the most important pillar of our strategy is those upstream investments. They may be outside the scope of this bill, but they are moving forward in parallel.
This includes investments through Build Canada Homes to build assisted, supportive and affordable housing for people at risk in Canada. This includes working with the Minister of Health and provincial governments to advance services and treatments for mental health and addictions. It also includes long-term investments, particularly in at-risk youth, including through the youth employment and skills strategy, as well as investments in infrastructure that builds safer and stronger communities.
If we want to end violent crime in the long term, we need to take a holistic view of how we build safe communities and healthy people. Part of that equation also demands reforms to the criminal law. The protections contained in this bill, though penalizing crime after the fact, can in fact have some preventative nature. I mentioned coercive control and intervening before violence becomes deadly.
However, we should not delay the important work in this bill until the work around affordable housing, mental health and addictions and the at-risk youth prevention programs is done, because that work is going to continue in perpetuity for many many years. We have an opportunity to take action today to strengthen Canada's criminal laws to offer protections. I think we should avail ourselves of the opportunity.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not at all appreciate the government's decision to invoke closure on this debate. Nobody wins when the government limits debate on a bill, especially one that deals directly with justice. When it comes to the basic principles of this bill, we all agree that we need to ensure greater protection and get tougher on crime.
As always, the devil is in the details. That is particularly true when it comes to justice and crime. We are all in favour of tougher laws. We all agree that we need to better protect victims and that we need to crack down on criminals, especially in cases involving sex crimes or other related offences.
Does the minister agree that, unfortunately, democracy as a whole loses when the government shuts down debate on such a sensitive subject?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, I do not agree. The facts in this situation are very different from what my colleague is describing. For example, a few months ago, the Conservative Party prolonged the debate at the Standing Committee on Justice.
The Conservatives were talking about a preference between puppies and kittens, wasting time for the sake of wasting time, and carrying on meaningless debates outside the scope of the criminal laws that we are seeking to implement. There was an opportunity to advance these protections in a timely way with full debate.
I would point out to the member the fact that we are seeing people from across Canada calling for these actions, and there was a debate at the justice committee. We have had an opportunity to debate this bill in the House. The Senate will have an opportunity to debate it.
In all honesty, we have judges from the bench crying for some of the protections that this bill would afford to Canadians. We see femicides taking place at an ungodly rate in this country, and we have an opportunity to help prevent those with stiffer penalties, and importantly, upstream investments as well.
I do not see this process as being a function of democracy breaking. I view the inappropriate behaviour to stop the work of the justice committee previously demands that democracy be allowed to work and that the House adopt the important reforms included in the bill.
Amandeep Sodhi Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I rose in the House in support of Bill C-16, and today I rise again for the same reason.
In Peel Region, every year, the police receive approximately 16,000 calls of family and intimate partner violence. That is 16,000 calls for help and 16,000 moments of fear.
Can the minister speak to the importance of passing this legislation and how it will continue to protect the most vulnerable in our communities?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brampton Centre for her advocacy on this issue.
She is right to point out the magnitude of this issue. It is 16,000 people from her part of the country, so 16,000 lives changed forever. We have an opportunity to have the legal system intervene more forcefully and with a greater effect. In addition to some of the new infractions and more serious penalties that we put in place, we are also making significant changes to how courts deal with some of these changes.
Let us think about the fact that nearly 10,000 cases have been thrown out of courts for delay, including many sexual assault cases. When the complainant is forced to live in the same community as a perpetrator who is walking free in their community, not because they have defeated the charges but because time ran out, that does not feel like justice.
We have an opportunity to correct things. This bill provides that opportunity. Let us vote for it today.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Madam Speaker, to listen to this minister complain about and blame Conservatives for the situation of our justice system in Canada today is laughable.
When Bill C-75 was passed, Conservatives opposed that bill because we knew the damage and the consequences that bill would wreak on our justice system. Jody Wilson-Raybould, the minister at the time, said that passing that bill would speed up all of the delays in the court system, delays that seem to still exist. Arif Virani, during the debate, defended the government's use of time allocation and argued the opposition was blocking. Randy Boissonnault did the same thing and argued that Conservatives were holding things up. We were simply trying to warn Canadians about the damage these guys were doing.
Fast-forward to Bill C-5. David Lametti, as this bill's sponsor, said that Bill C-5 needed to move forward quickly and efficiently, and again blamed Conservatives for stopping the government from removing mandatory minimum penalties. Now, fast-forward to the current public safety minister and Mark Holland arguing the same thing.
All of this is evidenced in the Hansard and the Debates of those parliaments. For this minister to stand here today and actually blame Conservatives for telling them that they were wrong and we were right all along is ridiculous.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a clearer example of a straw man argument. He is making allegations about my position in this argument that I did not suggest. My criticism of the Conservatives in this debate was about their behaviour at the justice committee, not for decisions taken under previous governments during different parliaments.
It is ironic that the Conservatives are arguing that there has not been enough time to debate this bill, but the questions they have on this debate are not even talking about this bill. The member is talking about bills that were adopted a number of years ago in previous parliaments, which, by the way, he is objecting to despite the fact that it made it harder for people to get bail when charged with intimate partner violence complaints or made house arrest ineligible for people charged with advocating genocide or attempted murder or torture in this country.
My own view is that we have an opportunity to offer protections to victims. It seems the Conservative Party has made a decision for political reasons that they wish to delay the implementation of these protections. I find that disappointing in the extreme. I hope that they will put their money where their mouth is and actually place their vote behind this bill to accelerate its expeditious adoption into Canada's laws to offer protections for communities.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, I just want to poke holes in the justice minister's argument over the length of debate on Bill C-16.
We only debated this for two days at second reading, and then we let it go on division so we could get it to the justice committee for study. We asked for eight meetings to actually do a proper study on this bill and to bring in the proper witnesses. The Liberals shut it down to only four meetings. We have only had one day to debate the bill at report stage, and they are already moving closure.
My question is for the minister who wraps himself in this paper tiger, saying that we do not respect the process and that there has been plenty of debate. We know that on the Liberal side, the only person who ever gets up and talks is the member from Winnipeg North who has said the most words ever, but has said the very least.
Why does this minister hate democracy, and why is he undermining parliamentary processes?
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I hope, regardless of political affiliation, we can refrain from accusing one another of hating democracy. I think each person, regardless of their community, the language they speak, the community they represent or the party to which they belong, is a defender of democracy. I hope they would align themselves with the protections of the institutions that uphold that democracy, including the rule of law.
We have the opportunity to move forward with protections. It is clear that Conservatives have moved on from making substantive arguments and debates. They clearly just want to label the government with accusations that I do not think are grounded in reality, instead of actually advancing the protections in the bill. We will do this with them or without them. It would be my preference to have them with us.
Bill C-16—Time Allocation MotionProtecting Victims ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
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.