SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 118 - Oct/26/22

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Oct/26/22 4:40:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the next petition comes from Canadians from across Canada who would like a review conducted by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, which found no information regarding the transmission of COVID on airplanes. They also note that WestJet's chief medical officer, Tammy McKnight, noted that there were no known cases on board Canadian aircraft. They note as well that an International Air Transport Association study found that out of 1.2 billion air traffic passengers, there were only 44 cases of COVID-19 reported on in-flight transmission. Countries around the world have removed their vaccine mandates and restrictions. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to abolish vaccine mandates rather than just suspending them, and abolish all COVID vaccine mandates and restrictions.

128 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Oct/26/22 4:46:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the final petition comes from Canadians from across Canada who are concerned about the health and safety of firearms owners and users in this country. Highly damaging noise levels have repeatedly reached the ears of firearms users despite traditional hearing protections. Section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes an individual's right to health and safety. The use of a sound moderator is the only universally recognized health and safety device, but it is criminally prohibited in Canada. We are the only one of the G7 countries that fails to recognize the health and safety benefits of the use of sound moderators by hunters and sports shooters. As affirmed in the Bedford v. Canada case, one cannot be prevented from taking reasonable steps to improve their personal safety. The petition also states that sound moderators reduce noise pollution and noise complaints within communities close to shooting ranges, in rural and farming communities and in areas for recreational activities where hunting, sport shooting and target shooting are legal. The use of sound moderators significantly increases the humane husbandry of game animals, livestock and pets as hunting companions. Hearing damage is a significant loss to the quality of life. This public health issue is costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.

214 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 4:46:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

12 words

Stand
Ask

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/26/22 4:46:45 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/26/22 4:46:45 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Repentigny on a point of order.

10 words

Repentigny

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/26/22 4:46:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the discussion. The interpreter is indicating that since we do not have access to the usual interpretation system, when there is too much noise or too many conversations, she has a hard time hearing the member speaking and interpreting their comments. Accordingly, the House needs to be quieter than usual.

57 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/26/22 4:47:18 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for sharing that message from the interpreters. Often when there are problems it is hard to find solutions. The current solution is to try to stay quiet during members' speeches. I thank the hon. member for her intervention.

43 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 4:47:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

18 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/26/22 4:47:57 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 4:48:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

moved: That, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

108 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/26/22 4:49:37 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period. The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

62 words

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

Oct/26/22 4:50:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the irony today, as we are now debating Bill C-9, is that we see the government invoking closure when this legislation could have already been in place. Had we not had an unnecessary pandemic election, it most certainly would have been in place. While the minister is here, I want to ask a question with respect to our justice system and the recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. There are many victims and their families who have spoken out about the need to respond to the ruling that values each and every life that is taken when there is a case of mass murder in Canada. These cases are rare, but they do happen. The families of victims have said they do not want to go through the burden and retraumatization that is involved with parole hearings. Sharlene Bosma appeared at our justice committee and spoke eloquently about how she was grateful that her daughter would not have to attend parole hearings to keep her father's killer behind bars, where he belongs, having killed three individuals. I would ask the minister if he has consulted with the families of victims on a possible government response to this very unfortunate ruling.

209 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 4:52:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fundy Royal, and my critic, for his question. It is an important one. Obviously, our hearts go out to the Bosmas, to the victims of the Quebec City mosque massacre and others who have been impacted by this ruling by the Supreme Court. I remind the hon. member that, as the Attorney General, we defended the previous legislation in front of the Supreme Court, allowing judges the discretion to have consecutive sentences and building our argument on that. That argument was rejected. It is not that the sentencing was changed; these people are still serving consecutive sentences, but what the court has added is that there is a possibility of parole at various points in time. I would remind the House that eligibility for parole is not the same as parole. A life sentence is a long time, and a parole hearing, yes, is still there. I know that has a negative impact on the families if they choose to come and testify again. It was a nine to nothing decision, which was a serious statement by the Supreme Court of Canada. We will work with victims to support them. We have recently appointed a new ombudsperson to help, although the office remained open during the period of time we were searching to fill that role, and I think we can move forward in supporting victims, but recognizing the very clear ruling of the Supreme Court.

244 words

All Topics

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

Oct/26/22 4:54:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, very recently, the Canadian Judicial Council implored this House to pass the Bill C-9 amendments to the Judges Act. I wonder if the minister could outline the need for this act, the urgency, and why there is a delay in its passage, given that we have had a number of days of debate on this bill.

59 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 4:54:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for all the work that he does in helping to support not only me in my role as Minister of Justice, but also all colleagues through the justice committee and his interactions with colleagues, which I think colleagues on the other side of the House will unanimously say is positive. This bill is about judges' maintaining their independence but also maintaining the ability to discipline themselves in cases where the behaviour of a judge will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The legislation itself was 50 years old. It was taken on by the Canadian Judicial Council, the council of all the chief justices of federally appointed courts across Canada, and reformed. A process was created that was not only fair in terms of hearing all sides, but also streamlined in terms of its appeal routes. We have seen very recently a case in which a judge fought tooth and nail and sought judicial review at every step of the way, costing a lot of money and a lot of time. Then, before the House had the opportunity to censure that judge, he resigned with his pension. Therefore, we have a more streamlined process, a fair process and one with clear routes of appeal. It is designed by justices who, quite frankly, were fed up that their reputation was being brought into disrepute, so we have a better system, a less costly system and a fairer system. For that reason, it is important. It was in front of the Senate in the previous Parliament. Senators made some minor changes to the bill, technical changes that are very acceptable and have now taken their place in the new iteration of the bill. It is long overdue. The justices want it. The Canadian Judicial Council asked us again this fall to get it going, so here we are.

320 words

All Topics

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

Oct/26/22 4:56:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I am restricting my comments right now to the issue of time allocation. I will oppose time allocation in every instance, unless the circumstances are truly exigent. I first served in this place when Stephen Harper's government had a majority and, for the first time in parliamentary history, closure motions such as this became routine. We lamented it at the time. At the time, we, including the Liberal third party members and the New Democrats, all lamented and opposed the fact that, when I counted it up, there had been more closure motions in the previous 40 days than in the previous 40 years. We kept counting them up and seeing how egregious this was. I will oppose closure motions except in a case in which we see that Canadians are desperate for financial help and we are slowing something down. This bill is very much needed. With respect to the case that was just referred to by the hon. justice minister, the judge was someone who, two weeks before being appointed to the bench, was caught on video buying cocaine. This is not someone we want on the bench, but the current state of the rights of a judge to keep going through appeals lasts a long time. I agree that it is egregious. The bill should be passed, but not at the cost of our democracy.

231 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 4:58:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her passion and her principle. It is a principle I agree with. There comes a time when there is not the level of co-operation needed in the House on a variety of different bills, and in order to better serve Canadians we need to set limits on debate. When debate becomes just repeating the same thing over and over again on a variety of different bills, when the opposition is opposing simply to oppose rather than to be constructive, then we are here, using time allocation as a mechanism. I do not like it either. On the other hand, I see the need to get this bill done. The chief justice has come out publicly, as have other chief justices. We saw the time and costs that were involved in the case the hon. member referred to. The bill is something that all or most of us will agree on and that we ought to pass quickly. I implore our colleagues to do just that.

174 words

All Topics

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

Oct/26/22 4:59:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to pick up on what my colleague from Fundy Royal asked the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. He was talking about the decision with respect to parole ineligibility and whether that should be consecutive or concurrent at 25 years. The Minister of Justice, from what I could surmise, was essentially saying that the government is not going to be introducing legislation to respond to that court decision. That is disappointing. Would the Minister of Justice then support legislation to perhaps extend the time between parole hearings? This is something people like Ms. Bosma have talked about as victimizing or revictimizing them in the process. Will the Minister of Justice support extending the period between parole hearings from two years for those serving life in prison to, perhaps, five years?

153 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 5:00:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee and on justice issues generally. I recognize the sincere place from which this question comes. I have always said publicly that I am never closed to a good idea. That being said, the margin for manoeuvre in a nine to nothing Supreme Court of Canada decision, which is very clear, is pretty minimal. There are a lot of needles that would have to be threaded in order for that kind of proposition to be possible.

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 5:01:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the issue of the need for time allocation. Earlier today, for example, I tried to get unanimous consent to have an additional 30 minutes. We have seen the government approach the opposition to be able to have literally hours and hours and hours of debate, and it has been rejected. Where we have found ourselves is that unless we are prepared to bring in time allocation, if the opposition does not want to pass legislation, it just has to put up speakers indefinitely and, in other words, give no indication that it will actually pass the legislation. Unfortunately, at times, without using the tool of time allocation, legislation would not pass. That is what we have been seeing over the last number of years. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in that respect.

144 words

All Topics