44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2023 02:00PM
- Sep/20/23 6:41:50 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:42:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in 2018, the House was seized with a very emotive and serious issue. This was the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic, a child killer, from a maximum-security prison to a much less secure facility, a healing lodge. I remember the debate in the House and reading the stories of how the families of the victim were retraumatized through this decision. That was five years ago.
Before the summer constituency break, we had a very similar debate in the House. This was when it was revealed that a mass murderer, mass child killer Paul Bernardo, had been transferred from a maximum-security prison to a less secure facility.
Five years passed. I do not understand why the government did not make changes to ensure that this type of revictimization of families in the most serious crimes did not happen again. How did it happen again?
The former minister, Ralph Goodale, who was overseeing the McClintic file, failed upwards into an ambassadorial position. In fact, the Liberals, in 2018, actually amended the Criminal Code to require that inmates are held in the “least restrictive environment possible.”
It has been five years. Out of respect for victims and families, I would like to see some unanimity in this place on two things. First, the government should acknowledge that this is not appropriate. I would like the government to say that mass murderers should stay in maximum-security prisons. I would like to hear this from the member who is responding to this question, that the government agrees with that principle. Second, very importantly, the government should agree to rescind the amendment that they made in the former bill, Bill C-83, and say that the “least restrictive environment” should not apply to mass murderers and child killers like Paul Bernardo and Terri-Lynne McClintic.
The other thing that I would like the member who is replying to this question to say is whether the Prime Minister has agreed to issue a directive to require all mass murderers to remain in maximum security for their entire sentence. That should be done so that this does not happen again, so that we are not having this discussion and revictimizing families again.
This should be a principle that every person in this House agrees to, and it is the government's job. The government has the responsibility and the capacity to do this. The buck stops with the government.
Those are the three things I would like to hear: that mass murderers should remain in maximum security prisons for the duration of their sentence; that the government will repeal the “least restrictive environment” provision that it put forward and passed; and that the government will issue a directive to require all mass murderers to remain in maximum security for the entirety of their sentence, so that we do not have another family of a victim of a child killer or mass murderer being revictimized.
497 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:46:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to rise tonight to speak about this incredibly important issue and thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for bringing it forward.
The discussion around the revictimization of families and loved ones who have been impacted by crime is incredibly serious and something our government takes incredibly seriously. I remember the debate of both instances the member opposite referred to. It is incredibly painful not only for the families and loved ones of the victims, but for all Canadians who saw those dark times. Those crimes have really impacted so many people across this country. That is precisely why we made changes, to ensure that the sentences for the people who commit these heinous crimes reflect that, so they are not out to commit crimes again.
The decisions to reclassify and transfer offenders, which goes specifically to the question here today, are taken independently by the Correctional Service of Canada, CSC. Its mandate is to help maintain the safety and security of our communities by managing the correctional institutions of offenders in their care. It is important to acknowledge that these operational decisions are not taken by elected officials. Our job as members of this House is to continue to push for best practices, like my colleague mentioned, and to increase transparency in our criminal justice system. That is why earlier this summer our government issued new ministerial directives to establish additional information-sharing procedures in cases involving high-profile offenders. The new directive instructs that, “Prior to transferring a high-profile offender to any reduced security level, the Commissioner of CSC or their delegate will notify the Minister of Public Safety, formally and directly.”
Additional efforts will be taken to ensure that CSC takes a trauma-informed approach that considers victims in these cases of transfers and security classifications. This can be facilitated, for example, by providing registered victims with the opportunity to share uploaded victims' statements for consideration during the security classification and transfer decision-making processes. What this means is enhanced engagement opportunities for victims to share important input throughout the offender's sentence. It means that the needs of victims and their families will be taken into account, and that CSC will place extra emphasis on the need to not retraumatize those who are most vulnerable.
While elected officials do not make the operational decisions, it is important for us as legislators and the public at large to know why these decisions are made. To that end, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada has shown her willingness to listen to Canadians' concerns over these additional reviews of high-profile cases when needed. These reviews are undertaken by committees with external representatives. We take this incredibly seriously and want to ensure that victims are at the forefront of these decisions.
474 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:50:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a common theme among Liberal responses. After eight years of the Liberals being in government, they say it is not their job. That is what the member opposite is saying here. The reality is the buck stops with the government. It and Parliament write the directives and rules under which these decisions are made.
Now, five years since Terri-Lynne McClintic, the families of Paul Bernardo's victims have been revictimized because the government put forward legislation to put mass murderers in the least restrictive environment and refused to issue a directive to ensure that mass murderers stay in maximum-security prisons.
I will ask again. Does the member opposite agree, can she just say she agrees, that mass murderers should stay in maximum-security prisons, and that the provisions around a least restrictive environment the Liberals put forward and voted on in Bill C-83, as they apply to mass murderers and child killers, be repealed?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:51:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I will say and what I will reiterate is that the offenders of these violent and heinous crimes absolutely deserve these severe consequences. I will just point out, because I think we want to take this subject incredibly seriously and as legislators we need to be responsible, that some of the information being shared is not actually correct. In fact, that member sat around the cabinet table when these same directives existed, but what we have done is change them to ensure that victims are at the forefront.
The member opposite raised fair criticisms, unfortunately they were criticisms of her government as well, but we take the matter incredibly seriously, and that is precisely why the minister ordered new directives to put families, victims and loved ones at the forefront, and to ensure that the retraumatization of these heinous crimes is not done again.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:52:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is nothing more disingenuous than a government implying it has delivered on the requests of constituents when the reality is anything but.
Prior to the summer break, I rose on behalf of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, small businesses across the country and called on the government to extend the repayment deadline for the CEBA loans. These are the Canada Emergency Business Account loans, which these businesses took out during the pandemic to help during an extraordinarily difficult time. Many of these businesses did not recover as fully as they had expected to, and they were faced with the additional costs of inflation and a tight labour market.
A few weeks ago, I received some excited texts from business owners who had read on social media that the government had indeed extended the terms of the CEBA loans and the regional relief and recovery fund loans for small businesses. Of course, a few minutes later, when they had had a chance to read the fine print, they realized with disappointment that what the government had done was something very incremental and not at all what had been asked for by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and thousands of small businesses, including businesses in northwest B.C., the area I am proud to represent.
The most attractive part of the loans for small businesses that were struggling was the fact that the government had offered a significant loan forgiveness program. If small businesses took out $60,000, the maximum amount allowed under these loan programs, they were able to keep up to $20,000. That is money these small businesses could invest in improvements to their business to make them safer, to make them more efficient and to keep their doors open during some of the toughest economic times this country has seen, so we saw huge uptake of this program. Businesses were asking the government to do something that is very reasonable, which was to extend the repayment terms for that program by one year. They would still pay back the portion of the loan that they originally were required to, but because of the unique conditions of rising inflation and the tight labour market, they wanted some more time.
I think that is something that was very reasonable to expect, so it was disappointing to see that, while it did extend by one year the deadline for avoiding a 5% interest charge, when it came to the loan forgiveness portion, the most significant aspect of these small business loans, the government, and this is quite surprising, extended the deadline by three weeks. I am serious. Businesses still have to pay back the money before January of the coming year or they are going to lose up to $20,000 in loan forgiveness.
This is incredible. What the government did was not at all what small businesses had asked for, yet it is trying to take credit for helping small businesses.
What I am looking for from the parliamentary secretary this evening is, first of all, an opportunity to express the disappointment of these thousands of businesses and, second, a clear and succinct explanation, not smoke and mirrors or distraction talking about other programs, for those businesses. I am looking for an explanation of why the government refused to extend the loan forgiveness portion of the CEBA and RRRF loans.
567 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 6:56:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has been there to provide unprecedented support to Canada's small businesses across the country. That is why, at the onset of the pandemic, we launched the Canada emergency business account program. This is in addition to critical and much-needed supports like the Canada emergency rent subsidy, which helped more than 200,000 businesses pay their rent, and the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which kept nearly half a million Canadians employed.
CEBA provided $49 million in support to nearly 900,000 businesses. Let me say that again: The CEBA loan supported over 900,000 small businesses in neighbourhoods across the country. It kept their lights on and helped workers remain employed. CEBA offered interest-free, partially forgivable loans up to $60,000 to eligible small businesses. The program was designed to allow for a rapid deployment of credit to a wide range of recipients, because although the Conservatives may have forgotten about the pandemic, Canadians certainly remember how challenging those days were.
Early last year, to support hard-working business owners as they continue to recover from the pandemic, our government announced that the CEBA repayment deadline for partial forgiveness would be extended by one year. The repayment deadline to receive forgiveness of up to $20,000 and avoid interest payments for all eligible CEBA loan holders was initially extended from December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2023. Since then, the government has heard and responded to calls for greater flexibility in the face of ongoing economic challenges.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, I know very well how the COVID-19 pandemic has presented many unique challenges for Canadian businesses. I know my colleagues also have been hearing about the difficulties our small businesses face. That is why, on September 14, 2023, the Prime Minister announced several changes to the CEBA program, aimed at supporting economic recovery and offering greater repayment flexibilities to small businesses.
We have extended the deadline for partial forgiveness, allowing businesses additional time to repay or refinance their CEBA loans and take advantage of the partial forgiveness. Businesses that repay by January 18, 2024, or submit a request for refinancing by this date and successfully refinance their CEBA loans prior to March 28, 2024, will benefit from partial forgiveness. Additionally, the deadline for CEBA loan holders that elect to not repay or refinance by the partial forgiveness deadline will have their term loans extended by one year, from December 31, 2025 to December 31, 2026.
These steps will provide those who are unable to secure refinancing, or generate enough cash flow to repay their loans by the forgiveness deadline, an additional year and to continue repayment at a low interest rate. Only interest payments for these term loans will be required until the full principal is due on December 31, 2026. Small businesses asked for more flexibility, and we listened. Our government will continue to have the backs of Canadians and Canadian businesses every step of the way. We are focusing on growing our economy and building a stronger, more resilient Canada for everyone.
526 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 7:00:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is incredibly frustrating. I asked for a clear and succinct explanation of why the government did not extend the loan forgiveness by an additional year, which is what small businesses and small business advocates were asking for. Instead, he read into the record the government's decision in detail, which I think I had just summarized.
I will ask the parliamentary secretary one more time: Why did the government refuse to extend the full loan forgiveness until the end of 2024, and instead gave small businesses only three extra weeks? Why did it make that decision? It is clearly not what businesses were asking for.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 7:01:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government will continue to support small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country. We have heard loud and clear that small businesses needed additional flexibility and options in these difficult times, and we are taking action to have their backs. Through these flexibilities for CEBA, we are giving small businesses additional breathing room because we know that small businesses are the hearts of our communities. Our government is also supporting small businesses through cutting credit card transaction fees, cutting taxes for growing small businesses, and helping them digitize through the Canada digital adoption program.
Moreover, we are ensuring that all entrepreneurs have the opportunities they deserve. That is why we launched the historic women entrepreneurship strategy, the Black entrepreneurship program, the 2SLGBTQI+ entrepreneurship program and targeted supports for indigenous entrepreneurs.
We will continue to support small businesses across this country.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 7:02:04 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:02 p.m.)
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
