44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/6/23 6:19:50 p.m.
- Watch
We do have quorum.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I must say I am bit perplexed as to why the Conservatives would do a quorum call in the middle of my speech. Maybe they do not want to hear what I have to say about parole and the importance of parole to public safety, or maybe they do not want to hear what I am about to say about bail.
One of the things we have been talking about as New Democrats, which is now in the government's bail bill, a bill we have not been able to get to because of the delays of the Conservatives, is community-based bail supervision. That is the idea that we would take similar principles to parole and apply them to bail.
Right now, in the system we have in this country, when someone is on bail, there is actually no supervision whatsoever. The government's bill, Bill C-48, would provide that judges could refer people to community-based bail supervision programs. That means that people who are on bail would actually be supervised if they have a curfew, if they are supposed to be at a certain address or if they are supposed to be going to work, whatever the conditions of bail are. We do not really supervise that now. Community-based bail supervision would be important.
The other thing the bill would do is help with what I see as the real problem with bail in Canada, which is that we detain way too many people before trial, people who have not been convicted of anything. In particular, we detain way too many indigenous people, way too many racialized people, way too many poor people and way too many people with mental health challenges.
We do that because our system says that to get bail, people need a surety. They need somebody who is a friend or family member, who has a stable address and a stable job. They, themselves, also need a stable address, a telephone and usually a car before they could actually get bail. What we are doing is taking a lot of people and keeping them in detention, at very high costs, sometimes over $1,000 a day to keep people in detention.
If we use community-based bail supervision programs, the average cost of those pilot programs that the John Howard Society runs is five dollars a day. What we would get out of that is better public safety outcomes, fewer people in detention, and better public safety because we have better supervision for those on bail.
I am talking about this because it is the other end of the system from parole. Both of these are measures to keep the public safe. If we invest in parole and if we invest in community-based bail supervision, we would have fewer people who are victims of crime in this country. I hope that people in this House will see the wisdom of investing in these ways of rehabilitating and reintegrating people into our society.
504 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to stand and speak to my hon. colleague's long overdue bill, Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or the truth in sentencing bill.
Unlike many of the bills we are dealing with at the moment, this one is simple, yet I believe it will have one of the greatest positive impacts on the way we treat victims of crime in our country. The bill would add some simple amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Any time a change is made to a parole date, temporary absence or work release, an explanation of how those dates were determined must be disclosed to the victims of the offence.
At the core of the bill is transparency. Canada's justice system ensures that victims and their families, through no choice of their own, are drawn into arduous and protracted legal proceedings. Of course, these are necessary to ensure that every letter of the law is followed to avoid any possible miscarriage of justice. They are subjected to the facts of the case many times over, and when a sentence is delivered, it may not align with what was originally sought. It can be a very traumatic experience from start to finish, and indeed for the years that follow. The least we can do for Canadians who are impacted by crime is to be consistently transparent with how decisions after sentencing are made.
Victims of crime are in dire need of a change of direction. We increasingly see that the government is determined to place the rights of perpetrators ahead of those of the victims. We have seen this playing out in real time through a sharp increase in random attacks and a record number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty since September of last year.
Since the Prime Minister took office, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang killings have gone up by 92%. Eight years of this government's catch-and-release bail policies have unleashed a wave of crime across our country. Many Canadians no longer feel safe walking down the street or taking transit, but even in its attempt to respond to Canada's collective outrage on its soft-on-crime policies, the government refuses to reverse them. Through its so-called bail reform bill, the accused killer of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala and countless other repeat violent offenders would still be released on bail. Canadians, and above all the victims of these crimes, know that this is unacceptable.
Meanwhile, the government continues to place much of the burden of rural policing on rural communities. In my part of the country, the government's retroactive pay deal for the RCMP was negotiated without consultation with the Government of Saskatchewan or rural communities themselves, which are now on the hook for the entire pay increase. I want to stress that this is not in any way about wanting to deny our RCMP officers the pay increases they received, but local mayors and councillors are being left to explain these unfair and unexpected costs to my constituents. Since these municipalities cannot run deficits, their taxes have to go up. Added to this, the federal government has chosen to stay silent on whether it will do its part. That, too, is very unacceptable. It is another example of its “fail to act and ask questions later” approach to public safety.
All this is to say that we have seen a dramatic shift over the past eight years away from a victim-centred approach to criminal justice. The bill before us is an excellent attempt to fill just one of the many gaps that we now see. I would like to thank my colleague for responding to real-world deficiencies with a common-sense solution. In fact, I understand that this is truly a grassroots bill and that the motivation came from the experience of one of the member's own constituents.
Lisa Freeman's father, Roland Slingerland, was brutally bludgeoned to death in 1991. In 1992, the killer was sentenced to life in prison, or at least that was what Canadians were told. Lisa was caught off guard when her father's killer was made eligible for early parole 20 years into the 25-year parole eligibility of his life sentence. She was left with no information as to how that decision was made.
On top of that, Lisa and her family now live with the reality that her father's killer enjoys the use of his own car, access to employment and catered meals at a halfway house. That would be enough of an insult to most Canadians, as most law-abiding citizens do not live that well, and this individual, who committed a serious murder, did.
Recently, he was transferred to an institution in Alberta, because the program he wanted was not available in Ontario. The Alberta facility is located just 10 kilometres from Lisa's sister. I have no words to put to this. It makes absolutely no sense, regardless of what this particular criminal wanted in the way of opportunities to become better, that they would put him that close to her sister. That is right: Their father's killer was relocated just a few minutes away without their consent or even their prior knowledge that this was going to happen. Lisa, her sister and the rest of the Freeman family were informed of the transfer 24 hours after the fact. In other words, they were given no opportunity to have any input into this decision. They were simply told that this was what was happening. It is safe to say that they feel betrayed and left behind by our justice system.
This bill would mean that there would be no delay in the sharing of critical information with victims of crime, like Lisa Freeman, when it comes to an offender’s movements or relocation. It would provide the information that victims need when preparing an impact statement for parole hearings.
We heard tonight about the case with Paul Bernardo, so I am not going to go into that again, but it certainly is an example of a horrific situation where the victims of this crime faced such a difficult circumstance, which they really should not have.
Just today on CTV News, it was reported that convicted killer Michael White has been granted full parole. In 2006, White was convicted of the second-degree murder of his pregnant wife Liana White, with no possibility of parole for 17 years. I think many Canadians expect that a minimum sentence for second-degree murder would be fully served behind bars, but that is not the reality, it seems, in this case. I have not had a chance to talk to Liana's mother, as the story just hit the airwaves this afternoon, but I would be very interested to know how often she and her family were consulted before each decision to release Michael White into society was made.
What victims experience is a lack of clarity and transparency from our justice system on how significant changes to an individual’s passage through the prison system are determined. Unless we have been in their shoes, I do not think we can fully appreciate how traumatic these unexpected changes can be. I do not think we can properly measure the toll that it takes on families, which are essentially retraumatized each time a decision is made with unclear parameters.
Therefore, this bill is the least we can do for victims and their families, and I urge this House to give victims some peace of mind by passing Bill C-320.
1293 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 6:30:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I attempted to move a unanimous consent motion earlier, and I will attempt to do it again now. I have in my possession, as it is after 6:30 p.m., the email correspondence between the whips' offices. They are all time-stamped prior to the last time I moved it. Nonetheless, I will try again.
There have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
1. That, in relation to its study of the pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2024 budget, seven members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Fredericton, New Brunswick; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Halifax, Nova Scotia; and St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, in the fall of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
2. That, in relation to its study of pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2024 budget, seven members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Quebec, Quebec; Toronto, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Edmonton, Alberta; and Vancouver, British Columbia, in the fall of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
3. That seven members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Whitehorse, Yukon, in the summer of 2023, during an adjournment period, to attend the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors annual conference.
It sounds like a really interesting conference. I am sorry I am going to miss it.
267 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 6:31:59 p.m.
- Watch
I have been advised by all the recognized parties that they agree with this request.
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
Agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
Hearing none, the motion is carried.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the cost of everything is going up. Why? It is because the Prime Minister is directly responsible for creating the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has created a cost of living crisis through his out-of-control spending and through his inflationary policies.
There is $67 billion in new spending. That is how much the Prime Minister is trying to ram through Parliament before he takes off for the summer. We would think there would be a plan to return to a balanced budget, but there is not one. We would think there would be a detailed plan on how the $67 billion in new spending would be used, but there is not one.
We just have to look at the Liberal government's record when it comes to connecting Canadians with high-speed Internet. The Liberals have announced billions and billions of dollars, paid for by taxpayers, in an attempt to connect Canadians. There are at least eight bureaucratic programs under the government's connectivity plan. There are eight bureaucratic programs chasing the same goal. What is there to show for it? Over one million Canadian households still do not have access to high-speed Internet.
Over 50% of first nation communities still do not have access to high-speed Internet, despite billions of dollars' worth in taxpayer-funded announcements over eight years. This is not a record to be proud of. It is a record of failure. I wish the government would realize that announcing money is not the same as getting things done.
It is the same pattern displayed by the government when it comes to the economy. We have a record amount of new debt added by the Prime Minister, and now we have $60 billion in new spending. What are the results? According to The Globe and Mail, Canada will have the weakest per capita growth among its member countries from 2020 to 2060. That is not an economic record to be proud of.
As members know, I represent a rural region. It is a region that is proudly home to thousands of farmers who work their land to feed the world. The longer the Prime Minister remains in power, the more difficult it becomes to farm in Canada. Not only is the Liberal government's costly carbon tax preventing Canadian farmers from feeding the world, but the Prime Minister's inflationary policies are too.
I recently read a report that stated the cost to purchase farm equipment rose 11.7% in 2021 alone. Farmers cannot afford to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of farming. The cost of everything is going up, but the value of one's hard-earned dollars is going down. The rising rate of interest is now preventing farmers from borrowing the money needed to do their job. I challenge anyone to find a farmer who believes the government is working for farmers.
I will remind Canadians that it was the Liberal government that voted against a Conservative bill to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating. Thankfully, the bill passed the House of Commons, and it is now waiting to be passed in the Senate. Any Liberal who thinks it is okay to punish farmers for producing food is failing to stand up for Canadian agriculture.
The Canadians I represent oppose the Liberal government's out-of-control spending. They oppose the billions in dollars in new spending without a plan. They oppose inflationary policies that drive up interest rates. They oppose the government's carbon tax hikes.
Canadians cannot afford the Prime Minister and his policies. Inflationary policies and constant tax hikes are not sustainable. That is why Conservatives are blocking the Prime Minister's inflationary budget. I will be voting against Bill C-47 and will continue to work with my Conservative colleagues to fight for Canadians.
648 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for a long time, we have been listening to a very disingenuous argument from the Conservatives about the cause of inflation in Canada.
Big oil racked up $38.3 billion in profits straight from the after-tax money in the pockets of Canadians right across Canada. Big grocery has been racking up hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. Again, that is after-tax money coming out of the pockets of Canadians right across the country.
Why are the Conservatives not talking about them? They are doing far more damage to the affordability of things for people in Canada than the government or anybody else.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Liberals' approach does puzzle me as well. They tax everything that moves.
For the first time in Canadian history, during COVID, the Liberal government charged our hospitals to heat themselves. It charged a carbon tax on hospitals, universities and schools. The Liberals actually charged them a carbon tax to heat their buildings, and they have no ability to get that money back. I do not know about that Liberal member. Never mind about the oil and gas industry. These institutions just wanted to heat their buildings, but the Liberals are taxing our publicly funded facilities.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep repeating themselves. It is always more or less the same speech. They talk about the carbon tax being tripled.
Since the beginning of the session, the Conservative opposition days, the budget, it is always the same thing. We have to get rid of this and eliminate that. They just sidestep the major issue of our time, which is the fight against climate change.
The earth is burning right now and that is not just a figure of speech. Quebec is literally on fire. This is certainly related to climate change.
I would like to know the plan. If we get rid of the carbon tax, what would be the Conservatives' plan? We know that in this country, there is a back and forth between the reds and the blues. Sooner or later, the blues are going to return to power.
What are they going to do to address the major challenge of our time, the fight against climate change?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have to address inflation. The problem with the carbon tax is that it impacts everything. We are a big country, and we move goods all over the place. Quebec is somewhat insulated from this because there is no backstop program, but there are six other provinces out there that are charged this directly and paying a disproportionate portion. Ontario is one of them, and in Manitoba, where I live, we are paying a carbon tax that the Quebec people are not. That is a bigger problem in itself. This is how the government is very much dividing our country instead of trying to pull it together.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in the budget implementation bill, there is something very near and dear to the hearts of NDP members and to all progressives in this country: access to dental care for the poorest, the disadvantaged and middle-class families.
For the first time, people who have previously been unable to afford it will have access to dental care.
I want to ask the member this: If he votes against Bill C-47, will he commit to refusing his dental care, which is paid for by his parliamentary insurance?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will go back to inflation.
The lower-income people the New Democrats say they are defending are impacted more than anybody else. They have fewer dollars to move around. Sure, with our MP wages, people look at us. We are going to stand up for the little guy. We should get the reality here.
These lower-income people do not have extra income, so to put another program on them and say we will save their teeth when they cannot even afford groceries, and are standing in food lines to feed themselves, is absolutely ridiculous. We have to focus on getting the cost of living under control.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today we are debating an omnibus bill. That, of course, is Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. This bill, which is sponsored by the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and the member for University—Rosedale, is at report stage.
First, this bill is problematic because of its size. We are talking about 430 pages, the amendment of 59 laws and the Income Tax Regulations, on top of that. Even though this government promised to never again introduce such mammoth bills, that is exactly what Bill C-47 is. That is regrettable because it becomes impossible, or at least very difficult, to discuss certain important measures in detail.
I find that they are trying to muddy the waters. In any case, true to form, the Liberal government is ignoring almost all the demands and suggestions of the Bloc Québécois. Like the 2023 budget, Bill C‑47 contains absolutely nothing for seniors, practically nothing for housing and no long-term solutions to the underfunding of health care. There is also nothing about EI reform.
To my detractors, however, I admit that this bill seems to contain some good elements. Let me name two. First, it clarifies the calculation of taxable capital gains on the intergenerational transfer of SMEs, particularly farm businesses, something we in the Bloc fought hard to get. Second, it creates an employment insurance board of appeal. I will stop at just the two positive aspects of the budget.
I just said that this bill muddies the waters. I would like to reiterate that Bill C-47 is indeed clear as mud. Hidden in the piles of measures—the bill is roughly 400 pages long, after all—in division 31 of part 4, on page 325, the government introduces the following:
The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Yes, that is what it says. This monarchist measure has absolutely no place in a budget implementation act. At the very least, it should be the subject of a separate, full-fledged legislative initiative. We would be delighted to debate it. The Liberal government has tried to pull a fast one on us. It is taking people for fools. I am not mincing words—that is how much this shocks me.
The Liberals have told us that this merely confirms a fact, that Charles III is Canada's new sovereign. I am going to tell the Chair a little something: The Bloc Québécois does not want this new king. What is more, the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians do not want him. An Angus Reid poll conducted last April, as members will recall, showed that 71% of Quebeckers want the monarchy to disappear and 51% of Canadians feel the same.
The poll shows that there is not a single province in Canada where the percentage of people who support constitutional monarchy exceeds the percentage of those who oppose it. It seems to me that these figures speak for themselves. It also shows that 92% of those opposed to the monarchy would like to see an attempt to change the Constitution in order to sever ties with the monarchy. That is a big deal. Charles III is being disowned by the majority of the people over whom he rules while we, as elected parliamentarians, must agree to a bill that recognizes his authority.
No, I am opposed. All Bloc Québécois members are opposed because we do not want to see Charles III on our coins. We do not want to swear an oath to him. I do not want this hidden in a budget implementation bill.
Furthermore, it is expensive for us to remain British subjects. It costs a little more than $67 million per year on average for honours and awards, ceremonial events and travel. In March 2022, in support of the magnificent sand castle that upholds the monarchy, the Governor General handed taxpayers a $100,000 catering bill for herself and 29 invited guests during an eight-day tour of the Middle East while our streets are filling up with homeless people. Between 2019 and 2022, the Governor General's salary increased by $40,000, or 13%. That is more than the 12% over four years obtained with great difficulty by 120,000 federal public servants a few weeks ago.
Not that long ago, we were dismayed to learn that governor generals Julie Payette and Mary Simon purchased more than $100,000 of clothing since 2017 at the expense of Quebeckers and Canadians. That is sad because it happened and continues to happen. The money keeps flying out the door. We want nothing to do with this system.
I stress this because the Liberal government had the gall to introduce this notion within the budget. In Canada, we do not have many institutions that are as expensive and at the same time as useless. For a government that wanted to make Canada a so-called postnational state, we might find this attachment to the monarchy rather unusual. It is one of the most archaic and moribund institutions in existence. It is utterly absurd. The monarchy does not improve Canada's image, it covers it in dust. Faced with the government's stubbornness in maintaining this absurdity, there remains only one option for the people of Quebec, a well-deserved option, which is sovereignty.
Among those who best grasp the importance and historical weight of Quebec sovereignty, there was Frédéric Bastien. This historian, professor and columnist left us far too soon at the age of 53, on May 16. Not 48 hours ago, I attended Frédéric's funeral with my leader and some of my colleagues. I was very moved to see thousands of people gather to celebrate the life and work of this great separatist. Also, every sovereignist mind from the cultural, political and journalism worlds was there. Everyone of importance in this magnificent nation was there to pay tribute to Frédéric Bastien. In a way, Frédéric Bastien spent his life fighting against the British monarchy and for Quebec's sovereignty. It is a great loss for the people of Quebec.
In short, Bill C‑47 has a few good things, but that is all. This monarchist measure that has nothing to do with the budget is hidden in there. Semiology expert Roland Barthes called this type of details that spoil everything “a tear in the smooth envelope of the image”. The image of Bill C‑47 has been badly tarnished by the fact that the requests of the Bloc Québécois have been completely ignored and that the needs of Quebeckers have been completely ignored.
People can guess how the Bloc Québécois will be voting in good conscience.
1218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
I gathered that there was not much in the budget that interested him. I would like to hear his opinion. Would he have liked to see more about access to the Internet and improvements to the cellular network in all of Quebec's regions and across Canada? It is 2023 and we are still asking questions. How is it that we are unable to have adequate services? I would like my colleague to comment on that.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is funny that he said that.
Earlier, my colleague from Mirabel gave a wonderful speech. He told us that he wanted the king to appear before a committee, but that the king did not have Internet service or did not know how to use it. That was really great.
Yes, that is something that should have been in the budget. There are too many other things that are missing. Earlier, I referred quickly to seniors, and then there is housing and EI. There is the underfunding of health care. This budget did not really target the real concerns.
It is a mammoth bill, but the content is not reflective of the container.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 6:53:02 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind hon. members to respect Canada's constitutional arrangement.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this budget is far from perfect. There are big gaps we are very worried about, but there are still major gains for ordinary people.
It will come as no surprise to my colleague that this budget expands dental benefits for children aged 12 to 18 and for people 65 and up, as well as for everyone earning less than $70,000 a year or whose household income is less than $90,000 a year. This is the NDP's plan to make sure people can go see a dentist, a service they may never have been able to afford in their lives. Hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers will have access to this type of health care.
This is not interference; it is reimbursing expenses. Nobody is telling Quebec how to run its hospitals. Nobody is opening federal dental clinics; this is just about reimbursing expenses. It will help people in a tangible way.
What does my colleague think about the fact that people in his riding, seniors in his riding, will be able to go see a dentist?
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is obviously a win.
However, at what price will the NDP have gained this victory?
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member touched on many subjects and topics in his intervention. He talked about Quebec separating. In his opinion, what is stopping Quebec from separating?
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
