SoVote

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

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:17:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that may be a first. It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, especially on such an important night in this Parliament. Every day is obviously important, but when we discuss important motions, when we talk about money and confidence votes, it is an extremely important day. Today we are talking about Department of Justice estimates. One thing I want to discuss from the get-go, to lay the groundwork for what I am about to say, and this will likely build upon some of what my colleagues have had to say, is about justice versus criticizing the judiciary. I believe that all of us here want the same thing. All of us obviously want a safe Canada. I cannot look at any member here and think that anyone does not want a safe Canada. That would be nonsense. There are times, though, when I look at the Supreme Court and some court decisions, and I may not agree. There are times when I could look at the court's decisions and I understand how it got to the decision, and while I respect that, I may not agree with the ultimate conclusion. There are times when I look at the court's decision and the logic is unassailable, and it is clear that the right decision was made. Then there are obviously going to be times when we look at a decision and we say to ourselves, “I just do not understand how we got to that decision.” Our role as parliamentarians is unique, because we have this separation of the legislative branch and the judicial branch, but the two go hand in hand. When I was doing my first law degree, one thing I was taught, and I know that some judges do reject this, was that Parliament and the judiciary are in a dialogue, so to speak. The way that this dialogue typically happens is between the courts and Parliament. Generally what will happen is that there is impugned legislation, that legislation is challenged, and if that legislation is challenged and upheld, then there is no dialogue to be had because the courts have said that Parliament got it right. Then there are situations where the court strikes down the legislation, sometimes with a sunset clause, saying there is one year to fix it, or other times when the legislation is simply struck down, saying why the legislation did not meet the constitutional bar. That is where that dialogue frequently happens. Parliament acts, the court interprets the laws, and then it is incumbent on Parliament to act again. The distinction that we are talking about, though, is Parliament acting. How should Parliament act? Some people may say that is criticizing a decision. My respectful view is that it is not, because what we are doing here is that we are actually part of that dialogue, part of that law-making component that is so special and so central to this place. This is my recollection, and I think I'm going back to 1994 here, when I was still in high school, but that is how section 33.1, which was struck down a little while ago, actually came to be in its form that was, again, struck down. Again, we are going back 15 or 20 years, so please do not quote me on that law. I am also mindful of the Chief Justice's recent comments about the politicization of the courts. We need to be able to have a candid discussion about what legislation should flow from the Supreme Court's decision, perhaps not about the merits of the case but whether we are comfortable with the outcomes of a decision that is predicated on the legislation. I gave an intervention a week ago and that intervention was about the fact that I thought Parliament should be acting because there was a decision that offended my sensibilities when a seven- or eight-year-old was abused by a parent. That mother avoided jail and was given a community-based sentence. In doing that, my goal was not to necessarily say what this judge should have done, and I did not name the judge for a reason. I do not think that is the way we should be doing it. The point was to ask whether we should be looking at the legislation that led to this outcome. This outcome is based on legislation. There is a question, and a very live question in my mind, about whether we should be questioning that. That is one of the issues I have today. The point is this: How should Parliament respond to these decisions that some may agree with and some may not agree with? The cases I am going to look at are the Sullivan and Brown grouping of decisions. Those are the extreme intoxication decisions. There is a case about consecutive sentences for parole eligibility, although I think the extreme intoxication cases are a little different from my view. Right now, we do not have a law in place because it has been struck down, but the upshot is that, based on the court's decision, a person can avoid criminal liability based on extreme intoxication. This was always the case for murder because a person has to specifically intend to kill somebody or cause grievous bodily harm and be reckless as to the outcome. That is a specific-intent offence. The point is that a person who voluntarily consumed drugs no longer in this case could have the intent to kill or intent to have any criminality. This is what I find interesting and this is what I want to focus on. The courts have acted. How should Parliament respond? In my view, the court, at paragraph 12, laid out a road map for us, and it said: Parliament did not enact a new offence of dangerous intoxication, nor did it adopt a new mode of liability for existing violent offences based on a proper standard of criminal negligence. With the utmost respect, I am bound to conclude the path Parliament chose in enacting s. 33.1 was not, from the point of view of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, constitutionally compliant. What I found interesting on my reading of that, and others may disagree and that is fine, is that it is almost as though the court is giving us a road map here of criminal negligence. That is what it seems to me. I have not watched the debate, but it is something I want to do and I was recently encouraged to do it. This very point, from what I can gather, was hit on about the foreseeability of these consequences of self-induced intoxication, followed by subsequent violence. I hope we all agree in this place that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The problem is that it has not yet been addressed. I was one of four signatories on a letter to the government saying we will work with the government to address this and to address it as soon as possible. Frankly, I would have liked to see legislation tabled within a week or two of this. I am mindful of the justice minister's comments saying that they are looking at it, but this is critical. A lot of victims groups and women's groups have sounded the alarm, and for good reason. This is an important issue that really needs to be dealt with. Sometimes we talk about virtue signalling. This is one case where we, as a united House, should be signalling to the public and to potential victims that we are prepared to cover this legislative gap. I will close with this. If the government does wish to act, I will be prepared to help in a non-partisan way. I believe the other three signatories would be prepared to act in a non-partisan way. We are expending hundreds of millions of dollars when it comes to the administration of justice. This is one area that I have chosen to focus on that, in my view, has a gap. There are other gaps that we can get into, like Bill C-5 and things like that. However, this is one of the areas that I invite the government to consider when it is considering its spending and what it is doing in its legislative agenda.

1423 words

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

Jun/7/22 9:26:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the member's perspective on the role of the court being a sacred institution within our democratic process. Most importantly, we need to maintain a certain degree and level of respect of the court, and to work with the court. I do not disagree with his comments that our job is to help and react when it comes to making better legislation based on, perhaps, an outcome from the court. Does he apply the same logic to other institutions within government or at arm's length from government? Does he see the same value in ensuring that we hold these institutions and the fundamental objective of the institution in high regard as well, so as to not publicly go after, criticize and try to jeopardize those institutions, such as the Bank of Canada?

138 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:28:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had no idea that my hon. colleague was going in that direction with that preamble. Obviously, I come from a legal background, and I do agree with my colleague that the courts are sacrosanct and that we have arm's-length relationships. However, what the member is getting at is something that has been an issue in an active leadership race and, frankly, it would be imprudent for me to weigh in on this.

77 words

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:28:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. It was very thoughtful, and it touched on a number of really important points. There seems to be a perception among some that a decision is rendered and that is the end of the discussion. However, my colleague mentioned a charter dialogue, the appropriateness of Parliament responding and our doing our job on something that I feel, and many feel, needs to be addressed, which is this issue of a self-induced intoxication defence.

85 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:29:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an incredibly important question. My colleague raises the point about the court decision being the end of it. It is not the end of it. It is the end of the beginning, because now we move on to the next phase. The next phase is how Parliament should intervene. Parliament creates the laws, and the courts interpret them. The courts interpret law A a certain way. Now we move to law B. Law A was the beginning, and law B is the next step. It is fundamentally important that we not only understand where we were, but where we are going. Where we need to go on the issue of self-induced intoxication is with a constitutionally compliant law, perhaps rooted in criminal negligence, that ultimately protects victims and vulnerable people from situations of which we are obliged to protect them.

145 words

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

Jun/7/22 9:30:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really want to ask the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo a question that relates to events today in British Columbia regarding events that happened in his riding. That, of course, is the finding of the coroner that the over 600 people who died from the heat dome last summer were in fact preventable deaths. I know that the hon. member is thoughtful, and I know this is not the topic of his speech, but I wonder if he has any thoughts on those findings. Certainly, for me, it rings a bell with negligence in allowing so many British Columbians to die without proper warning and without proper aid.

114 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:30:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all candour, I have not had a chance to review the coroner's report. However, I did see something tangentially, in passing, in the news. I cannot pass any judgment. The fact that people died in a heat dome is difficult for all of us. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all of those people. We never want to see this again. My hope is that if there is anything we can do as parliamentarians to assist in that regard, let us do it. However, a lot of that will fall to the province as well.

100 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83