SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Oct/16/23 11:54:04 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-325

Madam Speaker, the debates on Bill C‑325, which I introduced last spring, are drawing to a close today. I am pleased to see that, following the tragic events that have taken place and the serious cases brought to our attention, the Bloc Québécois has finally decided to support Bill C‑325, even though it voted in favour of Bill C‑5 at the time. I agree that amendments to the bill in committee are necessary. In fact, committees are specifically mandated to improve bills and make them fairer for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals and their NDP colleagues are clinging to a short-sighted position that makes no sense. I have done my job with Bill C-325. Moreover, all the parties in Quebec's National Assembly—including the more right-wing parties, the centrist parties and the left-wing parties like Québec solidaire—have asked that Bill C-5 be amended because it just does not work. No one in the House would characterize the Bloc as a right-wing party. Bloc members are not nasty right wingers; they lean more to the left than to the right. However, they thought things through, saw that there is a problem and acknowledged that changes need to be made. That is why they are willing to help me move Bill C-325 forward. However, the Liberals and NDP are stubborn. There is nothing we can do. During debate, we talked a lot about Marylène Levesque's murder. At the time, I was the one who moved the motion in the House that launched the investigation by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I was a member. We investigated everything surrounding Marylène's murder, the work of the Parole Board of Canada and the flaws in how the entire situation was managed. With Bill C-325, I am proposing common-sense improvements. For example, right now, there are no consequences for offenders who fail to abide by the conditions of their release when on parole for serious crimes. When we ask people on the street about this, they say that people who do not abide by the conditions of their release should be arrested, but that consequence does not exist. Everyone thinks it only natural to create a new offence to cover such situations. That is just common sense, and it is what I am proposing in Bill C-325. Some are saying that professionals found that the law put in place by Bill C-5 was good. I took the time to meet with many groups, and I can say that police officers are calling for improvements. I am thinking, in particular, of the Canadian Police Association, the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal and the Fraternité des policiers et policières de la Ville de Québec. Victims groups are also calling for improvements. Here, I am thinking of REAL Women of Canada, Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, Maison des guerrières, Communauté de citoyens en action contre les criminels violents and the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families Association. No one can say that these are nasty right-wing groups that just want tough laws. These are groups of people who represent victims. When I showed them my bill, they told me that it was just common sense and that that is what needed to be done. Victims are afraid because offenders on parole do not abide by the conditions of their release and people are not incarcerated, as they should be. Bill C-325 seeks to resolve this problem, and I will never understand why the Liberals and the NDP do not get that. From what I have heard in the first hour of debate today, the rhetoric has changed a bit. What I understand is that people here cannot allow a Conservative bill to go any further. That is what I understood, because people do not want to support it. I thank the Bloc Québécois for agreeing to go further. When we can agree on issues everyone benefits, and I am grateful to the Bloc Québécois for doing that today. I also understand that Canadians are fed up with this government, because for the past eight years we have seen the result: a 32% increase in violent crime. When Bill C‑5 was introduced, criminals thanked the government, telling themselves that they could continue to commit crimes without fear of going to prison, thanks to the Liberals who protected them. Is this the justice we expect to have in Canada? Do the victims of these criminals expect something else from a federal government? Yes. There is still time for members to change their minds, since the vote will take place on Wednesday. That leaves two days, or 48 hours. I urge my colleagues to think about Canadians, about people who are afraid, and to stop thinking that the goal is simply to create tough measures. As I said, the Bloc Québécois supports us, and the bill can be amended. I see no problem with that. The goal is to protect people, and that is what I wanted to do with Bill C-325. I hope the two parties opposite will change their minds by Wednesday afternoon.

931 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/16/23 11:58:43 a.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

69 words

Deputy

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/16/23 11:59:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/16/23 11:59:37 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-325

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

25 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/16/23 11:59:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that we suspend until Government Orders.

16 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/16/23 11:59:55 a.m.
Watch

The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

10 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/16/23 12:03:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

moved: That, in relation to Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more that one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

132 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/16/23 12:04:20 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question-and-answer period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has an idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period. We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for La Prairie.

71 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Oct/16/23 12:05:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the government, which already has a rather light legislative agenda, is once again showing a complete lack of respect for democracy by imposing time allocation. This bill has been debated for only eight hours, last Tuesday and Friday. There has been eight hours of debate. Where is the urgency? Clearly, the NDP is going to support the time allocation for the 32nd time. Why is the NDP supporting the Liberals so strongly? It is for an extremely flawed dental insurance program—probably the most flawed in history—and a very dubious promise for pharmacare. The NDP is being submissive to the Liberals. It is being submissive to the party that subsidizes fossil fuel energy. Polls show that the NDP is paying dearly for being so submissive. My question is simple: Are the Liberals pleased to have a friend as docile as the NDP?

147 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Oct/16/23 12:06:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, we have discussed this bill at length. We want to ensure that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources can have the necessary conversations. It is important to refer this bill to the committee.

35 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Oct/16/23 12:07:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, once again we are seeing the Liberals shutting down debate, something they said they would never do. Here, they are doing it again and on a bill that is worth debating. They are talking about taking the oil and gas board in the Atlantic area and making it responsible as a regulatory board for all electric and other technologies, which it has no experience in. Really, this is something we cannot leave to committee. We need to have voices heard up front so that we can get a fulsome debate on it, but once again, they are ramming things through the House with the help from the NDP. I am not sure why NDP members are still supporting the Liberals. They have gotten nothing they asked for, and they had an opportunity at their convention to say that they did not get pharmacare and dental care is a vague promise for 2025, after the next election. They should just give it up and quit propping up a government that continually shuts down debate. Can the member opposite explain why they do not want to hear fulsome debate?

189 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:08:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, we have debated this bill on a number of occasions at second reading, and we will debate it again this afternoon. It is important that this bill move to committee where it can be thoroughly examined and MPs can hear from experts on this bill. It is extremely important that we move expeditiously to capitalize on the enormous economic opportunities that are associated with offshore wind. Public Policy Forum released a report yesterday that showed just how important this is for the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I would encourage my hon. colleague to perhaps have a conversation with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, who has worked collaboratively on this and wants to see it move quickly.

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Oct/16/23 12:08:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, right now, we are facing a huge climate crisis, and we need to move quickly. This is about moving the bill onto committee. We know that the Conservative leadership of Nova Scotia wants to move aggressively in having more of a power supply from offshore wind power. I would ask the member why he thinks the Conservatives are blocking this.

62 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:09:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a very good question. I have to say that I was astonished the Conservative opposition would be in opposition to a bill that was developed with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is about enabling new economic opportunities and good jobs for the people who live in those provinces. It is part of the ongoing transition with respect to energy around the world. It is an opportunity not just about electricity, but also about hydrogen and helping our friends in Europe. It is astonishing to me that the MPs who come from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, are opposing this bill.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/16/23 12:10:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to see that there is a motion for closure today because we are in a global race to help drive Canada's offshore future and Canada's clean energy future. I have chastised some of my Conservative colleagues for not getting on board. Ultimately, we will have a vote on this, and they will be able to lay out their position and rationale on why they are against it, but we are in a global race right now. Every day matters. If we had not moved for closure, the Conservatives would still be here trying to debate the talking points from the leader of the official opposition's office. This is the challenge. Can the minister highlight to the House how important this bill is for the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the clean energy industry? The fact of the matter is, notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision, this legislation can move forward because it is a joint agreement between federal and provincial authorities. Notwithstanding what the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, which was that there is no experience, this is exactly how the Atlantic accords have operated for almost 40 years now.

205 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:11:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, this is an extremely positive and constructive example of collaborative federalism. This bill was developed in concert with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something they will be putting in place in their own legislation as this bill moves through Canada's Parliament. It is extremely important for enabling the economic future of those two provinces. It would create good jobs and economic opportunity. Again, it astonishes me that members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are opposing what is one of the great economic opportunities going forward. It is truly astonishing. They are standing against the premiers of their respective provinces, including the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Oct/16/23 12:12:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister knows the debate that took place on Bill C-69. Where is it today? How fulsome have those consultations been with the provinces? I am looking at the proposed change to subsection 56(1), which basically says that, if there is going to be a future oil development and there is a possibility that it could be turned into a future marine protected area, the Governor in Council could then pull the permit. That is the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. The industry has said to me, “Cliff, this puts in black and white what we feared all along.” If Bill C-69 could not do the job on Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, this bill here will not do the job. Bill C-49 needs to be amended.

137 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:13:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I would say a few things. The first is that the legislation was developed in concert with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The mechanisms under that are joint mechanisms that would require the federal government and the province to agree on a range of different things moving forward. That is the essence of collaborative, co-operative federalism. That is the essence of how the offshore accord acts have worked for a long time. I would say to my hon. colleague that it is amazing to me that he would oppose something that is so important for the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, if he is interested in discussing amendments, he should let this go to committee to have that conversation.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Oct/16/23 12:14:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, we all know that we are in the middle of a global crisis. We are seeing more and more extreme weather events and natural disasters. We are also seeing a government that continues to argue otherwise, but agrees with the Conservatives that Canada should keep sinking deeper into oil and gas. Anyway, that seems to be the direction the government is taking for now when we look at its public policies. I would like to ask the minister opposite a simple question because it would be really enlightening for us to understand how he sees things. Does he consider oil and gas to be clean energy?

109 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:14:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I find my colleague's speech a bit odd. This bill provides for an offshore wind farm, a clean energy source that will, of course, be very important for the future of Nova Scotia's and Newfoundland and Labrador's economy.

44 words

All Topics