SoVote

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/7/22 8:36:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the last intervention. I appreciate the fact that the member for Elmwood—Transcona was talking about the estimates and government policies. I respect the fact that he disagrees with some of them, but it certainly was a departure from the previous speeches that we heard from across the way, which literally had nothing to do with the estimates. I should say that I am splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants. I will go back to the answer the member for Elmwood—Transcona provided me when I asked about government intervention in dealing with environmental issues from industry of the past. Although I agree with him that we certainly would not like to see that moving forward, unfortunately that has been the reality of pretty much everything since the Industrial Revolution. My city is still dealing with former tannery sites that are leaching material into the river along Kingston. The reality of the situation is that quite often, unfortunately, we do not know the consequences in advance of the environmental impact the economy is going to have on particular sectors, and it falls on the public to deal with that. Certainly, I would love to set up a system, and I think we have a lot of stewardship systems in place at various levels of government, to help deal with that sort of thing now. However, we cannot just leave these abandoned oil wells because we think somebody else should have dealt with it; we need to deal with it. That is where a lot of the money is coming from when the NDP refers to the subsidies in the fossil fuel sector. I respect the fact that the member for Elmwood—Transcona also brought up the fact that some of it had to do with carbon capture. As much as I would like to see us move away from this concept of carbon capture, because I honestly think it looks as though we are now grasping at opportunities to profit from carbon, so there is not going to be an incentive to move away from it. I get that, and I do not see carbon capture as a future, but I realize we are going to be using oil for the foreseeable future in some form or another, because we are not going to be able to flip a switch tomorrow and be completely off of oil. In the meantime, if there is something we can do to help invest in these technologies to help capture some of that carbon, I am all for exploring the various different options we have out there. As we know, we are in a crisis right now when it comes to our environment. Personally, I do not think we should be picking and choosing which environmental policy is better or worse. We can certainly put them on a scale from what we see as best to worse, but I really think we should be throwing our weight behind as many different opportunities as possible. That is how I see a productive outcome for this. If that means that carbon capture is part of that now, I am okay with it. I want to see us get to a net-zero place, but I realize we might have to find ways to deal with some other forms of carbon in the near future. I also want to talk about the Canada Infrastructure Bank a little, because I know it is a bit of a political lightning rod. I apologize for picking on the member for Elmwood—Transcona, but he was the last one to bring it up. He suggested that it is just about buying buses. That is not the case. I would encourage the member, all members, and the public for that matter, to go to the website cib-bic.ca to see the various different projects that are being funded by the Infrastructure Bank, everything from Alberta irrigation to Algoma Steel retrofits and hydroelectric expansion. Yes, there are buses in there, but there is so much more in addition to that, such as upgrades to terminals, increases in broadband, highway improvements, retrofits with respect to various different large-scale operations, fibre links, particularly in indigenous communities, and the list goes on. They suggest that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is there only to help municipalities get electric buses, and yes, that is one of the things in there. I imagine, out of the billions of dollars that have been allocated and spent from there, that it is a tiny fraction of it when we add it all up, because there are so many other very important projects happening. I hate the thought that we are trying to diminish the value of this bank, specifically for political gain. Public transportation, green infrastructure, broadband, trade and transportation, clean power and indigenous infrastructure are the main objectives of the Canada Infrastructure Bank and what the bank is able to fund and move forward on. Members do not have to remember the website, but just google “Canada Infrastructure Bank”. They will get to the website almost immediately and see the projects going on in all the different provinces within Canada. The other thing that I have heard relates directly back to the estimates because, quite frankly, the supports that the government has been moving forward with over the last couple of years and continues to in this budget are to help Canadians deal with the rise in costs and, in particular, the cost of living increases. We are focused on providing supports to those who need them the most, rather than trying to provide blanket tax reductions like the Conservatives were calling for earlier today with the removal of GST on certain products. We believe that it is most important not to attempt to apply the same tax reduction on everybody or provide boutique tax credits. As we know, we got rid of the boutique tax credits that Stephen Harper had before, because our focus is more on helping those who need it the most. Guess what? When we help those who need it the most, does anyone know what they are doing with that money? They are not putting it in tax-free savings accounts; they are actually spending the money, and the money continues to generate economic activity in our communities, our provinces and throughout the country. It is a win-win. It is not just about giving supports to those who need it the most. It is also about helping to generate economic activity, because we know the individuals who need the money the most are those who will be spending it. One of the huge misconceptions in this place, at least as it comes from the Conservatives in this direction, that I have heard repeatedly over the last number of weeks is with respect to the rates of inflation. If we were only to listen to Conservatives, we would think that inflation was a Canada-only problem. Inflation is a problem right now throughout the globe. In fact, Canada is below the OECD average when it comes to inflation. We are actually doing better in terms of inflation than most developed countries in the world. I do not want to suggest for a second that that means people are not struggling with the rising cost of living. What I am trying to say is that this government is absolutely committed to doing whatever it can to bring those costs back down for Canadians, so that people can see some relief from those rises in costs. I will conclude by saying that I strongly believe that the direction the government has been moving in in its budgets, what it did with supports during COVID and how it supported businesses and individuals coming out of COVID through the various measures, have all been to the good. Have they led to some economic challenges? Yes, and we have certainly seen that throughout the world, in other developed countries as well. Is the government focused right now on turning its attention to dealing with the affordability crisis that is happening with many people? Absolutely, and this budget goes to that. The elements contained within the estimates go to supporting Canadians, because we genuinely believe that a stronger economy is going to happen only when we have a strong middle class in place and people are able to prop up and support our economy and keep it moving forward.

1428 words

All Topics

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Jun/7/22 8:46:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in our previous interaction, the NDP member for Elmwood—Transcona was pretty clear that the NDP was unable to negotiate or, at least, he implied that the NDP was unable to negotiate the Canada mental health transfer into their agreement on the budget. The Liberal platform clearly promised $250 million in 2021-22 and $625 million in 2022-23 for a Canada mental health transfer. I am wondering if the hon. member can tell us why the Liberals would have rejected that in the 2022 budget.

89 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/7/22 8:46:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not have the specifics as to why the exact budgetary items are in there, but what I will say is that, back to the exchange with the member for Elmwood—Transcona, the NDP, as we can see, through the exchanges that I have had with its members and the exchanges that we see during question period from time to time, there is still some animosity there, for lack of a better expression, with respect to where we see the end goal. What the NDP was able to do in that supply and confidence agreement is that it was able to say that there were a few issues that it was very passionate about, that it was going to bring those to the table and that it was going to push and advance its objectives on behalf of Canadians. If only the Conservatives had done the same thing, this member may have, if we had a supply and confidence agreement with the Conservatives, been able to push forward that agenda. I wonder if he brought that up in a similar discussion with the Conservatives.

188 words

Hon. Mike Lake

Jun/7/22 8:47:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, just based on the conversation, surely if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to allow me to table page 75 from the Liberal platform, which promises for a Canada mental health transfer under new investments—

45 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/7/22 8:47:56 p.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member knows that this is not a point of order. The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

27 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Jun/7/22 8:48:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the speech my colleague opposite just gave was mainly about the government's management of the pandemic. In any case, that is what I heard. He boasted about doing a very good job. He might think so, but I am not certain that everyone agrees. I certainly do not. I think that seniors were among those who were abandoned during the pandemic. It is important for my colleague opposite to acknowledge that fact, because the government does not have a great track record when it comes to seniors. I would like to know why the government abandoned seniors. Other than sending them a small cheque before the election, the Liberals cut them dead.

115 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/7/22 8:48:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, speaking of track records, the Bloc Québécois quite often, through unanimous consent motions, voted in favour of all of those supports for Canadians. This member and, if memory serves me correctly, the Bloc even, on a couple of occasions that were not unanimous consent motions, in particular in the last Parliament, supported these measures. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and he might be having regrets, but the reality of the situation is that he voted in favour of it. For him to be so critical at this point, it would have been great if he was able to share some of that foresight with the government that he suddenly has now, in advance of the money being spent, when he voted in favour of it.

133 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 8:49:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning the infrastructure bank in a positive way. We have heard many comments through tonight's debate that the infrastructure bank is seen by some members as negative. In terms of infrastructure investment and closing the gap on infrastructure, attracting private capital and using the expertise from private and public partnerships, the hon. member was a mayor of a major city in Canada and knows the limitations that municipal governments have around infrastructure. Could the member speak to the importance of having these types of innovative investments in our infrastructure in Canada?

100 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/7/22 8:50:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a revolutionary way of building infrastructure. I think of the third crossing of the Cataraqui River, which is a 1.4-kilometre-long bridge that is three and a half years into production, to be done later this fall in my riding of Kingston. It was the exact same idea, although not funded through this particular bank. It was a partnership between all three levels of government and the contractor. They would come together and they risk-managed together. They developed the project together. They will build the project together. They will deal with changes in the supply and availability of steel or concrete, for example, and they will deal with it all together. It is, quite frankly, a revolutionary way, in my opinion, having been in that position, of working on large-scale infrastructure projects where municipalities, in particular, are very hesitant to go it on their own, because they might not have the experience in it or they might not have the ability to deal with cost overruns, for example. It truly is, at least in my community, making a big difference.

188 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 8:51:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House to discuss the main estimates this evening and share my constituents' perspectives. There are several important initiatives worth highlighting, but my focus this evening will be on three specific areas. I believe these ideas are important for our country. I want to talk about the agricultural sector first. One in eight jobs in this country is related to our agricultural sector, from Newfoundland to British Columbia and all points in between, particularly in rural areas, but also in urban settings. The importance of this sector cannot be underestimated. I am delighted to see investments to support and help develop our wine sector. My riding is home to several vineyards producing world-class vines. In fact, our Tidal Bay vineyards are attracting attention for their quality. I encourage my colleagues to try some of our wines. Perhaps I can even bring some to Ottawa. Of course, I am also speaking to all Canadians who may be watching what is going on in the House tonight. Supply management is extremely important. Our government has signalled its intent to fairly compensate supply-managed farmers in the fall economic update. In my riding, Kings—Hants, there are roughly 200 or 300 supply-managed farms. Kings—Hants currently has the largest concentration of that type of farm east of Quebec and among the Atlantic provinces. I am concerned by the fact that some members of the Conservative Party are openly suggesting that we dismantle the system. In light of the global crisis and the concerns about the importance of protecting the sustainability and capacity to produce food, I think that supply management is very important for domestic production capacity. It is important to distinguish between the position of some parliamentarians and that of the government, which is very supportive of supply management. I am also very proud of the work of our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for several reasons, but especially for two reasons. I am proud of the significant improvements to our business risk management programs. The Harper government made cuts to those programs, which are very important to our farmers and producers. In November 2020, the minister announced federal funding to remove the reference margin limit. The provinces and the territories will also contribute to ensuring that the programs are improved. We also now have federal funding to increase the compensation rate from 70% to 80%. I am not certain about the current status of that initiative, but I think some provinces, like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, are opposed to it. Nevertheless, I am very proud of the work that the minister and our government have done to make sure that the federal leadership fund is being showcased. I also think the new Canadian agricultural partnership is important. Every five years, the provinces and territories, in collaboration with the Government of Canada, create programs within a certain framework and funds to support our farmers. It is very important to increase the funds available for this partnership and these programs. I understand that there is a possibility that the government will set aside these funds in the 2023 budget. This is a very important point for all members of the House, especially members representing rural ridings. I think it is also important, when we talk about agriculture, to talk about the war in Ukraine, and I have talked at great length about this and about global food insecurity. Indeed, we are studying it right now at the agriculture committee, but I think that, although there might not be any explicit mention in the estimates about this, it is something all parliamentarians should be seized with. We have a responsibility and a way that we can lead. This issue is not going to be just a 2022 issue. This will be a two-, three- or five-year period, in terms of the critical infrastructure. We heard from Yulia Klymenko, one of the members of parliament in Ukraine, about how Russia is systematically targeting crucial infrastructure that relates to agriculture. We do not build that overnight. Yes, of course we need to be there to support Ukraine, but the consequences of Russia's illegal invasion are going to be felt for quite some time. I think Canada has a role and a responsibility to continue to be there to support Ukraine, as we have, and to consider ways in which we can do even more in the days ahead and how our industry can respond. That is point number one. Let us go to point number two: regulatory reform, modernization and reducing internal trade barriers. I do not think this is a very sexy topic, per se. It is not always discussed at great length here in the House, but it is crucially important as a tool for public policy. My predecessor, Scott Brison, served as the President of the Treasury Board. I know there are a number of initiatives that the government has taken on. Budget 2022, along with the main estimates, does have some areas in which the government will be looking at those measures. I think we can do even more. I think we need to get serious about how we create a culture in the Government of Canada around how we can better regulate industries, how we can modernize our practices in service delivery and how we can put forward a regulatory environment that is not command and control. It has often been said, but if I went to the best baker in Montreal, in Madam Speaker's region of the country, I would not say to the baker, “Here is the recipe; build this cake”. I would say, “You are the baker and here is how I want the cake to look. I want it to have chocolate icing. I want it be soft and delicious,” and I would set the outcomes of what I want, and then the baker would tell me how he or she is going to build that cake. That is how we should be looking at regulations and how we move forward on those regulations. We should let individuals and organizations show us the pathway to the outcomes we expect, as opposed to a command-and-control type of format. There are internal trade barriers. I just mentioned the world-class wines in Nova Scotia. It is easier for my producers to get them to France and to Europe than it is to Ontario. We are a country. We have to be able to work on reducing those types of barriers. Again, this is very technical stuff, but it is important. Labour mobility is an important element as well. Last, I will say a couple of things about the importance of innovation, competitiveness and long-term economic success. I think we have a tremendous capacity in critical minerals. I was pleased to see the exploration tax credit. I would love to see more work on the Atlantic loop and advancing that project for a clean-energy future in Atlantic Canada. There is money that is set aside for those types of grid investments. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House and indeed the government to advance those. The final thing I will say is about small modular reactors. They are extremely important for our energy future for lowering emissions. I will leave it at that, because I know we want to get to questions. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues here tonight.

1266 words

All Topics

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:01:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I took particular interest when the member was talking about interprovincial trade barriers, and I appreciate his comments on that. I know we have the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the government has been working on that. The last time it disclosed its annual report was back in 2021. We have not seen the report that ends March 2022. It has not been disclosed yet on the website. I wonder if the member can explain, since he is in the government, some of the recent activities the government has been working on to eliminate some of the interprovincial trade barriers.

102 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/7/22 9:02:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is in the mandate letter of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I sit in the government caucus but I am certainly not in the Privy Council, so with regard to extreme details on what conversations are being had intimately with provincial counterparts or territorial counterparts, I do not have information. I do know this is on the government's radar. I also know that, particularly as it relates to labour mobility, there is going to be a focus in that domain. Obviously, I would like to see that extend to certain agriculture products as well. Again, these are very technical terms, but the Senate report suggests that if we can eliminate those barriers, 2% to 4% GDP growth can be accomplished. It is important. I will continue to work with the member opposite to advance these principles.

140 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Jun/7/22 9:03:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting when my colleague across the way mentioned that he did not have all the information on the decisions the government makes since he is not a member of the Privy Council. In that context, and since he will be in caucus tomorrow, I wonder if he will have the opportunity to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities why the government is not respecting the bilateral agreements it signed with the provinces.

81 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/7/22 9:03:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. The question is quite vague. If the member wants me to raise a question with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, I will. I think that the Government of Canada has a very strong relationship with the provinces and territories, especially Quebec. Given the pandemic and the initiatives to help the health care systems and networks, among other things, the relationship between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories is very solid.

86 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 9:04:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his use of French in the House. I thank the interpreters for helping me understand the member's speech. I wish I were half as good as he is. I want to dive into the environmental piece. You ended on small modular reactors—

52 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/7/22 9:04:50 p.m.
Watch

I have to remind the hon. member that I did not end on anything.

14 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

Jun/7/22 9:04:54 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I started talking to him instead of you. The hon. member ended his speech on small modular reactors and the investments we are making in clean growth and clean technology, things that agriculture is benefiting from through our clean growth hub. There are also expenditures for helping to get Canada to the next level of clean technology. Could the hon. member mention how the estimates we are dealing with tonight are going to help us move forward in this area?

85 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/7/22 9:05:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Guelph has been a strong champion, for a number of Parliaments now, in advancing the very issues that he just talked about. He could very well speak to the House in great detail on them because I know he is very knowledgeable. There are a couple of things I will say. The critical minerals strategy we are advancing is extremely important for clean growth and clean technology. We talk about EVs. We talk about a transition to a low-carbon economy. Critical minerals play an important role in that. The 30% exploration tax credit is extremely important and so too is the strategy. I will reiterate the importance of regulatory reform to drive innovation in some of these different technologies. I am proud of the work that our government has done on this file. It is important for economic success. It is important for fighting climate change. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they have to run together even more.

168 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:06:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-4

Madam Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to start by congratulating my colleague from Kings—Hants on his French. He delivered half his speech in French earlier, and it was really impressive. I want to congratulate him and encourage all my colleagues to learn the second official language. By “second official language”, I do not mean that French is the second official language, but it is the second language of an English speaker. In my case, English is my country's second official language. I just wanted to make that clear. We are here to talk about budget items and votes for various departments, including Justice Canada. As we all know, my colleague from Fundy Royal moved a motion about that department. As a result, we are talking about judicial processes, the administration of justice in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and decisions that affect everyone. More specifically, I want to talk about a decision handed down a few weeks ago that had broad repercussions across the country, especially in the region where I am from, Quebec City. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a law on consecutive sentencing that had been duly passed by this Parliament in 2011 and had been in force until the Supreme Court's ruling. This decision is in connection with the Quebec City mosque tragedy that occurred on January 29, 2017. I will recap those sad events. Anyone who was directly or indirectly affected by this incident remembers exactly where they were when they heard the news. People were gathered at the mosque, united by their faith, their charity and the communion of spirit, when a crazed gunman, a nameless criminal, walked in and emptied his gun, killing six men at that mosque. Our thoughts are with the 19 injured worshippers who survived, and with the loved ones of the six people who lost their lives. At the end of the trial, the Hon. François Huot, the trial judge, handed down a 40-year sentence, which might have surprised some people. As I was saying earlier, a law had been passed by Parliament allowing for cumulative sentences. A criminal who killed three people would be sentenced to three times 25 years. I want to say that this is a Canadian law. All too often, I have heard people refer to it as a Conservative law. This law was passed by a Conservative government, but it was kept in place by the current government. To be more specific, the 2011 law was applied up until 2015 by the Conservative government, for more than three and a half years. However, this law remained in force from 2015 until the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is almost seven years. Therefore, this law was accepted and applied by the current Liberal government for almost twice as long as the previous Conservative government. I wanted to clarify that because, as I was drafting this speech, I came across articles that described the law as a relic of the Harper era, as though that were a bad thing. God knows Canada sure had some good years when the Conservative government was running the country. If the Liberals hated the law so much, all they had to do was set it aside and repeal it, just as they did in other cases. In fact, during this government's first months in power, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, our leader at the time, gave me the tremendous responsibility of being our party's labour critic. In that capacity, I spoke to Bill C‑4, which repealed two laws governing transparency and democracy in unions, laws that had been passed under the previous Conservative government. The duly elected Liberal government had made a campaign promise to repeal those two laws. Having won a majority, it introduced a bill and repealed them. However, the Liberal government chose to maintain the consecutive sentencing law that is still attributed to the Harper era. Let us get back to the sequence of events. Justice François Huot pronounces a final guilty verdict and imposes a prison sentence of 40 years, in other words, 25 years plus 15 years. He rewrites Canada's cumulative sentencing law as he sees fit, noting that he was uncomfortable with the “25 years plus 25 years plus 25 years” approach. He says himself in his ruling that he adapted the law as he saw fit and imposed a sentence of 40 years. It was a fairly extensive document, 246 pages long. He also examined the case law in more than 195 countries. The Court of Appeal was asked to review that ruling. It struck it down. The three judges found that this was a bad piece of legislation, that it was unconstitutional. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled against this law, saying that it was totally unfair, unconstitutional and ultimately—and I am paraphrasing here—had no place in the Canadian judicial process. One can disagree with a law, even a law that has been upheld by the Liberal government. However, there is a reality when it comes to crime, when it comes to murder, or what we call mass murder. I dislike that expression, but there is no doubt what it means: a compulsive killer emptying a gun on innocent victims. We have seen it too many times in our country. Once is one time too many. Having been through the mosque attack—I knew some of the people—I say we must think of the victims. This is about more than just the court case, the robes and the Supreme Court. It is about more than the legal process and the courts. We are talking about men and women who are suffering. I would like to read an article by Dominique Lelièvre that was published in the Journal de Québec on Friday, May 27, just a few hours after the Supreme Court decision. The author quotes survivors and victims' loved ones: Orphans of the Sainte-Foy mosque may pass their father's killer on the streets of Quebec City 20 years from now, laments the Muslim community, which is disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision.... “In our opinion, this ruling does not consider the magnitude of the atrocity and the scourge of mass killings proliferating in North America, nor does it recognize the hateful, Islamophobic and racist nature of the crime,” said Mohamed Labidi, president of the organization [the CCIQ], at the mosque on Sainte-Foy Road where six worshippers were brutally gunned down in January 2017. “Although we are disappointed in this decision by the highest court in the land, it does enable us to close this legal chapter. Now we want to focus on the future.” What troubles the survivors and the victims' loved ones most is that the children of these victims might one day encounter the murderer. “That is the biggest fear of the victims' families. The Parole Board might delay his release and take this into account, but that's our real fear, that the orphans who will become men and women will come face to face with their father's killer when he is free,” said Mr. Labidi. He vowed to stand by these children when the time comes.... When contacted by Le Journal, Aymen Derbali, a father who was left severely disabled after miraculously surviving being shot seven times during the attack, said that he “respects” the court's decision, although he was “very disappointed” in the ruling. “What worries me as a citizen is that this encourages future criminals to commit mass murder, since the sentence would be the same,” he said. All the same, this decision was the culmination of a long saga that will help him close this painful chapter of his life. He wants to dedicate all of his energy to his family, to his children's future and to his humanitarian aid projects. “I'm turning the page. I started this process a little while ago, but with this decision... Finally, there was a decision. The law will be enforced the same way across Canada,” he said with a sigh. ... Boufeldja Benabdallah, the co-founder of the CCIQ, suggested that the court did not sufficiently account for the pain experienced by the victims' loved ones, compared to the offender's right to rehabilitation. “The Supreme Court made a purely legal observation that, in our opinion, did not take into account the humanity of these families. It took into account the humanity of a murderer who will have to be rehabilitated later on.... Today, it feels like the balance has been upset,” he said. Now that all the legal appeals have been exhausted, he says that he wants to do something worthwhile by continuing to advocate for communal harmony, which he says has grown immensely in the past five years, like a healing balm on the scars of the tragedy. People did not just come the day after the attack but reached out to us over the past five years, and we too made the effort to reach out to them.

1572 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/7/22 9:16:44 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. The subject is really moving. However, we must resume debate. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

22 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83