SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/15/23 11:20:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I was troubled to hear the leader of the official opposition tell the national media that his party intends to use every opportunity to obstruct the work of the chamber and gum up the works of Canadian democracy. It makes it somewhat difficult to understand whether interventions in this place, at this late day in the session, are made in good faith or whether they are indeed part of this effort to slow down the work of our Parliament. Could my dear colleague reflect on Bill C-9 and offer his thoughts on what is going on here when it comes to the Conservatives' interventions?

107 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/15/23 11:21:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is an extraordinarily strong parliamentarian. Every time when he rises in the House to ask a question or to give a speech, I know that everyone listens to him very attentively because he represents his constituents, who inhabit a region as big as France, extremely well. It is just an enormous part of northern British Columbia. They are incredible communities with extraordinary representation. The member does incredible work, and I know that every weekend, he is down in another part of his riding, making sure that he is hearing his constituents. The reality is that this does delay the bill, but we have seen Conservatives blocking dental care, blocking a grocery rebate that thousands of people in each of their ridings would benefit from and blocking affordable housing. All these things that the NDP is pushing the government to do, Conservatives try to block. Blocking dental care is incomprehensible to me. Eleven thousand people on average in a Conservative riding would benefit, including seniors, people with disabilities and families with youth under 18. Conservatives, including the member for Carleton, fought so that Canadians in those Conservative ridings would not have access to dental care. How does it make any sense at all to block something that is in the interests of their constituents?

222 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/15/23 11:22:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to set the record straight. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby was suggesting that my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands was spreading misinformation. I want to read into the record a quote from his colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, from December 9. This was after he came back from committee for third reading, when we voted unanimously. He said: As for the appeal and the fact that the Bloc did not support my amendment to make it to the Federal Court of Appeal, I would just say again that the Supreme Court is likely never going to hear an appeal regarding a judge's disciplinary complaint, because of the very high standard.... At that time, the member was still supporting the motion of the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, and we had a similar motion, to have one appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. That is what his colleague stood for. We were expecting to have support from the NDP on this, because that is the way his colleague was speaking in December.

187 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/15/23 11:23:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was the process that I felt was disinformation. What we have is my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, whom I respect a lot, quoting directly from Hansard. I will certainly look at that quote. I have no reason to doubt his quote. I know he is an honest person. I will look at the blues and come back to him in due time.

66 words

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

Jun/15/23 11:24:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, before I start my comments on the bill, I want to recognize a terrible and tragic traffic accident that members might have already heard about. It was in Manitoba on the Trans-Canada Highway by Highway 5. A semi collided with a bus. I do not know all the details, but as a result of that accident, 15 seniors have died and another 10 are in hospital. Which hospitals I could not say; what we do know is that there will be a very high fatality rate. Hopefully, those who are in hospital are able to recover. I would like to express my best wishes and prayers to the family and friends of the deceased and to the family and friends of those who are being taking care of. As well, I compliment the first responders for the truly amazing work they do. They were very quick to get to the scene, whether SARS, ambulances, police or firefighters, and no doubt have contributed to saving lives. I just want to recognize that. I am sure my colleagues here this evening, and in fact all members of Parliament, share in the families' grief and wish them all the very best. Having said that, allow me to share some thoughts on a very important piece of legislation and issue that all of us are very much aware of. This is legislation that would amend the Judges Act and create a new process, and one would think that there would be eagerness to see this legislation pass. I thought it started off so well. I might be a bit biased, but I think that what the Minister of Justice had to say was very clear. A number of amendments have been brought forward by the Senate, and he provided detailed comments on the suggestions the Senate has put forward. I can honestly say that generally speaking, at times the Senate contributes to making legislation that comes through the House that much stronger, and to that extent makes it better for Canadians. I think it is quite encouraging when we get these amendments coming forward. The Minister of Justice made comments, as I said. He explained why we can accept a couple of amendments and why we cannot accept some others. Then he went on to talk about the importance of the legislation and why it was important that we attempt to see quick passage of the legislation. Right after that, when the member for Langley—Aldergrove, the critic, began his speech, I started to feel pretty encouraged by his opening remarks. He talked about how the legislation was good, saying that the Conservatives support it and that they saw the value in it when it was in here earlier. The legislation has already gone through a number of steps. It was introduced quite a while ago. Members were already familiar with the legislation. It went to committee, and yes, there were some healthy discussions that took place at committee stage. Then it went through report stage and third reading and was passed, and off to the Senate it went. If one followed some of that debate and discussion, one might have been of the opinion that the legislation had virtually unanimous support of the House. It is always a good thing when we get that kind of support. Then the member got to the tail end of his speech, and at the tail end of his speech, what does he say? In fairness to the member, he might have been slipped the amendment; I do not know. Maybe he created the amendment. Maybe the House leadership told him to remember what the leader says: speak, speak, speak and hold things up wherever he can. That is the essence of what the modern Conservative far-right party says today. The member then indicated very clearly that he does not like the legislation to such a degree that he wants to see some amendments, so he moved an amendment. In all honesty, I was not really surprised, because the member was putting in place a sequence that we have seen the Conservatives do on many different pieces of legislation. There is, however, a bit of a difference on this legislation, because ultimately the member made it somewhat clear that they support its passage. I thought maybe there was a chance the bill would pass here this evening after listening to the beginning of the comments. When he moved the amendment, I think he surprised a lot of people. It surprised me to a certain degree. I was a bit disappointed, because after all, as I said, the bill amends the Judges Act. In essence, it streamlines the review and investigation process. Think about that. Not only does that ensure there is a higher sense of equality, justice and so forth, but it also makes the system a bit more efficient. There is even money to be saved. Moving this particular amendment sends a message that it is similar to other pieces of legislation, and I get the sense that the only way we are going to have a chance at passing this legislation is if it is time allocated. Once again, as a government, we have to go to the Bloc or the New Democrats to try to explain the behaviour of the Conservatives, which is not that tough nowadays it seems, to ensure that we can pass this legislation. It is the type of thing that we really cannot make up. Think of the types of things we have witnessed, like how they move amendments, and the type of voting we have witnessed. I am kind of losing context of time, but a few hours ago or two hours ago, we had a vote on the hybrid motion. I know the NDP House leader made quick reference to it. It is a hard thing to resist. It really and truly is. Think about it. We had a vote on something the Conservatives oppose. They do not like the voting app and the hybrid system, so they voted against it. An hon. member: Until they have to use it. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is just as my colleague said: until they have to use it. They used it on the motion that I just finished talking about, the motion that says we want to enable members to vote by hybrid or vote using the voting application. Members would not believe that out of the 106 Conservatives who voted, 77 actually used the voting application to vote. I do not quite understand it. It is that Conservative logic. If we then fast-forward a couple of hours, what do we see? We see yet another amendment brought forward as a tactic to postpone the vote on this bill. I asked the member for Langley—Aldergrove why he moved the amendment and I asked him how many Conservative members he would like to see speak now, and whether he could give us an indication. Members were here for the response from the member. He said his party had lots of members who want to be able to speak on the legislation. How many more days do we have until the normal session would come to an end? It is somewhat limited, but I have told the House leader that, personally, I do not mind. I enjoy being inside the chamber. I enjoy the debates. Honest to God, with hand on heart, I will come back in July, I do not mind, if the members opposite want to have debate. Having said that, I think there might be a number of members who would like to see the Conservatives stop with the games and the filibustering and recognize that part of being a responsible official opposition means allowing legislation to pass without having to incorporate time allocation. An hon. member: It helps Canadians. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: It does. It helps Canadians in a very real and tangible way. An hon. member: This is the biggest audience you've had in a while. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, ever since the member from across the way walked back over. This legislation would help Canadians. In one of the questions I put across was the issue of public confidence. The Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary on justice talk about the importance of public confidence in the system. It is important to recognize that, so when members say this legislation is in the best interest of Canadians, it is. It would make a real and tangible difference. Canadians want to see the independence of our whole judicial system, whether it is with policing, our courts or the process of our Crowns laying charges. Around the world, Canada is recognized for our judicial system, and it is complemented by the fact that there are many checks in place to ensure that it is not politicized. We recognize that it is a joint responsibility, where we work with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities, to ensure we have a judicial system that has the confidence of the public. I do not say that lightly, because there have been incidents where we have seen the need for reforms or changes. A good example of that is with the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. God, I wish she came back. Rona Ambrose had an idea to make changes that would impact our judicial system. It came about because of a number of judges who had made comments regarding gender discrimination, if I can put it that way. They offended a great number of people, and there was a genuine concern among the public and questions of confidence in the system. Rona Ambrose, the former leader of the Conservative Party, came up with the idea of instituting some sort of educational program. I cannot remember all the details, because this was a number of years ago, but government members, members of the Liberal caucus, saw the value in the principles of the legislation, and we actually embraced the idea. When we did the consultations and canvassed our judicial system for its reflections on what was being proposed by the then leader of the Conservative Party, we found it had garnered wide support, much like Bill C-9. With that support, what did we eventually see? Yes, there was some frustration, but it was not coming from the government or the Liberal Party. In fact, caucus colleagues of mine often talked about how we could ensure that legislation saw the light of day. They wanted that legislation to pass. We had the support of all members of the House, and it passed unanimously. There was no trickery or anything of that nature. No one said, “We'll pass this if you do this.” There was no trading or bargaining processes. We recognized the value of the legislation and agreed to get it passed through the system. Interestingly enough, I believe a couple of provincial legislatures looked at this. My daughter raised the issue, and she is in the Manitoba legislature. They were looking at what we did here in Ottawa and how it could be potentially duplicated in provincial legislatures. That is how Ottawa can demonstrate leadership on an important issue. If one understands and appreciates the sense of independence of our justice system, then factors in all of the work and effort that has gone into this piece of legislation getting to the point it is at today, one sees it has been a long journey, a journey that ultimately went through all forms of different stakeholders. The ones I emphasize are the courts, or those directly involved in courts, the judges. There was consensus, a very broad consensus, that this is the type of legislation communities, including the judicial community, would accept and want to see passed. When the Minister of Justice talked about the legislation earlier, he made it very clear to everyone that this is legislation where there has been pressure coming from the outside, from the judicial community, suggesting that the legislation be passed as quickly as possible. Interestingly enough, and it might have been at third reading, but I can recall talking about that previously. That is why I was encouraged, even back then, because the Conservatives did not seem to hesitate. There are amendments and a number of things I am no doubt missing, but having said that, let me suggest to members opposite it is not written in stone. We could pass this legislation tonight, or at least get it to a stage at which it could be voted on. Let me put it that way because we cannot seek unanimous consent now, but we can at least get it to a stage where it could be voted on as early as tomorrow. I would ask Conservatives to do what the Liberals did when Rona Ambrose brought forward a good idea, which was to recognize the idea for what it is and support our judicial system. Let us show the public we have confidence in the system, get behind the legislation and allow it to get to a point where we can pass it tomorrow. That can be done.

2212 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Jun/15/23 11:44:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sure members would remember when we were in Centre Block, when something similar with Standing Orders came about. It was basically because the Liberals did not get up on a Monday morning, and the NDP had put a motion together. They did not get enough people to pass it, so the Speaker then had to actually get the vote so we could expand that. What happened then was that the Liberal Party decided to put together a motion to completely take away the role of the opposition. That was when we ended up with the “elbowgate” issue. The only reason that this motion stopped was because, for three days, people were going after the Prime Minister for his active role. As the members—

130 words

Standing

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/15/23 11:45:27 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is rising on a point of order.

21 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/15/23 11:45:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, the member's comments actually have no relevance with respect to Bill C-9.

16 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/15/23 11:45:40 p.m.
Watch

The member's time for asking a question is up. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary could respond, if he so wishes. I want to remind members that, when they are asking questions and giving speeches in the House, what they say should be relevant to what is before the House.

52 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Jun/15/23 11:46:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I apologize for that, but my reaction was to the time he took when he was speaking about the importance of Standing Orders. That was the relevance.

37 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:46:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, to put this on the record, I believe the member was referring to Bill C-10. Virtually from the beginning, the Conservatives were all about trickery and the types of things they could do to play that destructive role. Nothing has changed. I am hoping that we will get a glimmer of hope this evening from some individuals saying that this is legislation they could support, that they do not have to continue to delay it and that they could respect what has taken place and look at it. At the very least, the Conservatives could take into consideration what we did as a Liberal Party when the Conservatives proposed something with Rona Ambrose. There, we had unanimous consent; it was passed through. I am suggesting that, out of respect for the process and so forth, this does not have to be one of the bills that the Conservatives are playing games on.

155 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/15/23 11:47:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, does my colleague believe that a party should do what it says it is going to do? For example, with Bill C-9, if a party says we have to adopt this bill immediately, and then offers a delaying amendment, is that consistent? In the same way, if we have a hybrid Parliament and a party votes against the hybrid Parliament, but votes overwhelmingly using the hybrid tools that they were just saying needed to end, is that consistent? Are these contradictions by the Conservative Party that Canadians need to know about?

94 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:47:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, really and truly, we just cannot make this stuff up. We have to see it to believe it. The member is right on. Canadians need to know just what the Conservatives are actually up to. The idea that out of 106 people in the Conservative Party, when it came time to vote to get rid of the voting app, 77 of them actually used the voting app that they want to get rid of. It may be that or saying that they support Bill C-9 and want it to pass, but then they move an amendment. Traditionally, when the Conservatives have done that, what they are really saying is they want to talk and talk, as the leader of the Conservative Party said last week about the budget. He said he was going to speak until the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. We did not change it, and four hours later, it passed. It is a game.

162 words

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

Jun/15/23 11:49:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of discussion about the last-minute amendment brought forward by the good member for Langley—Aldergrove, who is a very constructive member of the justice committee. I must say that I am quite disappointed that this is now being used as a tool to delay the passage of a very important bill. As we know, Justice Wagner, the chief justice of Canada, has asked for the expeditious passage of Bill C-9. Could my friend and colleague comment on why it is so important that we get this passed before we rise?

102 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize the efforts and the judicial community as a whole. However, it is not just the judicial community. Ultimately, I believe it is about public confidence in the system. This streamlines the review and investigation process replacing the judicial review that goes into Federal Courts into something that is far more effective. It has been recognized as that. It will save time, it will save money; it will assist in making sure that the public have confidence by adding, for example, a layperson to the process. It will ensure additional public confidence in our judicial system. When we get a Supreme Court judge appealing to us to get it passed, I do not know why the Conservatives would want to continue to filibuster.

131 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/15/23 11:50:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the Senate, the legal committee passed two very important amendments that the government rejected. These two amendments were supported by the Canadian Bar Association, which has 37,000 lawyers as members, the Advocates' Society and also the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, which has 1,200 judges. There is overwhelming support for the amendments that the government is rejecting. These are solid amendments that would provide a little more certainty and clarity around the entire process. ISG senators, appointed by the Prime Minister, voted in favour of these amendments, yet the Liberal government is yanking those amendments from this bill. Why?

104 words

Advocates

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:51:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand that there are senators who actually supported the amendments but they had to originate from somewhere. My understanding, correct me if I am wrong, is that they originated from Conservative senators who caucus with the Conservative members of Parliament still. I suggest that maybe one is being influenced by the other. After all, the member even indicated that one of those amendments was introduced at committee stage. There might be something at play there. I do not know. I do not want to imply too much. What I do know is that the Senate does a lot of fine work and the Minister of Justice did address the issue of those that we will support, those we will not, and gave an explanation for all.

129 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/15/23 11:52:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just to hone in on one of the amendments that is being proposed by the Conservatives, which is with respect to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, my understanding is that when there is a case involving a judge that is going forward, that leave is granted, but that is the law of the land. In all cases involving the Supreme Court, leave needs to be granted by the Supreme Court. With the processes already in place to ensure there is due process, that is, the need to have safeguards for someone who is accused of misconduct, with the processes that we are putting forward, leave like any other case is not automatic. I know that is something that the Conservatives are quite insistent about. I think it is clear that what we are trying to do is to streamline the process so that it does not cost excessive money and does not take an enormous amount of time for a resolution on a matter that involves the misconduct of a judge. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that.

185 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:54:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member was right when he commented about streamlining and making things more efficient. As I have said, there are even potential cost savings. This would also allow for an expanded disposition that could include anything from apologies to educational programming. It creates a better atmosphere in many ways. Most importantly, given the independence of our courts and the position taken by some judges in support of the legislation, I would suggest that we accept that and move forward with the legislation.

84 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/15/23 11:55:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are going to bring it home. For their home, our home, my home, let us bring it home. To begin, it felt great to be sitting momentarily over on that side of the House. I know we will be there soon and I am looking forward to it. There has been some discussion, and in the limited time left, I want to present the framework before we actually discuss the amendments. There has been some discussion as to whether we should be debating these amendments or just rubber-stamping them and going ahead. I am going to read something. I do not normally do this and I normally speak without notes, but this time I think it is important that I get this right and read it word for word. An article states: Our job as Official Opposition is to say, particularly when we agree with the principles of the legislation, “Here are amendments that will make the legislation stand up to scrutiny, and there are amendments that will actually make the legislation do what it purports to do.” The problem on the government side is they consistently refuse those amendments. The amendments we are putting forward have actually been supported by many members of the judiciary. They are supportive. They say they support the legislation, and it says here that we should be able to bring the amendments forward, but according to this, the government of the day was stopping it. The article continues: Even when they make sense, even when they’re reinforced by the public and by experts, they systematically refuse all the amendments.... That is just what happened. Our amendments are being refused. The article states, “...which is why they have a such a poor record in terms of product recall.” That is interesting. Let us read some more about this. The article says: So we like to make the case for those amendments. Of course, if the government were willing to co-operate, it would be in their interests...And if they said, first off, “Okay, here’s a piece of legislation; we know you support it in principle; we’re actually willing to work with you on amendments,” then I think it would be fair to say the approach would be different and we wouldn’t have to make the case in the House of Commons necessarily around those amendments because the government would be working with us. It seems like we had many negotiations. The amendments were not put in place. That is exactly what is going on here. Do members know who said that? It was the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. That is his quote. I think my comments, when I am over there, might be used against me, but I do not think so. I do not think I will say the exact opposite when I am in a coalition as opposed to when I am in opposition. Let us just continue. The article says, “The principle of this place is members are here to represent their ridings”. I could not agree more. It continues, “They’re here to speak out on issues and they’re also here to offer suggestions to the government.” That is just like what we are trying to do right now. Then it says, “Now, we have a government that doesn’t want those suggestions”. Oh, my goodness; the government wants to bring in time allocation. How many times have we had time allocation in this Parliament so far? Number 40 is tomorrow. How many times did the NDP rail against the Harper government? Mr. Peter Julian: You did it 150 times.

630 words