SoVote

May/6/22 12:36:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, having gone through that, I should be given a bonus five minutes, I would suggest. At the end of the day, the Conservatives like to play their games, and we saw that just now. They do whatever they can to play a game, cause distractions and lose the focus on what I believe and the government believes is important to Canadians, such as the budget and the budget implementation bill. We do not get very many bills that are more important than the budget implementation bill, something that invests billions and billions of dollars into supporting Canadians in all sorts of different ways. That is what we were supposed to be debating today. On a Friday afternoon, the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition party, wants to play games. As much as the Conservatives want to focus on their games and their character assassinations, I can say that all members of the Liberal caucus will continue to have their focus on Canadians and the people of Canada first. That is the reason why we are very excited about Bill C-19, no matter what sorts of games might be played by the Conservative opposition. We understand how this budget is going to have a profoundly positive impact on building a stronger, healthier Canada. We will continue to support the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and push aside the games. That is the assurance that I would give members. I do not support this motion. Bill C-5 should stay as one bill, as was the intent.

264 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (House leader of the official opposition, CPC)

May/6/22 12:39:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister would be proud of this member for his intervention today. The Prime Minister refers to spreading disinformation quite a bit. Let us go back to what actually happened here. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who is a member of the justice committee, proposed the motion during Routine Proceedings to split Bill C-5 at committee to allow the committee to effectively do its work. I then stood up and said that we want to put the question, which means we want to put it to a vote. That vote would have happened on Monday. There would have been no need for debate. There would have been no need for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to stand up and do this filibuster, and I suspect there are going to be others as well. They could have easily gone to Bill C-19 to debate it. I am guessing that maybe either the whip of the Liberal Party or the House leader has called the House leader of the NDP to prepare him to speak to this just to filibuster this. Let us be very clear about what happened. We put the question. We could have voted on this on Monday and we could have gone to Bill C-19. This is not a question, but more of a comment. I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has decided to filibuster his own piece of legislation to delay time so that we cannot get to Bill C-19. It just does not make any sense.

273 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/6/22 12:40:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members recall Bill C-8, the fall economic statement. We just passed that piece of legislation, even though it was introduced in 2021. The reason why we just passed it is the Conservative games. The Conservatives did not want to pass the legislation. That legislation was there to support small businesses and to support people directly in response to the pandemic, in a very real and tangible way. That is what Bill C-8 was all about. What we are seeing now is that the Conservatives want to continue to play that game, but on the budget implementation bill. This whole week, the Conservative Party has been attempting to stop debate on legislation. This is not the first time during motions that the Conservatives have stood up to try to prevent a debate from occurring. We can just look at what has happened this week. There are many examples of it. As the member tries to suggest that he is being generous, he might fool some within his Conservative caucus or some members, but he is not going to fool me or, I suspect, other government members.

192 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/6/22 12:42:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, to follow on the question from the member for Barrie—Innisfil, I wonder if we should not have just quickly put the question. I hear the parliamentary secretary speaking not to the motion, but to Bill C‑19, so he is preventing us from debating Bill C‑19. Does that not show that we should have simply gone directly to putting the question on the motion before the House?

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/6/22 12:42:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the Bloc member, like the Conservatives, is saying, “Trust us. This is what would have happened.” I would suggest that members of the Bloc and the Conservative Party review the past week, and take a look at the games they have played in this last week. While they do that, they should reflect on Bill C-8: the fall economic statement that should have passed months ago. However, because of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, that legislation, which was debated 12, 13 or more times inside the chamber for many hours and more than the budget itself, did not pass. Why should we believe those members on a Friday afternoon, when they have been causing nothing but filibusters throughout the week?

126 words

All Topics

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

May/6/22 12:43:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I disagree often with my colleague for Winnipeg North, but I found many aspects of his speech today important. For a week and a half now, the Conservatives have blocked the ability of members of Parliament to present petitions every single day. For a week and a half, they have disrupted Routine Proceedings, and it is always for a different reason. Sometimes it is the same committee report they present for a second or third time, sometimes it is a different committee report, and sometimes it is a motion of instruction, but it all adds up to trying to block fundamental bills that would help people. I think, particularly when we talk about the budget implementation act and the fact that the NDP pushed and forced the government to put in place the national dental care program for children at the same time as unprecedented investments in affordable housing, it is strange beyond belief that a Conservative member, who would be helping thousands of people in his or her own riding by supporting the BIA and allowing it to move forward, continues to try to block it. My question to my colleague for Winnipeg North is very simple. What does he think the strategy of the Conservatives is, when they block Bill C-8 for months, block petitions for a week and half and now are blocking important legislation that would lead to dental care and affordable housing for Canadians?

242 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/6/22 12:45:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I believe if we listen to some of the comments, in particular outside the chamber but also to a certain degree inside the chamber, we will hear the Conservative Party being critical and saying the government does not know how to manage House business. It is almost as if someone was walking down the sidewalk, we tripped them and then said, “Let me give you a hand up.” Then we tripped them again and said, “Why can you not stay on your feet?” The Conservative Party is playing games. That is the bottom line. They have their focus. The member made reference to the dental plan. To the credit of my New Democratic friends, they made the determination that Canadians do not want an election, but Canadians want to see a progressive agenda, and the New Democrats are contributing to the debate in a very real and tangible way. That does not mean we are all cozy and buddies: we often get into serious arguments and discussion. On debates, we have differing opinions, but at least they are contributing to what is taking place. Otherwise, if all opposition parties take the same approach as the Conservative Party is taking, it would be absolutely totally dysfunctional. We could not do anything inside the chamber. At least there is, at times, a sense of co-operation, which is absolutely necessary. That is what Canadians want: political parties working together.

243 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

May/6/22 12:47:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I was a little surprised to hear the member for New Westminster—Burnaby talk about petitions. The reason petitions have not been presented is because, every day, the Liberals have moved a motion to move to orders of the day, backed up by the NDP. With regard to the parliamentary secretary, it is quite ironic that he is the one who is holding up debate on the budget. He is the one who is debating the motion; no other hon. member. This was a very straightforward motion to allow the justice committee to do its work, having regard for the fact that the bill contains two substantive components: one with respect to the Criminal Code and the other with respect to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It could have been moved forward with a vote on Monday. That hon. member is holding up debate on the budget, so I ask him this, very respectfully: Why is he wasting the House's time?

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/6/22 12:48:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that those who are following the debate take a look at the week in its entirety. They will see very clearly that what we have is the Conservative Party of Canada, Canada's official opposition, playing games. At the end of the day, I went to move for the orders of the day because if I did not do that, we would continue debating on Conservative concurrence reports for hours. That is the reality that is preventing us from being able to do things such as passing—

93 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 12:48:42 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

9 words

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

May/6/22 12:48:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am very perplexed as to what is happening today because this is a bill that has gone through a number of days of debate in the House as one single unit. As of today, we will have had our sixth meeting of witnesses. We have set clause-by-clause for about a week and a half from now. We have agreed, by consensus of all the parties, to have eight meetings to discuss the bill, and at this point the Conservative Party is coming forward and saying we need to split the bill. I think it is outrageous. They in fact should be ruled out of order. I want to ask my friend this: Is it appropriate at this juncture to bring forward a motion to split the bill? So many witnesses have come forward and shared their experiences of systemic racism within the criminal justice system: their hurt, their anger and their lived experiences. Is it appropriate at this point in this debate to come forward and ask for—

174 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 12:49:48 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the parliamentary secretary 15 seconds for an answer.

12 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/6/22 12:49:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me compliment all of the members of the committee and the fine work that they have done in being able to address this very important issue. The short answer is that it is not a reflection on the committee's work. It is more a reflection on the House leadership from the official opposition in working with the Bloc, unfortunately. That is the reason why I believe that this motion is here. It is about games.

82 words

All Topics

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

May/6/22 12:50:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I am very disappointed that we are at this juncture today. Bill C-5 is a very important piece of legislation, and I can walk the House through my perspective on this. I want to confirm that I will be splitting my time with the member for Whitby. When Bill C-5 was introduced back in December, we heard from a number of different organizations and people who had been directly impacted by systemic racism. I realize that not everybody in this House understands, and not every party in the House recognizes what systemic racism is, but it is a lived reality for many Canadians. All I have to say is that if we look at what The Globe and Mail has reported over the last three days, we will find a very coherent set of news pieces that talk about systemic racism. For example, it included that 50% of women who are incarcerated within the criminal justice system are indigenous, whereas indigenous people only make up 4% of Canada's population. If we look at Black Canadians, we know they are disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system. This is one of the reasons why we brought forward Bill C-5. It includes a number of mandatory minimum penalties that were struck down by the Supreme Court for their unconstitutionality. We have also brought forward very important amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. After several days of debate, including at committee, we are at a stage now where Bill C-5 will be going through what is called clause-by-clause as of May 17 and May 20. We have three more meetings, the first of which is supposed to start in about 10 minutes, and we will have two subsequent meetings next Tuesday and Friday. As of two days ago, all parties represented, the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives, agreed that we would have two more meetings as of this week to conclude the study on Bill C-8, so as of next Friday we will conclude the study. We have had so many witnesses come and speak about the impacts of the criminal justice system, especially with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, on racialized and indigenous people. We had the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers speak about his personal experience: It was very powerful testimony of how he felt he was impacted by the criminal justice system. At this stage of the game, to have the bill split into two parts is completely unacceptable. It is not a routine motion on a Friday afternoon. This warrants debate. This is a bill that is fundamental to who we are, as Canadians. We may reject the notion of systemic racism, and I respect that because I am not here to educate people on what systemic racism is: It is a lived experience for many people in this country. Our legacy of colonialism, and what has happened with indigenous and many racialized people in Canada, will speak to systemic racism. It is a lived experience. It is not up for debate. I am not here to educate, but the reality is that people came to committee, they shared their lived experiences, they showed us and demonstrated why this has had a harmful impact on particular groups of people. That is why it is so disingenuous for the Conservative Party to bring this forward today. This is after we had consensus. We were very particular not to have a vote on this, because the bill is so important and so fundamental. We did not vote on it, but we compromised. In fact, the Conservatives wanted eight meetings, we wanted six, so we compromised and said seven in the interest of getting consensus. That is how we are here today. After today, we have two more meetings to conclude the study. We have very important witnesses who are going to speak about the bill in its totality. If we split the bill, we will essentially lose what we are trying to achieve here. It is not a frivolous PMB or a frivolous issue for us to dispose of on a Friday afternoon without any debate. For us to be here at this juncture on a Friday is completely disappointing. We do have a budget implementation act, and I spoke to it just before we broke about an hour ago for question period, and I, in fact, have several minutes more to speak to C-19. With respect to Bill C-5, the way that this has transpired, I believe, just speaks to the fact that the Conservative Party is absolutely not ready to deal with systemic racism. It is not ready to deal with smart criminal justice policies. If we look at places where they have implemented mandatory minimum penalties, such as the United States, which had, at the height of it, the largest number of mandatory minimum penalties, they are now rejecting this notion because it is something that impacts racialized people. It particularly affects Black communities in the United States. Today, we have an opportunity in Canada to address this issue in a very meaningful way and in a balanced way. While I know that Bill C-5 may not have gone far enough for many, it is one that fundamentally will change the criminal justice system and make sure that we have smart policies, one that ensures that people are able, if they do not pose a danger to the public, to continue their sentence in a community with supervision. It also ensures that they are able to get the right supports in order to continue with their lives, so that their lives are not disrupted, and they are not in a maze of criminality among those who are in prison. This is very smart and balanced criminal justice policy, one that I believe Canadians want us to embrace, and one that has, for far too long, impacted vulnerable communities. I believe that the splitting of this bill will be fundamentally wrong, and it will be the wrong approach. I would say it would be a complete failure on the part of the House to address something that has been so pronounced in our country. All we have to do is look at the annualized reports from the office of the correctional investigator, who painstakingly, year after year, demonstrates that the numbers of those who are in penitentiaries in Canada are, increasingly, young Black men, indigenous men and indigenous women who, as of last December, surpassed 50% of the prison population. What I ask today, and what I ask the House, is that we continue on pursuing Bill C-5 in its entirety as one bill, and that we continue to have our witnesses, who have been very thoughtful. While I may not agree with all of them, I think they have been very thoughtful in the way they presented this, and we look forward to ensuring that the matter comes back to the House. I welcome the opposition to have a robust debate on this and continue the debate on Bill C-5 that we had earlier this year and be able to come to, hopefully, a consensus, if not a vote, that can make sure the bill passes through the House and the Senate.

1235 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/6/22 12:59:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I really respect and honour the hon. member's intervention on a debate that we, quite frankly, really should not be having. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, as is his right as a member of Parliament, proposed in routine proceedings, in a motion, to split the bill. I asked that the question be put, which meant that we would have voted for it on Monday and, as is the hon. member's right, he could have simply stood up with the NDP and voted against it, if he chose to, or voted for it, depending on what his views are on splitting the bill and sending it back to committee to allow the committee to do the work. What I do not understand is why the government is continuing to filibuster on this issue when the question could have been put. We could have been avoiding all of this discussion. I do not understand. If one does not agree with it, vote against it on Monday. If one does agree with it, vote for it. That is the issue we are dealing with, not just standing up here and filibustering. We want to get to government business, and we could have gotten to government business.

210 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

May/6/22 1:00:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, a one-hour debate on this is hardly filibustering. It is, in fact, to put on record what we are talking about, how important this bill is and why it needs to be debated in its entirety as one full unit. That is not filibustering. That is putting forward a coherent set of reasons as to why this bill should not be divided.

65 words

All Topics

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Lib.)

May/6/22 1:00:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about the important work being done at the justice committee. We have already had many witnesses come forward to provide testimony, crucial information and feedback on Bill C-5. Would the member care to elaborate on how splitting this bill would impact the committee's good work?

55 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

May/6/22 1:01:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, we have completed five meetings with around six witnesses at each meeting, so we have heard from about 30 witnesses. Another meeting started a couple of minutes ago and there are two more scheduled meetings. In total, by the end of the study, we will have heard from roughly 45 witnesses who are experts in their fields, representatives of organizations that support those in the criminal justice system or people with lived experiences who have gone through the criminal justice system. In the following week, we have will clause-by-clause. By splitting the bill, we will be in danger of having to go back and do the study again, which would involve bringing back the same witnesses, who would then have to repeat their heart-wrenching testimony about their lived experiences. I do not think it is fair. We have a bill that is balanced and needs to be debated in its entirety. If opposition members do not like the bill, they are welcome to vote against it. In fact, I am not expecting the support of the Conservative Party on this bill.

186 words

All Topics

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

May/6/22 1:02:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am very confused now by the Conservatives, who, for a week and a half, have been blocking routine proceedings, blocking the ability of all members of Parliament to present petitions, often presenting the same thing two or three times in a row. Today they put forward a substantive motion, yet they refuse to want any debate. They just want parliamentarians to vote on it. It seems bizarre to me, to say the least, this erratic notion to put forward a substantive motion and, at the same time, not want parliamentarians to talk about it at all. It is very strange. The House responded to the Conservatives saying they were not blocking legislation by introducing more debate with evening sessions, and they voted against that too. They did not want to work evenings. The Conservatives have taken a very strange approach to the work of the House of Commons and the importance of taking action to help Canadians. My colleague seems to be talking about a consensus at the justice committee. I am very happy about that. It appears that those on the committee are working well together. As the member knows, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has raised some legitimate concerns about ways that Bill C-5 could be improved. Has the member understood those concerns and is he supportive of the concerns that have been brought forward?

234 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:04:04 p.m.
Watch

The parliamentary secretary has 15 seconds.

6 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 66