44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/7/22 10:58:11 a.m.
- Watch
Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor. I want to make sure I hear her, and I am sure everyone wants to listen to her speech as well. There are comments and questions right after.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 11:34:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the work that he continues to do on international trade.
I did not quite hear the last few seconds of his speech. Is the Bloc Québécois planning to vote against this motion, given what we just heard about the oil companies not needing a break and the Conservative proposals not really going to help Canadians?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 12:02:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was happy to listen to the member opposite's speech, but the NDP has truly fallen far from being the party of hard-working Canadians.
In this motion, we talk about getting rid of restrictions and mandates so people can go back to work. These are people in the public service and the RCMP across this nation. There are three million to four million people who have not been able to go to work.
Also, those same people cannot travel within their own country, yet all this member wants to talk about is big corporations and how they are bad for Canadians and never help Canadians. What we want to do is talk about a few things, and one of which is getting Canadians back to work.
How far has the NDP fallen that its members do not even care if people can provide for their families anymore? This member should be ashamed of that speech.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:14:41 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind members that it is not time for questions and comments yet, but the official opposition will have the first question. I would ask individuals to be mindful of this point until the hon. member has finished his speech.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:20:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and heard him say something we heard earlier today. I would like him to very clear about it. Is he telling the House that the reason the Liberals cannot eliminate, even temporarily, the GST on fuel and the carbon tax, or even just on fuel, is they believe retailers would collude to prevent the tax savings from going to consumers? Yes or no, is that the reason you cannot do this?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:55:20 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
However, I would like to inform him that I will have to interrupt him and that he will be able to continue his speech later this afternoon.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 2:00:06 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, we have to go to Statements by Members. The hon. member will have six minutes when he continues his speech in the House.
I would ask members who are coming in to please keep it down a bit, because parliamentarians are going to be making their statements.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 6:25:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what a refreshing speech today. It is so nice to hear in the House some innovative thinking. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a system that is antiquated and both the government and the official opposition do not have the same kind of thinking, which is why we end up with the type of motion we are dealing with today.
The motion is quick to cut taxes for large corporations while offering nothing in terms of consumer protection from the big corporations that will just go ahead and raise prices above and beyond inflation. Can the member comment on whether he thinks cutting taxes at the pump will stop big oil and gas from simply raising prices, and if this motion is innovative thinking?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 6:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak about where the government has come from, where we are today and where we are moving forward to. I would like to try to amplify a couple of points that I think are really important.
Over the last number of years, what we have witnessed coming from the Conservative Party in particular is a different type of tactic.
I reflect on the speech that the interim leader gave in the House this morning. When she talked about the issue of focus and how the Conservative Party wants to see all of these actions taken and she talked about ideas, what struck me as rather odd was that with regard to what she was talking about, I would not have thought she was the interim leader of the Conservative Party, in terms of wanting to be perceived as being more productive in opposition.
What she was talking about was not reflective of what I have been witnessing in the House over the last number of months, in particular, but even well before that. For the Conservative opposition, their focus has been more about playing a destructive role inside the House of Commons to the degree that they do not want to pass anything. As they put up all sorts of dilatory motions and different types of actions, one gets the opinion that they do not want to see anything pass out of the House.
I have often referred to it as a destructive force inside the chamber, where, on the one hand, they do not want anything to get through and then, on the other hand, they will be critical of the government for not being able to get anything through.
That seems to be one of their areas of focus. The other area has been that of attacking the personalities within the government. They have spent a great deal of time and resources, whether it is, no doubt, financial resources or just resources inside the House, being critical of personalities, particularly those within the cabinet—
347 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
