Celina Caesar-Chavannes

[Automotive Industry, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in my town of Whitby and Oshawa and the Durham Region as a whole, there are many who are feeling the effect of today's announcement by GM. The auto workers and families that live in the region are a critical part of our community and economy. They are friends and neighbours and I want to assure them that we are here for them during this very difficult time.

Could the minister please share with the House what our government will be doing to help the workers and their families impacted by GM's decision today?

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 24th, 2018]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister talked about the guiding principles, because we did hear in this House about the injuries suffered by workers. I know the guiding principles within this piece of legislation would guide what the mediator does moving forward in order to ensure employees receive equal pay for work of equal value, and that the health and safety of employees are taken into consideration.

I want to mention the NDP's record on this particular issue. The member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Hamilton Centre have, on three occasions, either voted for or were part of a government which voted for back-to-work legislation. We know it is often uncomfortable but it is a necessary step in order to do the work we are asked to do in this place by Canadians. Back-to-work legislation is necessary in order to ensure we are working for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The member for London—Fanshawe, the member for Hamilton Centre, as well as the member for Vancouver East were part of governments which voted for back-to-work legislation. I am wondering if the minister could speak to the importance of having a responsible government and ensuring we are doing the very important work Canadians have brought us here to do.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 24th, 2018]

Mr. Chair, with regard to the proposed legislation, we have seen demonstrations here in this House. We know the legislation is providing an extension to the collective agreements and the minister is to appoint a mediator. There are postal workers at the 265 Harwood facility in Whitby, and I am wondering if she could talk to them specifically about what the proposed legislation would offer in order for them to continue what they are rightfully able to do in the collective bargaining agreement.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 24th, 2018]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for her interventions thus far.

Over the past few weeks, many people from Whitby have reached out to me with their concerns about the strike. The Government of Canada is committed to free collective bargaining. Introducing back-to-work legislation is sometimes necessary in order to meet the needs of Canadians. I would like to start off by reiterating that, as the minister has said many times, we are committed to a free collective bargaining process as the basis for a sound industrial relationship.

A lot of work has been done over the last year to ensure that we as a government have been committed and fair in providing resources to both parties. Could the minister clarify to people in Whitby, and other Canadians, the work that has been done so far to ensure that this has come to an agreement that would be amenable to Canadians?

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have been participating in this debate quite a bit throughout the day.

The member for St. Albert—Edmonton sent out a message via social media that said that he thought it was incredible that I and others were defending the hybridization of serious criminal offences in Bill C-75 by trying to distinguish which were serious and which were less serious. He went on to talk about kidnapping and said that kidnapping is always serious.

We are not saying that kidnapping is not serious. We are saying that there are a range of ways offences can be committed and therefore a range of ways in which we could look at the seriousness of offences, and we would leave it to the prosecution to make that determination. It is not up to a politician to look from within this chamber and decide what the range of seriousness is within an offence. That happens in a court room. It is up to the prosecution and the judge to make that determination.

When my hon. colleague talks about hybridization, does he think it is fair that we would leave it up to the prosecution to decide the range in which offences could be committed and therefore that the correct sentencing for those offences could be applied within our justice system?

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague very eloquently talked about the 92% of cases within the current circumstance that fall outside of indictable offences. Also, in his response to the last question, he talked about the number of appointments that our Minister of Justice has made. There have been over 230 so far, which is the most that have ever been appointed. This combination creates efficiency within our system and allows it to move faster.

Does my hon. colleague agree that the appointments to date as well as this particular piece of legislation would increase the efficiency of our justice system and would allow more cases to go through our justice system in a quicker manner?

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about hybridization. She named a number of different offences and talked about them being reduced to only a fine or less than a two-year sentence. I want to clear the record. Hybridization does not take away the authority or ability of the prosecution to look at the seriousness of a crime.

The member mentioned kidnapping. For example, if there is a custody battle, the child is taken by the other parent, and the first parent calls police to say the child is missing, that is kidnapping. It is also kidnapping when a child is lured into a vehicle and taken away for ill intentions. Those are two kidnapping offences. I would leave it for lawyers to decide that one is less serious than the other. Hybridization looks at the totality of the crime and allows the justice system to decide the seriousness of the crime and if it should be a summary conviction or an indictment.

Does my hon. colleague not trust the justice system and the professionals therein to assess the seriousness of crimes and apply appropriate convictions, thereby keeping our communities safe?

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to some of the comments that were made earlier when it comes to the seriousness of offences.

When we are talking about kidnapping, for example, a child who leaves a parent's house to go to another versus someone who is luring a child into a car are two different offences, and the seriousness of those two offences are quite different. There is injury causing bodily harm where an arm is broken or someone is placed into a coma. The seriousness of those two offences are quite different.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could emphasize what the hybridization classification does and does not do, and it does not take away the ability for a prosecutor to look at the seriousness of the offence and apply the applicable sentences. I wonder if my hon. colleague could reiterate that in the time he has left.

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice, this is a comprehensive piece of legislation that would help to improve the criminal justice system. We have used time allocation, and it is an important component of allowing us to advance the work Canadians have brought us here to do. This legislation, along with the appointments that the minister has made across the country, have helped to ensure our criminal justice system will be efficient and move forward in a very effective way.

Could the minister comment further on how this piece of legislation has been thoroughly reviewed by Canadians who have spoken at committee and when it has been debated in the House, and why this piece of legislation would help improve the efficiency of our justice system?

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard throughout this debate that this particular legislation looks to increase the efficiencies of our Criminal Code and to ensure that there is equity in the system.

Could my hon. colleague expand on that and tell me what his constituents would think about his voting in favour of this legislation?