SoVote

Jun/7/22 6:55:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specifics of that. The member might want to raise this with the minister responsible. I can say, though, that we have seen an incredible amount of money and dedication, whether it is coming from the minister responsible for the environment or the Minister of Finance, who are ultimately being led by the Prime Minister, to ensure that we are seeing greener jobs, technology and so forth being developed and encouraged. This is not just from direct government expenditures but also from working with the private sector. The Conservatives have been very critical of the Infrastructure Bank, but it has been hugely successful on environmental projects. All one needs to do is take a look at what is happening in Brampton today, with the conversion of buses from diesel fuel to electric. This is an excellent example, and I think there are virtually endless examples. If I were provided the time and maybe allowed to do a little more research, I could provide all sorts of good details on that front.

177 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/7/22 6:56:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of my concerns with the main estimates we are discussing this evening is with respect to the number of Canadians with disabilities, both in my community and across the country, who are living in poverty. We do not have here any emergency funds for these folks, nor do we have anything with respect to the Canada disability benefit. I wonder if the hon. member can speak to what he could be doing to advocate in this place to ensure that we get funding to a group of folks across the country who need it most, Canadians living with disabilities.

102 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 6:57:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for disability inclusion actually made an incredible effort a couple of years ago in terms of bringing in some legislation and ultimately having it passed. I thought she gave a brilliant speech in terms of why we need to focus more attention and build the proper database in order to support people with disabilities. She went on to ensure that during the pandemic there would be a payment going out to people with disabilities. Also, it is really encouraging that, just recently, the minister has once again brought forward disability legislation. This has been a high priority for this particular minister specifically, but I know that the government as a whole has been very supportive of the minister, recognizing how important it is to support people with disabilities.

133 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 6:58:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention and for repeating the concerns we all have around inflation. I also thank him for pointing out the comparison of Canada to other countries and the complexity of the problem we are dealing with in trying to get support to the Canadians who really need it, rather than just everybody getting some kind of a handout. Could the hon. member talk about the expenditures that we are putting forward to target the people who need help the most?

88 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 6:59:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to talk about something that I know the member is very proud of, as am I, which is the national child care program. The national child care program is now going to make day care affordable for hundreds of thousands of people from coast to coast to coast. It is going to enable people to enter into the workforce, and it will have a profound impact. I am very proud of the fact that this administration and the minister responsible were able to get the provinces and territories onside. We have, for the very first time, a very progressive, national program in regard to child care. If members want to get a sense of just how well it is going to work into the future, they can look at the positive impact it had when it was brought in by the Province of Quebec.

151 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Jun/7/22 6:59:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North if he could explain to seniors in my community who are living below the poverty line, who have had to take a line of credit on their property in order to stay in their home, why they were, in effect, told by the previous minister of seniors, “Why do you not just sell your house and move on?” What kind of a response is that to someone who has lived in their home, raised their children, paid their taxes and taken care of a dying husband, who had no choice but to leave, and who at 72 years old does not get the $500 and has to go and get another job?

126 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 7:00:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not here when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, but I was, and if she wants to talk about dishing out zip for our seniors, we can take a look at what Stephen Harper did not do for our seniors. I would love to compare how we have been there in a very real and tangible way for our seniors. Any day of the week, I would debate the member in any type of forum in regard to what we have done in comparison to what Stephen Harper did, and we have been in for only six or seven years, whereas Stephen Harper was there for 10 years. I can talk, right from the very beginning, of lifting hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty with the immediate increase that was made to GIS back in 2016; I can talk about the grants that were given via direct payments to seniors, both OAS and GIS, during the pandemic; I can talk about the 10% increase for seniors over 75; and I can talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars invested into non-profit organizations to support seniors. It is an endless list. The member cannot try to tell me that Stephen Harper was sympathetic to seniors. This is a government that is not only sympathetic but has taken action after action to support the seniors of Canada, because they deserve that support.

241 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/22 7:01:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned the Infrastructure Bank, and I have to say that some of the early spending by the Infrastructure Bank was very encouraging, but I am devastated that budget 2022 does not promote the continued building of interties to connect our electricity grid so that we can have a functional, robust electricity grid working east-west and north-south to move renewable energy from one province to another. As the member will know, I am very disappointed in his government's climate plans, but I do not understand why it is ignoring the urgent need to build a strong electricity grid to meet our needs to decarbonize energy.

115 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 7:02:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if we take a look at the voting record, we will probably find that the former leader of the Green Party voted against having a Canada Infrastructure Bank. Now, if we take a look, anyone can google the Canada Infrastructure Bank and take a look at the projects that are there. Many of those projects are green projects. I made reference to what is happening in Brampton: the conversion of fuel buses into electric buses. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. That is happening, in good part, because we created, a number of years ago, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, something that many members of this House did not support and that many other members continue to criticize today. They need to check out the website, at the very least, and take a look at what the Canada Infrastructure Bank has been doing. That is without even mentioning the many other initiatives the Government of Canada has taken by working with partners, whether they are provincial or other stakeholders in the private sector and so forth.

183 words

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

Jun/7/22 7:04:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, tonight I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who is a great MP and doing a great job for her constituents. On Friday, May 27 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the punishment of life without parole in cases concerning mass murderers. There had been a change in the law that allowed consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, which meant that mass murderers would not receive a discount for the extra lives they had taken. The case at the core of this ruling is with regard to the 2017 killing of worshippers at a Quebec City mosque. Shortly after 8 p.m. on January 29, 2017, an armed 27-year-old man entered the mosque and began to shoot at the people inside. Six people were killed and at least five others were wounded. He was charged with six counts of murder, convicted, and sentenced to 40 years without the possibility of parole. Following this ruling by the Supreme Court, this killer will now be eligible to apply for full parole after only 25 years. It is now the case in Canada that, regardless of whether mass murderers kill three people or 20, they will be eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. The message that this decision sends to Canadians is that every life does not in fact matter. I do not agree with that sentiment, and I know that most Canadians would not agree with it either. Just yesterday, MPs from all parties stood in this House in a moment of silence to remember the victims of the hate-motivated killing of a Muslim family in London, Ontario, on June 6, 2021. Every single member of that family who was killed in that attack mattered, but right now, sentencing law in Canada will not reflect that fact. The killer responsible for the attack in London, Ontario, was 20 years old at the time. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, he will not even be 50 years old when he is eligible to apply for full parole. The Canadian justice system must be fair and balanced, but it is becoming increasingly imbalanced, with the scales too often tipped toward the perpetrators of violent crime and away from the victims, who are left to pick up the pieces of their lives. In the court ruling on life sentences for mass murderers, the provision struck down by the court was originally introduced in 2011 under the previous Conservative government. The bill was entitled “Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act”. It is worth noting that this bill was passed with the support of all parties in the House. The bill made sure that an offender was held responsible for each and every life taken when these horrific mass murders occur, and they do, unfortunately, occur. It ensured that the length of offenders' sentences reflected the severity of their crimes. This decision of the Supreme Court effectively repealed this act. To provide some background, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act addressed two specific concerns that victims of crime raised again and again. These concerns were, one, the need for accountability for each life taken and, two, the mental and emotional turmoil that victims face when an offender is granted a parole hearing and family members have to relive the worst day of their lives every two years at repeat parole hearings for the rest of their lives. The act actually expanded judicial discretion by allowing judges, if they deemed it appropriate, to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. In the years after this legislation was passed, that is exactly what many judges across the country did. They used their discretion to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility when they thought it was appropriate. Specifically, since 2011, when this act was introduced, the law has been used in at least 18 cases. These were the worst of the worst, cases that many Canadians would be familiar with as the news of these horrific crimes shocked communities right across our country. The law was used to sentence the killer who ended the lives of three RCMP officers in Moncton, New Brunswick, and wounded two others in 2014. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. The law was used to sentence the notorious killer who took the lives of Tim Bosma, Laura Babcock and Wayne Millard. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. The law was used to sentence the killer of two grandparents and their five-year-old grandson in Calgary. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. These murderers, all of them relatively young, will now be able to seek full parole 25 years after they were first sentenced. When the president of the organization Victims of Violence, Sharon Rosenfeldt, testified at the justice committee, she made an important point that I would like to share, as I believe it is just as relevant to the discussions we are having today as it was then. She stated: We understand, in following the discussion on other bills, that there has been concern expressed by some members of Parliament over mandatory minimum sentences because they reduce judicial discretion. As you know, murder already has a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, although, with parole eligibility, the “life” part of the sentence does not necessarily mean being imprisoned. [This bill] would actually give judges more discretion at sentencing, so hopefully those MPs who have taken the position opposing a reduction in judicial discretion will support this bill, because it actually increases it. Susan O'Sullivan was the federal ombudsman for victims of crime at the time, and she also appeared at the justice committee study on the bill. She stated: Providing judges with the discretion to apply consecutive, rather than concurrent parole ineligibility will help ensure accountability for each life lost, and, where appropriate, will delay and in some cases prevent the trauma and devastation victims experience when faced with [repeated] parole hearings. The former victims ombudsman makes a really important point here regarding the retraumatization inflicted on families throughout the parole process. When confronted with the impact of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, the Liberals are determined to stick to their talking points, telling Parliament and concerned Canadians that we should not worry about mass killers actually receiving parole because that possible outcome is, in their words, extremely rare.

1089 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/7/22 7:10:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London made a really good point earlier on when she said that the discussion happening in the House really did not have anything to do with the main estimates. I am wondering if the member will bring his speech back to the estimates or if he is going to continue with justice policy and legislation.

69 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 7:11:02 p.m.
Watch

As I suggested during those last interactions, we should try to stick to the motion at hand, even though I did not correct or change the course of the previous speaker. I see another point of order, from the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

45 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Jun/7/22 7:11:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the member is in proper order by giving these remarks and he should be allowed to continue. This is very much on point and very much a priority. It needs to be discussed in the House, so I do not quite get what the point of order was for in the first place.

59 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 7:11:47 p.m.
Watch

As I said previously, I will always ask members to stick to the motion or bill we are debating at hand. Again, I remind everyone that we are on the main estimates, so there is a pretty wide scope of information we can debate in the House. The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

53 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Jun/7/22 7:12:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are on the main estimates, and the justice estimates are within those main estimates. This relates to the justice system in Canada and we need more justice in this country. That is precisely why I am speaking about these main estimate-related issues. When confronted by the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling, the Liberals are saying we do not have to worry about parole hearings. What that actually means is that the government is comfortable with putting these families through revictimizing and retraumatizing parole processes, even though at the end of the day, it is essentially all for show because, in the government's words, the killer will not receive parole anyway. This process does not benefit anyone involved but is particularly devastating to the families of victims. I recently spoke to a mother who suffered the loss of a child due to the actions of a drunk driver. I spoke to her about the parole process she had to endure. She said the process was traumatizing and that as soon as some time had passed and she was able to take a step forward in the grieving process, the offender involved applied for parole or appealed the Parole Board decision and she was snapped back to the worst day of her life. This is a cycle that repeats itself over and over. That is the real life sentence. Like the mom I spoke with, the families impacted by the Supreme Court's decision on reducing life sentences for mass murderers will spend the rest of their lives grieving the loss of their loved ones. I have read the Supreme Court ruling, and we are speaking about the estimates and the justice estimates within them. The Minister of Justice speaks about a charter dialogue, a dialogue that happens between the courts when they make charter decisions and Parliament as we enact laws, including laws within our Criminal Code. The ball is now in our court in this Parliament. The ball is in the government's court to respond to the court decision. We know from the ruling that the door has been left wide open for Parliament to respond. For the sake of victims, for the sake of our communities, for the sake of ensuring that families do not have to go through repeat parole hearings and for the sake of the life of every victim, we need to make sure that we, as a Parliament, respond. The Conservatives call on the government to respond to this particular decision of the Supreme Court with legislation that ensures every life in Canada counts and that families are not revictimized over and over again. They have already suffered far too much. I thank members for listening this evening. Let us take up the challenge that has been put before us and enact strong legislation that keeps our communities safe and protects victims and their loved ones.

489 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/22 7:15:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague and I may agree on one thing, and I want to reassure Canadians. In his speech, the member referenced that criminals doing the most heinous of crimes will be eligible for parole. It is important to emphasize that eligibility for parole does not mean they get parole. There is a lot of literature on this and we have the statistics to know that certainly the most dangerous of criminals are not going to be getting parole. I am concerned, and I think he can agree with me on this point, that we have not adequately dealt with the rights of victims of crime. He mentioned Sue O'Sullivan, our former ombudsman for victims of crime. She was not satisfied with the legislation we got in 2014. I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree that we need to do much more for victims of crime.

152 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Jun/7/22 7:16:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member. We have to do more. In fact, she mentioned a former ombudsman in her question. We do not even have an ombudsman for victims of crime and that is truly outrageous. The position has been vacant for some time. What we are trying to do is eliminate the revictimization of families for the case in Moncton where three RCMP officers were shot and killed. That individual is going to be up for parole at 47 years old. That means a lifetime of attending parole hearings for the families, whether the offender ever gets out or not, and that is not fair to those families.

112 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 7:17:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, looking at the justice file is something we were talking about during the member's intervention, which I thank him for. These are the programs we opened up in January: sexual harassment in the workplace, the access to justice in both official languages fund, family violence in the justice partnership and innovation program, the justice partnership and innovation program in general, victims fund for child advocacy centres, victims fund for project funding, victims fund for provincial and territorial program funding, the youth justice fund, and consultation, co-operation and engagement on UNDRIP. Could the member comment on the variety of justice programs that we are funding through these estimates and how they are making Canada a stronger place?

120 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Jun/7/22 7:17:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has listed some things, so I will note that we have a vacant position for a victims ombudsman. When the offenders ombudsman position was vacant, it was filled the next day. For the victims ombudsman position, it has been months since it should have been filled. In a very short period of time, we have had a Supreme Court decision that says if someone drinks enough, they might be found not guilty of a serious offence. We have had the striking down of a law that valued every life for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. We have also had Bill C-5, which says that for serious gun crimes and serious offences against other individuals, a person can serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home. That is just in the last month that we have been dealing with these things. It is time for the government to reverse course, drop Bill C-5 and respond to these Supreme Court decisions.

168 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

Jun/7/22 7:19:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that Canadians come to understand the fact that there seems to be a lot of misplaced priorities by the current government. There seems to be, in what it has been presenting as it relates to justice, a disproportionate emphasis on getting soft in the sentencing of people who have committed offences and crimes through the illegal use of firearms, and a disproportionate response to law-abiding firearms owners, who have kept to the law and been faithful in abiding by the law. Can the member comment on that? I would be interested in his thoughts on the rights of law-abiding firearms owners and going after the true perpetrators of crimes with firearms.

121 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83