SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 301 - Apr/17/24

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 6:35:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-381

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. As we all know, extortion is increasingly impacting Canadian communities. We recognize and acknowledge that extortion is a very serious crime that can impact multiple facets of a person's life. Bill C-381 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that the sponsor believes will combat extortion by reinstating a mandatory minimum penalty. I will focus my remarks today on the proposed amendments related to the penalty regime and sentencing. As it currently stands, we have a robust criminal law framework to address the crime of extortion. The offence of extortion is covered under section 346 of the Criminal Code, and it is a straight indictable offence that carries significant penalties. These penalties are intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender. If an individual is convicted of extortion, they will be subject to the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. I want to emphasize this: The maximum penalty for extortion is life imprisonment. Bill C-381 also proposes to direct courts to consider, as an aggravating factor, if that offender, in committing the offence of extortion, also committed arson. We recognize that arson is a serious crime that poses a danger to a community and the public, and there is unquestionable intent to cause damage to property. While there is no doubt that the combination of extortion and arson is damaging and dangerous, I question whether this change would have any meaningful effect. It seems to me that, if there is evidence that someone committed arson and extortion, then a prosecutor would seek convictions for both. If they do, then the proposed aggravating factor becomes meaningless. Moreover, treating an element of an offence for which an offender was convicted as aggravating at sentencing was found to be an error in principle in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Lacasse in 2015. Arson can have devastating impacts to individuals and businesses. As with cases of extortion, the seriousness of the offence of arson is reflected in the current criminal framework to address crimes of this nature. Individuals convicted of arson are subject to maximum terms of imprisonment ranging from five years to life, depending on the circumstances. Along with the offences contained in the Criminal Code, the sentencing regime addresses the seriousness of extortion and arson as it relates to organized crime. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out aggravating factors that a sentencing judge must take into consideration when crafting an appropriate sentence. One of the codified aggravating factors is evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization. Given that extortion crimes often imply a level of sophistication that suggest the workings of criminal enterprise, this factor gives sentencing judges the ability to impose penalties that fall on the higher end of the spectrum in cases where organized crime is involved. A court must also consider the victim's extortion when crafting an appropriate sentence. The sentencing regime sets out that it would be particularly aggravating if an offence has a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, such as their financial situation. I would also note that Bill C-381 proposes enacting more mandatory minimum penalties. We have had ample evidence over the years that MMPs do not work. I do not want members to take my word for it, either. They can listen to Ben Perrin, legal adviser to former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. He has stated that “[mandatory minimum penalties] are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.” Mr. Perrin goes on to say, “If history is any judge, [the Leader of the Opposition's mandatory minimum penalties] may not be worth the paper they're printed on. What's worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the existential challenges facing the criminal justice system.” Mr. Perrin also said that the Leader of the Opposition's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” Again, these are not my words. Those are the words of the former legal adviser to Stephen Harper. This is the man who advised Stephen Harper on justice policy, who has now seen the problems caused by reckless Conservative Party criminal justice policy. Our government believes in evidence-based policy, and we know this is simply not that. The Leader of the Opposition likes to throw around such phrases as “stop the crime”, but he has no real plan to do that. As we often see from him, it is just a series of slogans. On this side, we actually believe in policies that will reduce crime. We also know that mandatory minimum penalties have a disproportionate effect on Black and indigenous people in the justice system. Data from Correctional Service of Canada shows that the disproportionate impact of MMPs on indigenous peoples and Black Canadians has also been reported in admissions to federal correctional institutions. Specifically, of all admissions to federal custody between 2007-08 and 2016-17, 39% of Black offenders and 20% of indigenous offenders were admitted for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty. Here, the proportion for indigenous offenders increased from 14% in the same year, 2007-08, to 26% in 2016-17. The proposal brought forward by the hon. member is unlikely to result in higher sentences being imposed, given the serious penalties already associated with arson and extortion and the corresponding aggravating factors I referenced earlier. Our existing legal framework provides judges with the tools and discretion needed to tailor sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence by the offender. While there is no doubt that extortion is a serious crime, our current legal framework is such that extortion is being addressed in a way that reflects its severity and harmful effects. We need to focus on serious policies rather than empty slogans and policies we know will not work. I encourage all hon. members to work together on policy that will combat crime rather than failed policies and slogans.

1043 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Apr/17/24 6:42:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-381

Mr. Speaker, this feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I have sat in the House since 2015, and there is a recurring debate between the Liberal and NDP vision of opposing mandatory minimum sentences and the Conservative vision of applying this policy to as many offences as possible. I think we need to reflect on the issue, which is no small matter, but we also need to find ways to be effective, to adopt legal rules, legislation and regulations that are in line with the values of the society in which we live. The Bloc Québécois is opposed, in principle, to systematically adding minimum sentences to the Criminal Code. Prison time is often essential, and our courts do not hesitate to use it to punish numerous offences. However, there are other penalties, other solutions besides prison, that exist and that deserve to be considered. It is certainly not a question of being more tolerant when an offence is committed. On the contrary, we believe that the values we hold must be reflected in the laws we adopt and that these laws must be enforced and complied with by all. When our rules are broken, a fair and consistent consequence must follow. However, we must never forget to be imaginative when we think about how our justice system should be structured. Might I suggest that we be daring? We are here to legislate. The Bloc Québécois believes that our justice system must help build a functional society that effectively brings together a safe, equitable and fair system for everyone. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place laws and regulations that ensure that all people can walk the streets freely and safely. What a great success it will be if we manage to stamp out crime one day. I am too old to believe in unicorns, flying horses and other magical creatures, but I will never stop working to make our society better. That is why we believe that when people break our laws and must be sentenced, we must always strive to rehabilitate them wherever possible. Rehabilitation is not a magic pill; it is an objective. Our job as members of this legislature is to find ways to punish those who should be punished, prevent them from doing harm and, if possible, get them back on the right track. Last year on January 13, the 13 provincial and territorial premiers wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to remind him of his duties in this regard. They called for a reverse onus on bail for the offence of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. Obviously, we need to take that into account and be vigilant. The question remains: How do we take effective action? The Supreme Court of Canada struck down many of the mandatory minimum sentences passed by a previous Parliament. The situation had to be fixed. Many minimum sentences were abolished. However, our Conservative Party colleagues keep demanding at every opportunity that we reinstate these minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. I could let this behaviour bother me, given that, as I said at the outset, the Bloc Québécois is not a big fan of mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, I choose to take it as a call to work, an invitation to examine the issue of how to enforce our laws and impose the most appropriate penalties on offenders. In committee, I proposed an alternative to minimum sentences, something that would reconcile the neo-liberal or “liberal-democrat” vision, that is, the vision of the Liberal Party and the NDP, with the position at the other extreme, in other words, the position of our colleagues in the Conservative Party. Why not include a provision that would allow courts to depart from the mandatory minimum sentences when exceptional circumstances allow? We would then have the minimum sentences some people want so badly, but we would also have a safety measure, a safety valve, that would allow a judge hearing a case to determine, in certain circumstances, that the mandatory minimum sentence is inappropriate. By justifying the exceptional circumstances, courts could waive the mandatory minimum sentences. Is this the best solution? Probably not. There could be others. However, it is one solution, and I think it deserves to be considered. There is another possibility. Why not consider adjusting the sentences to include a transitional period during which the inmate could be released, but required to wear an electronic tracking device? For example, for a one-year sentence, the person could spend a year, a year and a half or two years behind bars. The period could be discussed. Then the inmate could be released, go to work, carry on with their social and family activities, resume a “normal” life, or as normal a life as possible, but under constant surveillance. How could this individual get away with resuming their criminal activities under that sort of surveillance? What criminal organization would want to use the services of such a compromised individual? According to the statistics, when a member of any criminal organization is sentenced to three, four, five or 10 years of prison, that person is almost automatically taken back as soon as they are released. They are told that they have served their time and can come back to work. For example, they may be asked to go get three Mercedes from Westmount and two Ladas from another neighbourhood. However, if the individual were wearing an electronic monitoring device when they were released, I am not convinced that the most powerful criminal organizations would want to use that individual's services. That is another option, a second alternative. Once again, is it the best option? Maybe it is or maybe it is not, but it is worth considering. As I was saying, I am going to consider our Conservative colleagues' invitation to address the issue of minimum sentencing as an invitation and opportunity to think about and work on improving the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois is therefore willing to send Bill C-381 to committee and work on bringing it into line with the values of safety and security, justice and appropriate consequences for wrongdoing, while seeking to create a better society in the short or medium term, in other words, a society made up of law-abiding people and, when necessary, people who have been rehabilitated.

1083 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Apr/17/24 6:51:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-381

Mr. Speaker, I want to start tonight by stating something that is particularly obvious to most people, which is that “tough on crime” is a slogan and not a policy that contributes to keeping communities safe. Dealing effectively with crime requires a laser focus on the reality before us. Exaggerating crime statistics to promote fear brings us no closer to solutions; in fact, it often leads us to counterproductive measures. As such, I would ask everyone to beware of those who cite percentages when we are talking about crimes. It is an easy way to distort the situation we are facing, and the most basic example of that is that two is, of course, 100% greater than one. I am not in any way saying we do not have a problem with extortion. We clearly do, but to combat it, we must understand what is actually going on with extortion in this country. Last month, media reports identified 74 active investigations of extortion in three provinces. What do all these investigations have in common? All the extortion cases targeted South Asian businesses. Whether they were restaurants, laundries, bakeries or convenience stores, they were all owned by members of the South Asian community. All these cases used the same methods: letters, phone calls and social media messages threatening arson, drive-by shootings and even kidnapping if protection money is not paid. All the included messages threatened bullets, rather than future messages, if the police were contacted. Clearly, there is no coincidence here. This is organized crime at work, targeting the South Asian community. There were incidents last November in White Rock and Abbotsford of threatening letters that gave a month to pay up. In December, shots were fired into at least one home in White Rock, while there were two shootings at homes in Abbotsford and one case of arson. In Ontario, Peel Regional Police opened 29 investigations in November and, as in B.C., Peel Regional Police reported several shootings in which multiple shots were fired at homes and businesses. There were 34 identical incidents in Edmonton. Some arrests have been made, including two in Surrey, seven in Edmonton and five in the Peel region. The RCMP has created a task force, which it calls the RCMP national coordination and support team, to share information and coordinate efforts to combat what is clearly a targeting of the South Asian community by organized crime. Delivering resources to those local police forces and the RCMP, so they can share information and coordinate their efforts, is key to combatting extortion. In February, in the midst of these instances in Surrey, the Conservative leader delivered a speech where he laid out the three things proposed in the bill before us: imposing a mandatory minimum of three years for extortion and four years if using a firearm, as well as adding arson as an aggravating circumstance. He called these additional tools for police to use. Here is the problem with this proposal and the reason the NDP will be voting against Bill C-381: The evidence is clear that mandatory minimums are not effective as a deterrent. As a tool, mandatory minimums do not deter people from committing crime. No criminals sit around at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see what possible penalty they face, before deciding whether to commit a crime. What they do evaluate is how certain they are to be caught and prosecuted, so devoting resources to enforcement and prosecution are the keys to deterring offences such as extortion, which are clearly premeditated and planned. There is another problem with this, of course, and that is the unintended consequences. The member for Kingston and the Islands clearly identified that mandatory minimums disproportionately impact those most marginalized in society: the poorest in our society, indigenous people and racialized people. However, there is a second unintended consequence that is often missed, and I know about this from my experience as a police board member and from teaching criminal justice. If we have a mandatory minimum, then the prosecutor cannot really plea bargain. That is important in extortion, because the people who most often get arrested in extortion investigations are the ones who do the drive-by or throw the firebomb. These are most often young men who have been pressed into service by gangs. If we want to get at the organizers, the people who hired them, in effect, to carry out these crimes, we have to be able to use plea bargaining. However, with a mandatory minimum, where they know they are sure to go to prison, we have no way of getting at the people who actually organize these crimes. As such, it is an unintended consequence of mandatory minimums that obstructs the investigation and prosecution of crimes such as extortion. I will not go on at great length here, because we have had to make these arguments many times. It is clear that mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime. It is clear what works, and that is the devotion of resources to enforcement and to prosecution. We have to understand that although the Conservatives like to situate us in some great, huge crime wave that is sweeping the country, extortion is a particularly focused campaign by organized crime to target the South Asian community in this country, and we have to respond appropriately.

899 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC)

Apr/17/24 6:57:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-381

Mr. Speaker, I stand today before this House to address a grave concern that has escalated into a crisis under the watch of the NDP-Liberal government. Extortion, a severe crime threatening the safety and security of Canadians, has surged alarmingly, particularly in Alberta. We have seen a staggering 283% increase in reported cases after eight years of the current government. This epidemic of crime has sown fear across our communities, demanding a robust response that the current policies fail to provide. In recent years, our nation has witnessed a troubling escalation in extortion rates, driven by inadequate responses and lenient policies from the government. Its approach to crime, especially to serious offences like extortion, has been characterized by a disturbing leniency that has allowed criminals to thrive. Notably, the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for extortion-related offences under Liberal Bill C-5 has directly contributed to this increase, emboldening offenders with the knowledge that consequences will be minimal. The impact in Alberta has been particularly severe. Families and business owners face daily threats, and entire communities live in heightened anxiety. A glaring example of the government's failure to protect its citizens occurred recently in Edmonton, where a criminal network targeted the South Asian community. Home builders and construction business owners were extorted for large ransoms via threats communicated through digital platforms like WhatsApp. When their demands were not met, the criminals resorted to arson, destroying properties and livelihoods. This case is not isolated but is indicative of a broader pattern enabled by the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies. This surge in extortion is mirrored nationally, with Canada's overall extortion incidents having increased fivefold over the past decade. These numbers are damning evidence of the failure of the NDP-Liberal coalition's approach. Its soft-on-crime stance has not only undermined the effectiveness of our police forces but also eroded the trust between the Canadian public and the justice system. The promise of safety and security, a fundamental responsibility of any government, has been forsaken, leaving Canadians to bear the consequences. The consequences of the government's policies extend beyond the immediate victims of extortion. They ripple across the economy, deter investment and stifle the growth of communities, particularly those most vulnerable to such crimes. In Alberta, where the extortion rate has skyrocketed, we see a clear correlation between rising crime and a faltering community confidence. This erosion of security is the direct result of policies that prioritize criminal leniency over effective public safety. In the face of rising extortion threats and the palpable failure of the current government, the Conservative deputy leader and hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods has taken decisive action by introducing a common-sense bill, Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. This legislation marks a critical shift towards restoring the rule of law and providing substantial deterrence against the crime of extortion. Bill C-381 is carefully crafted to address the complexities of extortion crimes, ensuring that penalties are both appropriate and effective. The legislation proposes to re-establish mandatory minimum sentences, which were unwisely removed by the Liberals, weakening our justice system's ability to deter serious criminal activity. Under this new law, anyone found guilty of extortion would face a minimum of three years in prison. This firm stance is essential to communicate that extortion will not be tolerated and the justice system stands ready to impose significant consequences. The bill specifically addresses the escalated risks involved when firearms are used in extortion. By restoring a mandatory four-year penalty for extortion involving firearms, this bill aims to counteract the increased danger to victims and to send a strong message to criminals about the seriousness of using deadly weapons in the commission of crimes. Additionally, the legislation targets the organized crime networks that often orchestrate these extortion schemes. Recognizing the sophisticated nature of these criminal enterprises, the bill sets a mandatory five-year sentence for any act of extortion carried out for the benefit of, or in association with, a criminal organization. This provision is particularly crucial as it strikes at the heart of organized crime, aiming to dismantle the groups that profit from extortion activities. This bill also introduces arson as a recognized aggravating factor in extortion cases. This is a significant addition, reflecting the severe impact that arson has on victims and communities. It is often used as a tool for intimidation or retaliation. Enhancing penalties for extortion cases involving arson acknowledges the profound trauma and the destruction associated with such acts and bolsters the law’s response to them. The introduction of Bill C-381 comes at a critical time, when the need to fortify our legal framework against extortion has never been more urgent. The recent rise in extortion cases, especially those involving severe tactics like arson and the use of firearms, underscores the need for legislation that can effectively respond to and curb these crimes. By implementing these targeted measures, this legislation not only aims to deter individuals and groups involved in extortion, but also to restore public confidence in the justice system’s ability to protect them and to ensure their safety. The differences between Conservative and Liberal approaches to addressing crime are stark. While the current NDP-Liberal coalition has favoured a soft approach that has seen penalties reduced and serious offenders quickly returned to the streets, Conservatives advocate for robust measures that prioritize the safety of all Canadians. Our approach is to enforce laws that deter criminals effectively and that provide real protection to our communities. As we stand here today, faced with a significant rise in violent crimes and extortion, we must choose action over inaction. The protection against extortion act is not just another piece of legislation; it is a real solution for those who have been living in fear of criminals. This bill would restore necessary and effective penalties for extortion, particularly addressing the use of firearms, the involvement of organized crime and the destructive act of arson. We can no longer stand by as our communities suffer. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-381. It is time to send a clear message that we are committed to the safety and the security of our citizens. By passing this bill, we would demonstrate that we stand for justice and for security, and we stand for the peace of mind that every Canadian deserves. Let us take decisive action today. Let us pass this bill and ensure that our streets are safe again. It is not just our duty; it is our responsibility to bring home safe streets for every Canadian, restoring trust in the justice system that protects, that deters and that delivers real justice. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this crucial issue. Let us work together to make Canada a place where safety and security are not just ideals, but also realities.

1158 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 7:06:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-381

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to add a few comments to this discussion tonight, which is a very important discussion. When we talk about community safety, safety for all Canadians, it is critically important that we all participate and that we ensure that we have given it our full attention. On Bill C-381, I am going to read out what it is, so that anybody who is watching will get a better feeling and understanding. Bill C-381 would amend the offence of extortion to create a mandatory minimum penalty of four years where a firearm other than a restricted or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence, and a minimum sentencing of three years in any other case of extortion. There is already a mandatory minimum for when a restricted or prohibited firearm is used and the offence is committed in association with organized crime. This bill, from my hon. colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods, would repeal the requirement that extortion committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization be committed with a firearm, meaning that MMPs of five and seven years would apply to any case involving organized crime. This bill would add an aggravating factor at sentencing when the person convicted of extortion also committed arson. It is an important bill and one that I am very confident my colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods thought about very carefully before presenting it as his private member's bill. Clearly his community, in particular, is the subject of a lot of extortion, according to what we read in the newspapers and so on. I think that the bill reflects his frustration and concern with our justice system overall, which many of us feel. It does not always play out the way we would like it to on a variety of different cases. I do not think it deters anyone, but I know that it certainly makes the member who put this forward as his private member's bill very interested in trying to find the solution to an ongoing problem. Extortion is illegal in Canada today. Perpetrators need to be apprehended and punished, without question. There is a mandatory minimum penalty of seven years for a repeat extortion with a firearm. These penalties show just how seriously the Criminal Code takes this behaviour of extortion. We do not want to see extortion happening in Canada and we do not intend to tolerate it. Serious crimes will always deserve very serious punishments. That said, it has been proven time and time again that overly harsh mandatory minimum penalties on first-time offenders do not deter crimes. I wish it did, but clearly the evidence is that it does not. I have been here quite a few years and was here when the previous Conservative government introduced mandatory minimums. I remember when we had that discussion and debate at committee and in the House. I was always a bit on another platform because I thought that if that is going to work, then way to go; that is what we need to have. Over the years, we have seen, unfortunately, that it does not work. It does not work the way the Conservative Party, when it introduced it, thought it would. It has played out very differently. The previous legal adviser to former prime minister Stephen Harper has recently admitted that the harsh approach to criminal justice is ineffective. To quote him, he has said that the mandatory minimums “are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.” Again, I go back to the fact that when it was introduced, I was very supportive. I thought it was going to be an answer to try to deter some of the crime, but it did not work that way. We ended up having people without the flexibility to be able to look for alternative sentencing opportunities to truly prevent recidivism from happening. We have seen that it is ineffective at reducing crime, and that it actually increases recidivism. We have often been told that, once someone goes to jail, it does not matter what amount of time they spend there, repeat offenders are what follows so many times. It does not necessarily help. I think people know my history. I have pretty strong feelings when it comes to guns. I had a first cousin who was a police officer who was shot to death. I signed petitions for the death penalty in those days. That was then and I have learned a lot since then. On the fact that I was able to get I do not know how many thousands of signatures calling for the death penalty, a lot of that was because I was hurting and in pain as a result of having that terrible thing happen to my cousin and the killing of this young, 32-year-old police officer with three young children. I have always taken a very strong stance when it comes to the justice issue, and I want to see our justice system stronger and better and more effective. Is this particular bill that has been put forward going to help with that? I do not think so, but that is what committees are for, which is to have further discussions and talk about the pros and cons of all of it. Any time we look at ways in which we can reduce recidivism and crime in our country, it is a good thing to do. I will go back to Mr. Perrin, the previous legal adviser to Prime Minister Harper, who said, “If history is any judge, [the current Conservative leader's] MMPs may not be worth the paper they're printed on. What's worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the existential challenges facing the criminal justice system.” As my colleague from the Bloc mentioned previously, there needs to be meaningful innovation, ideas for different ways of handling things. We have not been awfully successful so far in finding ways to deter serious crime. We know we have organized crime happening in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal when it comes to the stealing of vehicles, which are being shipped out through Montreal primarily. They arrested, I think, 19 people involved in that particular part of it. Thank God we have police officers who spend the hours they do out there on the streets, trying to ensure our cities can stay safe. We are all looking for answers, but we need to be able to provide judges with the flexibility to make a decision on what they want to do. There are serious offenders out there who need to be dealt with appropriately. Plea bargains are not the way to go with most of these cases. With any of these things, especially if we are talking about extortion, we want to make sure offenders are dealt with. Right now, the Criminal Code calls for very serious penalties on that aspect, so we want to do whatever we can. If the bill goes to committee, it will give us an opportunity to talk more about how MMPs do not appear to work, but are there other opportunities? What else can be done? Maybe this is a way we can really send a very strong message that Canada is not going to tolerate extortion happening to any community. In this case, as was referred to earlier, it was the South Asian community being subjected to extortion. We have an obligation to stand up and push against that and to protect communities that are being intimidated, belittled and threatened. Members of those communities come to Canada to start a new life and to be able to have a successful business, and they should not have to worry about being extorted. This has happened in other communities, not just the South Asian community. There are a variety of communities that are being extorted, and I have heard of it happening within the Italian community some time ago. We need to have strong penalties. Extortion needs to have, and it does have, a very strong policy right now in the Criminal Code. We want to see that continue. This will be discussed at the committee if it gets to the committee level, and in further discussions it would be very interesting to hear whether there are any new ideas and ways in which we can make our Criminal Code even stronger than it currently is today. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

1441 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 7:16:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. I also appreciate the member who brought this forward. I know there is concern in his community with respect to the rise in certain types of crime. If we look to the United States and the extensive use of mandatory minimum penalties there, I was wondering if the Conservative members could show me which state in the United States is actually succeeding with these types of criminal justice policies. It is not something that works. It is something committees have studied time and time again, and they have shown it does not work. Even though it is well intentioned, policy-wise it will not work. I see my time is up for today.

124 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/17/24 7:17:09 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have plenty of time when the opportunity comes back up. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

44 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Apr/17/24 7:17:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons passed Bill C-234. Normally, that is not a remarkable statement, but it bears repeating for comprehension. The House of Commons, made up of 338 elected members of Parliament to democratically legislate the laws of Canada, passed Bill C-234. That bill was a private member's bill to remove the carbon tax from farmers so that the thousands of dollars in unrebated carbon taxes that every farmer pays will no longer have to be built into the price of food. During a crisis of food affordability and food inflation, this is a common-sense way to do something immediate and concrete to help farmers produce affordable food for Canadians. The elected members of Parliament passed this bill over the objection of the governing Liberals. It was sent to the Senate where the same legislative process takes place, but during this process and at the clear and obvious behest of the Prime Minister and his government, the Senate gutted the bill by removing heating fuels for barns from the bill. They wanted to kill the bill altogether, but the government's extraordinary lobbying efforts succeeded in gutting the bill by ensuring that the carbon tax still applies to heating buildings like barns. This adds an enormous cost to the production of food, particularly the cost of eggs, chicken, pork and dairy. Axing the tax on food production would be a simple way to address inflation on food, which continues to rise even faster than the general rate of inflation, and along with the staggering cost of rent and mortgage payments, it puts the greatest pressure on the most vulnerable Canadians, people whose entire family budgets cannot cover the cost of food and shelter. I asked the government, after a desperate weekend of panic-stricken phone calls, which resulted in the Senate gutting the bill, if the Prime Minister would listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families who want to heat their homes. I mentioned first nations in my question because first nations are challenging the federal government's authority to impose the carbon tax on them. I mentioned farmers, who are price takers and who only have so much room to pass on higher costs without simply having to shut down production, and consumers who have to pay more for food. The response was an insipid mix of unrelated nonsense talking points. Since that time, the government House leader has pathetically and falsely tried to blame the Conservatives for the failure of Bill C-234 passing in the House again, ignoring the entire reason, or pretending not to know why, the bill is back here in this place. It is here because the government's senators are doing the bidding of the Prime Minister who appointed them and are gutting the bill. The Conservative deputy whip offered a motion to pass the bill by unanimous consent in its original form, but the Liberals refused to do that, so I will ask them again: Will they respect the will of this elected House? Will they recognize the roles that the Prime Minister and his ministers played in begging and bullying senators into rejecting a bill passed by the elected members of this chamber? Will they realize, as an overwhelming number of Canadians, including most provincial and territorial premiers have, that the carbon tax is punishing people who just want to eat, to heat and to transport themselves? Do they not see that when a basic input like energy is made more expensive, the output is reduced, which leads to higher prices? If they will not axe the carbon tax altogether, will they at least agree to axe the tax on farmers so that they can bring down the price of groceries?

633 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 7:21:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge that putting a price on pollution is at the centre of our government's plan to fight climate change and to curb its devastating effects on our communities and our economy. The negative impacts of climate change are very real. The public will not soon forget the destructive force of last year's forest fires that scorched much of Canada and choked our communities, which were cloaked in thick smoke. It would be irresponsible of us to stand idly by instead of proposing solutions to deal with our rapidly changing climate. Standing still is unacceptable. We must act. Our efforts are not just to benefit our generation, they are to protect future generations of Canadians, our children and their children. Our government is taking necessary steps that will have effective, concrete impacts, and a vital part of this plan is Canada's price on pollution. Pollution has a cost. It has a cost for Canadians, for communities, for our health and for our economy. Applying a price on carbon pollution is widely recognized as one of the most efficient ways to reduce emissions and to fight the devastating effects of climate change. Our mechanism also ensures that the price on pollution stays affordable for Canadians. We sometimes hear, especially in the House, that putting a price on pollution costs Canadians too much. I can assure the House that this statement is completely false. In fact, in provinces where the federal pollution pricing system applies, people get back the lion's share of the revenues, and low-income earners benefit the most. This means that our system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families while encouraging choices that will help Canada lower its emissions. Our price on pollution ensures that eight out of 10 households in these provinces are receiving more money back through quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay. Thanks to our government's pollution price mechanism, a family of four living in one of these provinces can receive up to $1,800. As people can see, with our plan, we are not only fighting climate change, but we are also returning money to Canadians. The government does not keep any direct proceeds from federal pollution pricing. Instead, the government returns the money collected to households, small and medium-sized businesses, farmers and indigenous governments. International experts agree that our pollution pricing mechanism is an effective way to fight climate change. With this approach, we are sending a clear message: Pollution has a price. Putting a price on carbon pollution encourages reduction across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. To achieve this, we need to maintain the price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down. Removing pollution pricing, as the opposition has called for, would eliminate its powerful incentive to encourage people and businesses to change their behaviours and pollute less.

518 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Apr/17/24 7:25:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the response is that the Liberals will continue to tax farmers, to apply an input tax on farmers to increase their costs, which inflates and increases the cost of food. They will give some rebates to some households, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly stated do not cover the cost of the carbon tax to those households, particularly when we include all the higher costs people incur. It is not just the carbon tax they see on their heating bill and at the pump but also the general inflation of all the goods that it is applied to. The farmer does not get the rebate to cover these costs. They are either going to cut production, which will raise the price of food, or pass the cost on and make the food more expensive. The Liberals should just axe the tax. If they cannot do it for everything, they can at least do it for farmers.

159 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Apr/17/24 7:26:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our government knows that ensuring sustainability for future generations is paramount, and that is why we are taking action. We are protecting people from the dangers and costs of climate change and ensuring that Canada continues to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Not only does our price on pollution help combat climate change, but it also directly gives more money back to many Canadian families at a time when so many need it most.

76 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/17/24 7:27:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party platform in 2021 promised that the re-elected Liberal government would implement the Canada disability benefit and that “this new benefit will reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in the same manner as the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Child Benefit.” The Liberals were, of course, elected that year. In the time since, thanks to consistent pressure from the disability community to keep that promise, the government slowly put forward a bill that needed significant improvements every step of the way, including ones that my team and I secured, such as requiring an application process that is without barriers and indexing the benefit to inflation. The government then told those in the disability community that it was consulting with them, including inviting people from across the country to spend significant time completing a lengthy survey. Finally, yesterday, we got the government's proposal for the Canada disability benefit in budget 2024, and it was nothing that folks with disabilities were calling for. The maximum amount of $200 a month is far too little to actually reduce poverty levels among folks with disabilities. They have limited eligibility to those already receiving the incredibly burdensome application process for the disability tax credit, in contravention of the amendment I mentioned earlier that called for it to be barrier-free, and it will not even start until July 2025. The total cost is just over $1 billion a year. The Liberals promised the Canada disability benefit would reduce poverty in the same way that two other programs did. The guaranteed income supplement is about 15 times as much and pays out a maximum of just over $1,000 a month, and the Canada child benefit is 24 times as much annually and pays out a maximum of just over $600 a month. The Canada disability benefit, as proposed, does little to help the disability community and seems to be much more about convincing non-disabled Canadians that the government is helping people with disabilities than about doing what it said it intended to do. As a result, folks with disabilities are deeply disappointed, and that is putting it kindly. Here is a sampling of reactions from the past 24 hours that I would like to read into the record. Some of the language is quite raw, but it reflects the pain that some folks are feeling. Laura says, “I have never been so disappointed in something in my entire life.” Mitchell said, “This is the ultimate failure. What an atrocity. No fairness here”. Cody said, “$2400/year? That's not just a joke, but an outright slap in the face to the disability community. You should be ashamed of yourself.” Kate said, “This budget announcement of adding a max of 200 more a month to a select few disabled people is The Most Liberal Party thing I've ever seen”. Illandria said, “So much for 'Lifting Disabled People Out Of Poverty In Canada'...They REALLY put the 'NOTHING' in NOTHING WITHOUT US”. There are leading organizations that have been advocating for the benefit. Krista Carr from Inclusion Canada said, “Our disappointment cannot be overstated.... This benefit was supposed to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty, not merely make them marginally less poor than they already are.” Samuel Ragot from La Société québécoise de la déficience intellectuelle said, “this is worse than my worst case scenario. Not only is it not enough, using the DTC will gatekeep the benefit from SOOOO many people. My heart goes to the people living in poverty who will have to keep fighting everyday to survive.” Lastly, Michelle Hewitt from Disability Without Poverty said, “To say we are disappointed is an understatement. Yesterday's announcement on the CDB is woefully inadequate.” Again, it looks to me like the government is not even trying to do right by people with disabilities. Will the parliamentary secretary admit that the Canada disability benefit, as proposed yesterday, is a performative measure intended to make non-disabled Canadians think the government is doing something of substance for the disability community when it is clearly not?

714 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 7:31:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his brilliant advocacy and for his question on behalf of persons with disabilities. The member knows, as does everyone in this place, that protecting and helping the most vulnerable in our society is a fundamental Canadian principle, and it is a fundamental principle of our government. When it comes to people with disabilities, we have invested more money in the last eight years than ever before. I take the point: Is it enough? Absolutely not. Do we need to do more? Absolutely we do, but we have made progress. In comparison, the previous Conservative government promised and failed to deliver a national disability act. Our Liberal government made the Accessible Canada Act a reality, but there is still a lot more to do. That said, we are moving as quickly as possible on the Canada disability benefit. Of course, we understand that the disability community is anxious to see extra dollars in their bank accounts, but we must get it right to make the delivery of the benefit as smooth, as targeted and as effective as possible. Budget 2024 proposes funding of $6.1 billion over six years, beginning in this fiscal year, 2024-25, and $1.4 billion per year ongoing, for the first-ever federal Canada disability benefit. This represents an important next step in the journey for this. I cannot talk about the journey of the Canada disability benefit without talking about the years of relentless advocacy from the community. I want to thank all of those who have been relentless in their advocacy as they championed the needs and priorities of persons with disabilities. I encourage them to continue to engage with our government as we move forward in the next chapter. The lived experiences of persons with disabilities has been a key part of the consultation process. In the true spirit of “nothing without us”, we engaged with persons with disabilities, stakeholders and all Canadians on key issues. In the coming months, once we have published the draft regulations in part I of the Canada Gazette, Canadians will again be invited to provide feedback. As the hon. member knows, the act requires that regulations be in place by June 2025, with money flowing into bank accounts by July 2025. Let me assure all members in the House and all Canadians that we are on track to meet this timeline. This is the first federal government step-up in support of persons with disabilities by creating a new and specific benefit just for them. The budget 2024 announcement unlocks the ability to proceed with the extensive and intense behind-the-scenes work needed to deliver the CDB. We need the time not just to be focused on the developing regulations, but to build the internal infrastructure and support systems necessary to deliver the program and to allow the provinces and territories to adjust their policies to ensure that there are no unintended clawbacks. This is a crucial time as we carefully balance the need to strengthen our social security net while making sure government spending is able to help with the everyday costs of living. We are committed to creating a better, fairer country for generations to come, but, as I said, there is more work to do. It is the next stop in the journey of building a barrier-free Canada. I thank the member for Kitchener Centre for his ongoing excellent advocacy on this.

579 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Apr/17/24 7:35:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have had this conversation dozens of times in the House over the last three years. I have heard, time and again, about a need for time for the regulations, negotiations with provinces and territories, “nothing without us” and that they need to do more. The difference now is that, with this budget, their cards are on the table. There was a dollar amount in that budget, and that dollar amount was $200 a month. The government set the expectation that this benefit was meant to lift people out of poverty. The Liberals find money for the Trans Mountain pipeline; they find $35 billion for that. They send $18 billion to oil and gas companies that are already making tens of billions of dollars in record-breaking profits. However, when it came time to step up and demonstrate that there was well-placed trust from the disability community, the community was let down. Are the parliamentary secretary and others going to put pressure on the government to expand what was in the budget and do better?

180 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Apr/17/24 7:36:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's advocacy. I have a nephew who has severe disabilities. Right now, in his first five years of life, is when he needs the most support to be able to grow and live a functioning life. I completely understand the need to ensure that the disability community has the support it needs so it can continue to flourish and thrive in a community that is barrier-free. During the past eight years, we have invested unprecedented amounts of money to further the inclusion and the financial stability of persons with disabilities. The Canada disability benefit represents the largest single item in budget 2024, of over $6 billion. This is not insignificant. This is the first time in Canada that there will be a federal benefit designed specifically to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Like all progressive programs that we have delivered, it is built to be enhanced and expanded. I look forward to working with the member and the disability community to ensure that we are continuing to advocate for a barrier-free community for them.

185 words

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

Apr/17/24 7:37:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I really dive into the substance of my question here today, I want to give a quick shout-out to the U13 boys' hockey league champions from the Southwest Saskatchewan Hockey League. I was fortunate enough to coach my son's hockey team this year. The story starts like this: I was in a classroom in Mossbank back in September, talking to the students there. It turned out that half of the kids I talked to were on the hockey team that won our league, so I congratulate the Wood River Flyers on winning the Southwest Saskatchewan Hockey League. I give a big shout-out to Devin Smith, Jesse Packet, Kipton Tremblay, Grayson Eisen, Ashton Clermont, Lawson Layman, Ryder Tallon, Alex Jolly, Griffin DeWulf, Jon Jennett, Cole Masse, Austin Pritchard, Carson Crooks, Kyle Batty, Turner Tallon, Grady Crooks and, of course, their head coach, Dustin DeWulf. A big congratulations to them on a great year and a job well done. Back in December, I had the opportunity to ask the government about the carbon tax. This is a topic that is not going away anytime soon. When I talk to people back home, particularly at this time of year, April, the farmers are itching to get going in the fields. They see the costs and the effects of the carbon tax right up front, because farmers back home are price-takers. They do not get to pass costs on to anybody, at least not back home. There are other farmers in greenhouses who grow produce and are able to pass on some of those costs; that is a whole other issue. I am going to focus more on the grain farmers that I have back home today. They have to pay the carbon tax on their trucking, as they are still waiting for the grain drying bill to pass. There are a lot of things they still have to pay it on. If they want to get fertilizer shipped out to their farm, they have to pay the carbon tax on that. They have to absorb that price. They cannot pass that cost on to anybody else, so they are paying for it. They also do not get to sell their crop to anybody. There is a global price that is set on their crop. They have to buy their machinery, their crops and their inputs, then grow the crops and harvest them. Therefore, they are price-takers. There are some exemptions for on-farm usage, but that does not cover the cost associated with many other activities. That is what we are trying to get the attention of the government for. However, there is another element to the carbon tax that the government continues not to address. That is the issue of municipalities and towns. I gave the example previously of the Town of Shaunavon, for instance, which is going to have an 8% or 9% property tax increase for it to cover the costs of the carbon tax alone. The City of Swift Current will have an increase of multiple percentage points on property taxes to cover the carbon tax. The Town of Kindersley has a fairly new hockey rink, built in the last 10 years. It just recently built a brand new aquatic centre. To run just those two facilities, it is paying $12,000 a month in carbon tax. The costs are exorbitant. That cost goes directly back to the ratepayers, so the same ratepayers who are paying the carbon tax on their gas, groceries and home heating are also paying it on the increases in their property tax; they have to pay the costs that the Town of Kindersley has to pay on these buildings. There is no rebate that covers that. This is yet another layer to the carbon tax that people are getting gouged on, and the government continues to refuse to do anything about it.

656 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 7:41:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been through a lot in the past five years, and many are struggling with the cost of living. We have heard numerous calls to scale back the carbon pricing system in response, but carbon pricing is not the problem. It is designed to help families through the Canada carbon rebate, which will help lower- and middle-income households most of all. That is why a pause on carbon pricing simply will not help families keep life affordable. As the Governor of the Bank of Canada explained, the price on carbon contributes only 0.15 percentage points to inflation per year, a tiny portion of the high inflation we have been experiencing. Economists estimate that carbon pricing increased the cost of food by 0.33%. Once again, that is a small portion of what we have all been dealing with in recent months. The main reason for that is that farmers are already exempt from the carbon tax for most of their activities. Bill C‑234 is simply not going to change things for households that are dealing with higher grocery prices, and it is false to suggest that it would. It stands to reason that carbon pricing is not causing inflation. Inflation is something that is happening all over the world, including in many countries that do not have a carbon tax. The real causes are events like the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 crisis and Russia's war in Ukraine driving energy prices up. Canada's price on pollution is designed to protect Canadians from any price increases it does cause. All direct proceeds from pricing carbon pollution under the federal system are returned to the jurisdiction in which they were collected. More than 90% of fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to individuals and households through the Canada carbon rebate. They are distributed via cheque or direct bank deposit every three months, and eight out of 10 families in provinces where the federal system applies receive more money back than they pay. We cannot deny the devastating effects of climate change. Doing nothing is not an option. We would just be wasting time in the global race to find carbon-neutral solutions. The effects of climate change cost Canadian households $720 a year, and this figure will rise to $2,000 a year by 2050. Climate change also costs lives and impacts the physical and mental health of millions. We need to listen to youth, our communities and our businesses. Choosing the easy path now will force us all to take a harder path later, and that is not an option.

439 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/17/24 7:44:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, just because someone cannot see the cost of the carbon tax on their grocery bill does not mean it is not driving up that cost. We know that it is driving up that cost. Anyone who has gone to the grocery store knows that the prices of groceries are going up, because when we tax the trucker who brings the food from the farm to the terminal, when we tax the truck that takes it from production to the grocery store, and when we tax the grocery store, we are taxing the food and we are driving up the cost for the consumer who buys the food. We know that through the Canada Gazette and through the government's regulations, it is expressly stated on carbon pricing and many other government initiatives that the people most likely to experience the dramatic effects are single mothers and seniors living on a fixed income. We have seen that first-hand. We have experienced that first-hand. That is why we are seeing issues with people being able to pay their mortgages, people being able to pay their bills and people being able to buy food and feed their families.

205 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Apr/17/24 7:45:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, carbon pricing is one of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce pollution, since it sends a signal across the economy. It gives every household and business an incentive to find ways to reduce pollution, but it leaves them the flexibility to decide when and how to take action. That is why pollution pricing alone helps achieve one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions that we need in order to do our part and mitigate the worst effects of climate change. It is a key pillar of any serious climate plan. Modelling by Environment and Climate Change Canada shows that Canada's emissions in 2021 would have been 18 metric tonnes higher without carbon pricing, which had already been implemented for two years.

127 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/17/24 7:46:48 p.m.
Watch

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted, and accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:47 p.m.)

39 words