SoVote

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/30/22 4:26:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting that when the minister was giving the last answer and he said that judges would have the opportunity to go to the maximum, a heckle came from across the way from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who said that they will never do it. Nothing underscores more their distrust in the justice system than what the member heckled during the answer. That is the truth. That is what this comes down to. My question for the minister is more simple than that. Nothing could divide the Conservatives and the Liberals more than when it comes to issues like this. The Liberals believe in using the correctional system to rehabilitate and reintegrate people into society— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

130 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/30/22 4:27:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, nothing shows a more clear difference between the Liberals and the Conservative than an issue like this. The Liberals believe that a correctional institution is there to rehabilitate and reintegrate people into society when possible, whereas the Conservative approach is much different. It is to lock them up and throw away the key. Can the minister talk about how important it is for this government to make sure that we give people who have a chance at being rehabilitated and reintegrated into society the opportunity to do that?

90 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/30/22 6:06:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-215

Mr. Speaker, I would note that this particular bill that has come forward is almost identical in form to Bill C-265, from the 43rd Parliament. The reason why I bring this up is because, after Bill C-265 went through all the stages of the House and returned back here, the Speaker ruled on the third reading of the vote that it could not proceed because the bill did not have the required royal recommendation. I am wondering this. Can the member provide some input as to whether the discrepancies or the challenges within the bill, which require that royal recommendation, have been properly dealt with? At my first glance, it does not appear as though that is the case. Unfortunately, it appears that the bill will, in all likelihood, end up with the same fate as that previous bill. Can the member let us know?

147 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 49 - Mar/30/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/30/22 6:50:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-215

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this private member's bill. In the very short time that I have, I would like to address my concern that I raised to the sponsor of the bill when he introduced it earlier this evening; specifically, that this bill inevitably is going to require royal recommendation. We know this, because a bill in almost the exact same form, Bill C-265, came through the House in the 43rd Parliament. It went through this deliberative process in the House. It was voted on after second reading. It went to committee. The Speaker entertained suggestions as to the need for royal recommendation, as he flagged it to be problematic in his view. After it came back from committee, the Speaker ruled that it would require royal recommendation before it could move to the final vote. It is problematic, because we know it is very rare that a government would provide royal recommendation to a private member's bill. The vast majority of private members' bills that come through the House do not have monetary impacts on them exactly because of that. This is not something that is unique to this particular Liberal government: This is something that is a followed course with all governments throughout the last number of years, decades and perhaps even beyond that. Although I admire the initiative that is being brought forward by the member, I think it is very clear to him that this will be the inevitable fate of the bill. It leads me to conclude that perhaps the only reason to introduce this bill was to somehow try to shame the government or make it look bad because it would not attach royal recommendation to it. I do not see the benefit of this, or how that would actually advance this particular issue. To that point, I am thrilled to say that a number of the initiatives that this bill seeks to entertain are actually covered in the budget of 2021, so although this member might be seeking slightly more, a lot of the measures were actually covered in that. Although I am concerned about the royal recommendation aspect of it, I am certainly interested in hearing more of the debate, and I know that you will give me my remaining seven minutes when we resume it.

394 words

All Topics