44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 2, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/2/23 11:57:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but reflect on the fact that there have been at least three pieces of legislation brought in by the former Harper government with mandatory minimum sentences that have been struck down by the court. I guess the only way to go around that is either to rewrite the charter or use the notwithstanding clause. It seems that the Conservatives keep bringing forward legislation that is clearly infringing upon people's charter rights. Would the member be willing to share his thoughts on what a charter of rights developed by the Conservative Party would look like?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 12:17:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the Conservative approach. What we know about the Conservative approach as it relates to their “tough on crime” legislation is that on multiple occasions the Supreme Court has shot down their legislation saying that it is unconstitutional and infringes upon charter rights. In fact, Bill C-75 only mirrors exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled.
In order for the Conservatives to use their approach, they would have to do one of two things: either invoke the notwithstanding clause or change the charter in a way that suits their ability to bring forward the legislation they want. My question for the Leader of the Opposition is quite simple. If he was the Prime Minister and wanted to bring in this legislation, which of those two choices would he do? Would he change the charter or would he use the notwithstanding clause?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 12:36:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the speech given by the member and, indeed, the comments made by several Conservatives today, they have been citing statistics that I cannot seem to find anywhere. They said that they are from Statistics Canada. However, based on the numbers they have been talking about with respect to crime rates and whatnot, I am unable to locate the information.
Can the member restate exactly what those numbers are and exactly where I can find them so that I can look at them myself?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 12:53:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Conservative fundraising motion. Why do I say that? It is not that I do not think this is an extremely serious issue. I do, and I will get to that in a second, but I feel as though the Conservative Party is taking a serious issue and exploiting it for its own gain.
We all know the Conservatives pretty much came into the room knowing this motion would not be supported by a majority of parliamentarians, but they are looking forward to the opportunity to use it in a fundraising email blast, probably later this evening, or something of that sort. It is extremely disingenuous when we treat the House of Commons this way. I do not think it was ever intended to be used this way, but unfortunately we see the Conservatives doing that more and more.
To start, bail reform, as we know and as we have been hearing from leaders throughout the country, is a very important thing we need to tackle. That is why the Minister of Justice met with leaders back in October and committed to working with them. That is why he is meeting with them again in February. That is why he will work with them to make the genuine reforms they are looking for and need in order to increase public safety. In my opinion, he is genuinely working toward an objective of trying to make Canada a better place and improve the quality of life of all Canadians.
I am disheartened by this motion because, for starters, the first resolve paragraph in it specifically speaks to Bill C-75 and directs the government to make changes to Bill C-75. The irony, though, is that Bill C-75 was brought in to fix Harper Conservative legislation on mandatory minimum sentences. At least three pieces of legislative have been struck down by the courts at this point. By bringing in Bill C-75, we mirrored what the courts were saying. The courts were saying that the law infringes upon people's charter rights, that it cannot be imposed on people and that it must be changed.
What would the Charter of Rights look like for the Conservatives? If they continually brought in legislation that was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, would that not imply they would rather have a different Constitution with a different Charter of Rights in it, a Charter of Rights that did not give what ours currently gives? I cannot understand how we could land on any other assumption than that.
In his address today to the House, the Leader of the Opposition specifically talked about the Conservative approach. He outlined what the Conservative approach would be. However, what he did not talk about was that this approach has been struck down repeatedly by the Supreme Court. He has to come clean with Canadians and say how he would deliver on his approach. Would he use the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court? Would he change the Charter or Rights so that it does not look how it looks now? How else would we effectively get the Conservative approach to become legislation that could be upheld and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court?
I find it very confusing and very disingenuous when a motion like this comes in. It has to do with a genuine concern being brought forward by leaders throughout our country, but the Conservatives are utilizing it and piggybacking off it to try to exploit something else they are doing. They are trying to exploit fears and anxiety in order to raise money. That is the only conclusion I can come to. That is why I said that I cannot see the purpose of this motion being anything other than a fundraising tool for the Conservative Party.
The Conservatives talked a lot about Bill C-75 making bail easier. That is not what Bill C-75 was about. As a matter of fact, one of the changes in Bill C-75 made it more difficult for people to get bail. It put the onus on the accused to explain why they should be getting bail. That was specifically related to intimate partner violence.
I keep coming back to this point: Why would the Conservatives intentionally exploit these fears if it was for nothing other than political gain? Time after time, we see this narrative coming forward from the Conservatives. We see them standing up in this House and suggesting that this government is directly responsible for some of the things that were put in Bill C-75, specifically as they relate to reforms, which were only needed because the former Conservative government that put in legislation did so in a way that infringed upon people's charter rights, if we are willing to accept the ruling of the court.
As I said, Bill C-75 did not change the criteria of when an accused person can be released by police, a judge or a justice of the peace. It is important to point that out because we have heard repeatedly from the Conservatives today that this is the case. In fact, as I indicated, we made it harder for some individuals to get bail, especially as it relates to intimate partner violence.
Bill C-75 also imposed what is called a reverse onus, as I indicated, for bail imposed on an accused charged with certain firearms offences. This means that the accused will be detained pending trial unless they can prove that bail is justified.
Bill C-75 was adopted following a binding Supreme Court decision, so the Conservatives' first resolve paragraph in the motion asking that we immediately repeal the elements of Bill C-75 is disingenuous at best, because we were replying to what the court was telling us. The Supreme Court of Canada was telling us this had to be done in order to maintain people's charter rights.
I come back to where I started: What is it going to be? Do the Conservatives believe in the charter? Do they believe in those rights? They keep bringing forward legislation that imposes upon them. Do they believe in them, or would they like to see the charter changed? If they do want to see the charter changed, what would they have it look like? I am very curious about what the Charter of Rights would look like per the definition of the Conservatives and per the legislation they have been bringing forward. What do they see for those rights? It is a legitimate question. We have to get to the bottom of that because it is the underpinning and fundamental document upon which the vast majority of challenges are made.
I will continue to listen to the debate today. I am obviously opposed to this motion, and I am glad to see that the majority of colleagues in the House are coming from the same position. It is the responsible thing to do. We need to make sure we continue to have very important conversations about bail reform with leaders throughout our country who are asking for it. We have to have them in an honest way that genuinely impacts Canadians' lives and makes the lives of Canadians safer in the process.
1222 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 1:02:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government is listening to these groups. Back in October, the justice minister met with leaders throughout our country who were demanding these changes. That is when they initially had a discussion about this. He has indicated in the House today, which I am sure the member for Barrie—Innisfil was present to hear, that those discussions are ongoing and that he would be meeting with them again in February.
The member asks why we will not agree to change Bill C-75, but Bill C-75 was just about fixing the mistakes the previous government made that were identified by the Supreme Court. My colleague from the NDP made a really good point earlier when he said that despite the fact that these laws may have been found unconstitutional 10 or 15 years later, lives were still affected in the meantime. Charter rights were legally infringed upon in the meantime, and that is what the Conservatives would like to see happen. They have no problem at all with seeing that occur.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 1:04:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said he has been listening to the debate all morning. I am assuming he listened to the speech I just gave. I talked at great length about bail reform and how the Minister of Justice has committed to working with those leaders. He met with them in the fall, and he is meeting with them again in February. He is committed to ensuring that we can bring forward the proper legislation and the reforms necessary.
By the way, this is not a bill. This is just a motion. I am very critical of the intent of this and what is behind it. I do not believe that any of the resolved clauses in here would actually make changes that were constitutional, or that would benefit anybody.
I think it is necessary for the conversations to happen at the local levels, the provincial and territorial levels, so the proper reforms can come in.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 1:06:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I had a conversation with the minister just this morning specifically about CBSA officers, and my belief is that we need to ramp them up.
However, I will go back to the member's original comment. Not only did Stephen Harper's government not move forward with laws, it actually cut the CBSA's budget significantly, reducing the number of officers, yet now they seem to be the ones standing here complaining about guns coming across the border. They were literally taking resources away from the CBSA at the time.
I believe that it is important to continue to see the graduation of those officers come through. As the member indicated, it has slowed down since COVID.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 5:31:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:43 p.m. so we can start Private Members' Business.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk at great length about supporting farmers. He said that any measures we are able to come up with we should do expeditiously to provide that support. However, I can not help but reflect on the fact that for Bill C-8, which was specifically intended for and helped 24,000 farmers throughout the country, the Conservative Party and this member put up roadblocks by bringing in various political games to avoid the passage of the bill, a bill that would directly impact and provide supports to farmers.
I am curious if the member can rectify the fact that, although he says it now, that was not what we saw when Bill C-8 was before us, which had support in it for 24,000 farmers.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know how much I can cover in a minute, but I will say that I find it quite interesting that the Conservatives, through this bill, and I recognize it is a private member's bill, have spent a great deal of time talking about the need to support farmers, yet when Bill C-8 was brought into the House, it took quite a while as a result of Conservative partisanship and Conservative games that were being played. That bill, in particular, helped 24,000 farmers throughout Canada. We talk about the need to assist our farmers throughout the country, but when push came to shove and there was an actual piece of government legislation before the House, it was actually Conservatives who were playing endless games in order to prevent the legislation from moving forward.
There is no doubt that farmers are on the front line of the climate crisis—
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
