SoVote

Jun/22/22 8:44:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all of his work on this and other issues. He is my justice critic, and I cherish that relationship. It is a very productive one. The short answer to the question is yes. We will consider any good ideas. There is no question that we moved quickly. We consulted widely. We had an inkling about it from the decision. A number of prominent individuals, professors of law and that sort of thing have been saying for the last 20 years that section 33.1 was problematic. The court itself gave us two possible paths. We chose one of them, the path we thought was the best path, and it remains, therefore, constitutional. We worked quickly. We worked expeditiously. We consulted widely. It is true that there are a few groups who disagree, but not the vast majority. The vast majority of women's groups, victims groups and experts feel that this was the best way to go. Provincial governments and Crown prosecutors all feel this was the best way to go, but we will work in good faith with our colleagues across the aisle in the fall to study this most carefully.

200 words

Context: House Hansard - 94 - Jun/22/22

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/22/22 9:13:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very thoughtful speech, as well as her support of this bill. I want to quote from LEAF: LEAF supports this thoughtful, nuanced, and constitutional legislation to address the narrow gap resulting from the SCC decisions. “If adopted by Parliament, we will be looking to the courts to apply this legislation in a similarly thoughtful way,” says Pam Hrick, Executive Director & General Counsel at LEAF. I am wondering if my friend opposite could comment on this. Based on her concerns about the bill, could the member see how it is so important for us to pass this bill today and have it as law before we rise?

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 94 - Jun/22/22

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/22/22 9:27:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for both his support and his speech. I also look forward to the discussion at committee in the fall on this issue. LEAF, one of the major organizations representing women, said, “LEAF supports this thoughtful, nuanced, and constitutional legislation to address the narrow gap resulting from the [Supreme Court of Canada] decisions.” I wonder if my friend opposite could comment on that. I recognize that there may be some limitations that he identifies, but the general consensus that has been received is that this is a sound bill that is based on consultation with many experts in the field.

107 words

Context: House Hansard - 94 - Jun/22/22

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/22/22 9:55:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, I am not the justice critic, so, unfortunately, I cannot say that I have had the privilege of meeting with women's groups, among others, that might have had a thing or two to say. I opted to focus more on the practical legislative aspect of the issue with my colleagues, some of whom are more knowledgeable about criminal law. They said there may or may not be some room for improvement. Perhaps once the parliamentary committee completes its study, it will conclude that Bill C‑28 is well written. What is important to remember is that we have a Supreme Court ruling explaining why section 33.1 was not constitutional and suggesting an approach for drafting the new bill. What we do not want to do is draft a new bill on behalf of women's groups and others that will also be overturned by the court in the end. We have to keep that in mind.

162 words