SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 66

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22
Mr. Michael Barrett
  • May/6/22 12:20:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has just informed you and the House that he is not debating the motion at hand. He is debating a different piece of legislation. On the subject of relevance, he has specifically said that his debate is not relevant to the matter at hand. Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary could stop filibustering and let us return to the business of the House.
67 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:21:02 p.m.
  • Watch
There is relevancy. I will cede that of course to the member for Winnipeg North.
15 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • May/6/22 12:21:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, if the member were actually listening, it is 100% purely relevant. Prior to their cousin in the Bloc's interruption, I was speaking specifically to the motion. After the Bloc's interruption, I made references to why the Conservatives are trying to change the topic to prevent us from being able to talk about C-19, and my Conservative friend got all upset and stood up to say that I am not being relevant. The Conservatives really need to start putting on their thinking caps. At the end of the day, what we should be debating today is the good-news budget. There is no doubt that there are many things within it which they can raise, but they are the ones who have chosen not to want to debate it today. Instead, they want to have a discussion or a debate on a motion dealing with why we should split into sections a government piece of legislation through this particular motion. It is interesting because, as I was pointing out, there are different approaches to justice. There is a Conservative approach versus our Liberal government's approach to justice. I highlighted the one difference regarding incarceration, but that is not the only one. We have confidence in our judicial system. We recognize the independence of our judges and the judicial system. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a difficult time with that. They really and truly do. They believe that if we cannot trust judges, we put in minimum sentences. The legislation they are attempting to split up, and increasing the number of votes for, is a reflection of some of the reforms the Minister of Justice has been working for a good period of time now. He has been looking and listening to the different stakeholders, working with different jurisdictions, provincial or others, within the civil service. I know that we just have to listen to question period and we can understand that the Conservative Party has a lack of faith and trust in our civil service, but that is not shared universally. We recognize the hard work and the efforts that our civil servants put in, whether it is in passport offices or in ministerial offices formulating legislation and ensuring the type of legislation we bring forward is ultimately for the betterment of Canada. That is what we are seeing here. I have had the opportunity, in the days in which I was an MLA, not only as a provincial justice critic, so I have fairly significant experience in dealing with justice-related issues, but also as the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years. The youth justice committee was where I learned a great deal about how communities can be involved in ensuring that justice is not just being seen as being done, but is in fact done. One of the best ways I have seen this is through restorative justice, where we get the victim and person who committed the offence together, and that does happen. When it does happen, we see it as a good thing, because often through that process, we see that the victim will get a greater sense of satisfaction. Now, obviously, that does not work in all situations. The youth justice committee would often have young offenders come before it. Committee members would listen to what the young offender has to say and come up with a disposition in terms of what the consequences should be for that young person for whatever offence was committed. To give a specific example, let us take shoplifting. We all know that shoplifting is a bad thing. However, because of the justice committee, it is personalized so that the victim, a store in this case, would have the opportunity to provide input from the victim's perspective, and then the offender would come before individuals in the community who are, in essence, honorary probation officers. I raise this because, even at that level, there is a certain amount of expertise that is provided from constituents, from people who live and work in our communities. They get a good assessment of the environment that this young person was in, and through that assessment, they are able to give a disposition that is more fitting for the individual. I use this as an example because we can take some of the principles from that example and apply them even to a courtroom, where there are a judge, lawyers, a victim and an offender. When we take a look at the legislation that the Conservatives want to divide, they are saying that if person X commits crime Z, that person has to serve a minimum amount of time. They want to override everything that has been said in the courtroom. They are saying to the judge that they do not have the confidence in the judge to get an evaluation of the situation that might have ultimately caused the crime and led to the actual offence itself. When I think of minimum sentences, I think in terms of limitations. At times, there is a need for minimum sentences. However, the idea that we need to review them and make some changes is long overdue. We need to recognize that there is systemic racism within our communities. Not to consider our courts and our institutions when we think of the issue of racism would be a huge mistake. I was not in committee during the discussions on second reading of the bill, but I suspect we would find a number of witnesses who recognized that systemic racism is found within our courts, and one of the ways we can minimize some of that racism is by looking at ways in which we can address the issue of minimum sentences. When we really stop and think about it, the motion being brought forward by the Conservative Party does two things. One, it addresses the specifics of Bill C-5 in wanting to divide it up. One could question the motives of trying to do that. Is it as simple as having—
1021 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:31:50 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.
20 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Michael Barrett
  • May/6/22 12:31:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if you could verify that quorum is currently being met.
16 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:32:02 p.m.
  • Watch
There is a quorum call again. And the count having been taken:
12 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • May/6/22 12:32:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know there is a lunch going on. There are members on all sides of the House. There are members who are having lunch—
27 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:32:18 p.m.
  • Watch
There are 13 here, and we have a number of members online. Online does count on this list. We do have quorum. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
28 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:32:29 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.
15 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Peter Julian
  • May/6/22 12:32:35 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my friend from Winnipeg North, but you should be aware that there are literally dozens of members of Parliament participating online. I do not understand the repeated calls for quorum when members of the Conservative Party should be aware that dozens of members are participating actively through Zoom in this hybrid Parliament.
60 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:33:02 p.m.
  • Watch
That is what I referred to. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
19 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Michael Barrett
  • May/6/22 12:33:06 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, it is not a lack of understanding. Members in the chamber are able to see the other members who are physically in the chamber. Not to discount the number of members who are online, but that number is in fact seven, not “dozens” as my hon. colleague said. There is no way for members in the House to verify that. That is why I respectfully requested that the Chair verify quorum.
75 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • May/6/22 12:33:36 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, at the end of— An hon. member: Point of order.
19 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:33:41 p.m.
  • Watch
We are already on a point of order with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I will go back to whoever was yelling that.
24 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • May/6/22 12:33:49 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for members, before they stand up to try to be funny and call quorum, to ask a member in their caucus. For example, there are 33 members online right now. Members should be courteous, as opposed to interrupting a speech knowing full well there is quorum. The Conservative and Bloc members who have now done this should be a little more courteous to me, who happen to be speaking, and to members who might be having a meal.
85 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:34:29 p.m.
  • Watch
Order. We had another point of order or a continuation of the same point of order. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
24 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Peter Julian
  • May/6/22 12:34:35 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the same point. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes just misinformed the House. There are three dozen members participating online, including myself. I do not understand why he would try to lead the House in error—
50 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:34:53 p.m.
  • Watch
I am going to stop things right now. We are doing a count. We will find out exactly how many people we have participating. When we go back, the member for Winnipeg North will have two minutes and 10 seconds left in his time. Let us take a couple of seconds to get the count done correctly. And the count having been taken:
63 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Deputy Speaker
  • May/6/22 12:35:25 p.m.
  • Watch
There are 25 members here in the chamber at this moment. There are nine with their cameras on. Members can be online, but if they do not have their cameras on, they are not counted in the quorum. The camera needs to be on. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
57 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Michael Barrett
  • May/6/22 12:35:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke, the hon. gentleman from New Westminster—Burnaby, did say that I misinformed the House, and I would respectfully ask, in light of the verification offered by the table officers and by the Chair, that an apology be offered for having alleged that I misled the House.
54 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border