SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Nov/30/23 3:41:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed indicate that you were a joke. That is true. I am sorry for that. I withdraw it.

22 words

Nov/30/23 3:41:29 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for withdrawing that remark, and I consider the matter closed. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

24 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Nov/30/23 3:41:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is on the same point of order. There is a long-standing rule in the House that one's comments should not bring disorder to the House. The comments by the member, which the member for Winnipeg North is defending, were so egregious, so inflammatory and so erroneous that they caused disorder in the House. I welcome the opportunity to ask you to look at the transcript of what he was saying and to come to your own conclusions.

82 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:42:27 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member on this point. The hon. minister is rising on the same point of order.

19 words

Rising

Hon. Arif Virani

Nov/30/23 3:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise very seldom on these kinds of matters, but I think it is really critical to appreciate the importance of freedom of expression not only in this country, but also in this chamber. In this chamber, we attempt to critically reflect the views of our constituents. There are times when I have heard things, on both sides of this chamber, and I have been here for eight-plus years now, that I do not agree with and that I am sure others do not agree with. However, the notion of shouting down an individual, not once, but five times, and preventing them from actually being able to deliver their S. O. 31 is something I have not seen before. I think it merits reflection on your part, Mr. Speaker.

132 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Nov/30/23 3:43:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Yesterday, after question period, it was drawn to the Chair's attention that during members' statements, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills screamed profanities during a member's statement. The member giving the statement was me. I was not given the opportunity to repeat it once, or even six times, in spite of the fact that what I said did not create disorder, but it was a member on the government side of the House who screamed profanities. Mr. Speaker, if—

93 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:43:58 p.m.
Watch

Just because this is not on the same point of order, I am going to get to the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and will listen to him patiently, but the member for Nunavut has been patient on her feet on another point of order, and I would like to give her that opportunity. There was a list of people who were on— Mr. Michael Barrett: Mr. Speaker, this is on the same point of order. The Speaker: No, you are raising— Mr. Michael Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about order in the chamber during members' statements— Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I am just letting him know that the point of order raised was in regard to the member for Brampton South, and I believe the member is raising an issue in regard to the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills. I am going to ask the hon. member, on the same point of order, to please go ahead.

182 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Nov/30/23 3:44:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member from Winnipeg said that the 15 minutes members are given for statements are to be sacrosanct, but the member is speaking from the benches of a party that engaged in the conduct he was decrying today. It is hypocrisy for the government House leader's deputy to rise and to cry foul when his parliamentary colleagues engaged in worse conduct yesterday.

65 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:45:24 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. The reason I wanted to get back to him is that the Chair had expressed yesterday that we would look at Hansard and the video, which we did. We could not make anything out. We even worked with the folks from Hansard to see if we could detect the words the hon. member referred to. Therefore, I cannot come back to the House on that point. The hon. member for Nunavut.

88 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Nov/30/23 3:45:57 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am rising on a point of order based on what the Conservative leader said today during question period regarding first peoples. He used a possessive term that means indigenous peoples belong to another nation. I need to remind the House that first nations, Inuit and Métis are not owned by governments and that this Parliament needs to make sure it is educating Canadians that we are not owned by governments. There were children in the House when he made that statement. We need to remind Canadians that first nations, Métis and Inuit are first peoples and are not owned by anyone, especially the Conservatives. We need to also remind the Conservatives that when my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, was making her intervention about genocide, Conservatives were laughing at her about her terms, her statement about genocide in the House. This Conservative Party needs to be reminded to respect first nations, Métis and Inuit.

163 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:47:22 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for Nunavut for the two points in her intervention. The first was for reminding the House, and all Canadians of course, of the status and the importance of Canada's first peoples. I thank the hon. member for that. On the second matter, I will have to take a look at the video and get back to the House if necessary. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

80 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/30/23 3:47:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, it is really unfortunate that the member, while condemning Conservatives, refused to condemn the minister who used the exact same word in her reply. I would quote from a statement released by the Chiefs of Ontario representing 133 indigenous communities. It states that, “Chiefs of Ontario and Attawapiskat First Nation have filed a judicial review”—

65 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:49:11 p.m.
Watch

I do appreciate that, but we are now venturing well into debate. It was not a debate on the point the member was raising. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot would like to make a new point of order.

41 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/30/23 3:49:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is simply to say that the point the Leader of the Opposition was making was exactly in support of first nations, who have pointed out, in summary, that the carbon tax has a disproportionate effect on first nations. It is shameful that other parties in this place would refuse to acknowledge that same fact and would try to play games as opposed to acknowledging that first nations want the tax axed.

74 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:50:18 p.m.
Watch

That is now venturing well into debate on this point.

10 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Nov/30/23 3:50:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping the government House leader can inform the House as to the business for the rest of this week and for the following week. As we are nearing the end of session, I would ask her to indicate to the House, if she is able to, the business for the week after that as I know there is usually a flurry of activity in the last few weeks of the December and the June periods. If she could update the House for that week, I know most members would appreciate that.

95 words

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

Nov/30/23 3:51:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-57 Bill C-56 Bill C-50 Bill C-48

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate the Senate amendments related to Bill C-48 on bail reform. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 31, which concerns Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. Tomorrow afternoon, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, which would implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Next week, priority will be given to the motion relating to Bill C-50. We will also call report stage and third reading of Bill C-56, the affordability legislation, and second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced earlier today. Thursday will be an opposition day. For the following week, I will circle back to the member opposite.

153 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:52:33 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised on November 27 by the member for Yorkton—Melville concerning language used in question period that day. According to the member, the government House leader made insinuations on the motives of certain members in relation to their vote on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, wondering if it was because they were pro-Russia. Her objection was echoed by the House leader of the official opposition and several members of her party. They referred to the ruling made earlier that day, where a member was asked to withdraw a statement accusing other members of being Hamas supporters. Members felt that being accused of supporting Russia was equally offensive. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, for his part, suggested that the statement was made, and I quote, “with the intention to be provocative and to elicit a response.” He added, and I quote, “it caused disorder in that moment”. He also suggested that the minister apologize. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered that the comments made respected parliamentary rules and that it was common for members from all sides to reflect on the manner in which a political party votes. I must say that I welcome the comments made by members intervening on this matter. It shows an interest in elevating the tone of debate in the House. It raises the bar for everyone. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie is right right in saying that the language used on Monday created disorder. This is indeed a key factor, one of the most important, in determining whether words used were unparliamentary or not. However, as explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 624, the Speaker must also consider the tone, manner and intention of the member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed and the degree of provocation. On contentious issues, it is not uncommon for members to criticize each other’s positions or to speculate as to why they are voting a certain way. For the most part, these kinds of remarks are part and parcel of vigorous debates. Members often feel that their positions are mischaracterized by others, but that is generally a matter of debate and not something in which the Speaker gets involved. However, the Speaker does have a responsibility for maintaining order and decorum. This can become problematic when a member seeks to associate one of their colleagues with an ideology or an entity whose values we would find odious. In the past, for example, Speakers have judged it unacceptable to compare a member with the wartime fascist regime in Italy or with the racist Ku Klux Klan. As I said on Monday, I believe accusing a member of supporting a violent and anti-Semitic terrorist organization would also fall into this category. These things clearly cross a line, cause disorder and contribute to an overall lowering of the quality of our discourse. Members have suggested that being accused of supporting Russia in the current context should be treated the same way. I think in some circumstances, depending on how such allegations are phrased, that can be true. On Wednesday, for example, I felt it was inappropriate to have accused another member of, and I quote, “cozying up to Russian dictator Vladmir Putin” and I asked for that comment to be withdrawn. I am not certain the comments of the Government House Leader were quite so categorical, though they clearly were not helpful. I suspect that if one were to scour the Debates, one could unfortunately find a series of examples of members, from all parties, attempting to suggest that their colleagues were in some way sympathetic toward regimes we would find brutal or oppressive. Going forward, I would ask all members to stay away from such inflammatory statements and to not attempt to make such provocative associations. Neglecting to do so may result in a member being cut off by the Speaker and a withdrawal being insisted upon. In my statement of October 18, 2023, which can be found at pages 17591 to 17593 of the Debates, I implored members to be mindful of the effect that their choice of words has on the proceedings of the House. I said, on page 17593: ...the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes...making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country. Speaker Milliken made a similar point on May 26, 2009, when addressing a rash of unparliamentary language. He said at page 3703 of the Debates: I want to reiterate that certain words, while not always aimed specifically at individuals and, therefore, arguably technically not out of order, can still cause disruption, can still be felt by those on the receiving end as offensive and therefore can and do lead to disorder in the House. It is that kind of language that I, as Speaker, am bound by our rules not only to discourage but to disallow. That is why I am appealing to all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words and thus avoid creating the kind of disorder that so disrupts our proceedings and so deeply dismays the many citizens who observe our proceedings. I would ask all members to reflect on the events of the past several days, on the words used and on the aspersions made and the atmosphere they are creating. It is possible to criticize a party's position on the Middle East without calling members Hamas supporters. It is possible to criticize a party's position on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement without suggesting that members stand four-square behind dictators. I would encourage all members to find ways of engaging in vigorous debate without resorting to these sorts of associations. I thank all members for their attention.

1035 words

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 4:00:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-48

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform). He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members. I am very pleased with the progress of Bill C‑48 in both Houses, and I am happy to be speaking to it again here. This bill will strengthen our bail laws so they continue to protect our communities and maintain public confidence when it comes to violent repeat offenders and weapons offences. I will start by briefly reiterating the bill's intent. I will then describe the amendments proposed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Lastly, I will lay out the government's position on these amendments. This bill demonstrates our government's commitment to public safety and my commitment to public safety. We will always fight to ensure that our communities are protected from violent crime. Families have been forever changed because of senseless killings. I want to take this moment to express my sincere sympathies to victims of violence and their loved ones. A 16-year-old, Gabriel Magalhaes, was fatally stabbed at a subway station in my own riding of Parkdale—High Park. This terrible act should never have occurred. We need to do address crime, as well as what causes crime, to stop future violence from occurring. Bill C-48 is the culmination of extensive collaboration with provinces and territories, with which I have been working very closely. All 13 premiers came together and called for bail reform. We responded to this call and went even further in Bill C-48. In addition to the premiers, Bill C-48 has received support from municipal leaders, police groups and victims' organizations right across the country, from coast to coast to coast. I am pleased to see such incredibly widespread support for a measure that would ensure Canadians can live free from fear of violence. I am also grateful for the discussions we have had with national indigenous organizations on the topic of bail reform. Their views help us better understand how we can keep indigenous communities, and all communities, safe. I look forward to continuing my collaboration with representatives of these important organizations. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge and recognize that members from all parties passed Bill C-48 unanimously in the House back on the first day of the fall session, on September 18. It was clear then that all of us recognized the importance of these measures. I am very hopeful that we can maintain the same unanimity of purpose today. Public safety is paramount. It is fundamentally why all of us were elected to this chamber. Every member of this chamber wants the communities that we represent to be free from violence. I thank my colleagues for their support to date and I hope I can count on it today and going forward. On this side of the House, we also commit to maintaining public safety while looking also at tackling the root causes of criminality. We need more mental health resources so that people in crisis do not resort to violence. I say this on a day when we have just launched the 988 suicide helpline. We need social services to help offenders reintegrate safely into their communities after serving their time. We need treatment options for those struggling with addiction so that they do not get mired in conflict. Investing in long-term solutions to crime is a core belief of mine and of our Liberal government. Too often, I have heard fearmongering for political gain from people in this chamber. We need solutions; we do not need finger pointing. We need investments in long-term safety. We need evidence-based legislation. I challenge my colleagues to join me in supporting community investments so we can stop crime at its root. I will now discuss the substantive changes proposed in Bill C-48. Canadians expect laws that both keep them safe and respect the rights enshrined in the charter. In Bill C-48, I believe we have struck that balance. Bill C-48 is a targeted approach to stopping repeat violent offenders. The bill proposes amendments to the reverse onus bail provisions in the Criminal Code to make it more onerous for certain accused persons to receive bail. A reverse onus does simply this. It shifts the burden of proof at a bail hearing from the Crown to the accused. This means that there is a presumption that the accused will be detained unless they can demonstrate to the court that they should be released because they do not pose a significant risk to public safety, are not a flight risk or that their release would not undermine the confidence of the public. What Bill C-48 would do is add a reverse onus provision to ensure greater scrutiny of cases involving repeat violent offending with weapons. For this reverse onus to apply, the accused must, one, be charged with a violence offence involving the use of a weapon. Two, they must have been convicted in the last five years of a violent offence involving the use of a weapon. Three, both the offence charged and the past offence must have a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more. This threefold criteria would encourage courts to focus their attention on those who present a higher risk of reoffending at the bail stage of criminal proceedings. Second, four firearms offences would be added to the reverse onus provisions that currently exist. This proposal has the broad support of law enforcement agencies right across this country, from literally every province and territory. It would implement the call from all 13 premiers of three different political stripes to add a reverse onus for the offence of possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. What we would be adding to the premiers' request is unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking or entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm. Anyone involved in those offences would be subject to the same reverse onus. This bill would also clarify the meaning of a prohibition order at the bail stage. A reverse onus at bail currently applies to accused persons charged with offences involving firearms or other weapons where they are subject to a weapons prohibition order. This bill would make absolutely clear that a prohibition order includes a bail condition prohibiting an accused from being in possession of firearms or other weapons. The other changes proposed by Bill C-48 relate to considerations that courts must make in their bail decisions. This bill would require bail courts to consider if the accused person's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence regardless of whether the accused is subject to a reverse onus. In addition, Bill C-48 would add a further requirement that bail courts expressly consider the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence when making a bail order, in addition to the safety and security of any victim who is involved. This would ensure that specific concerns from smaller municipalities, indigenous communities and racialized or marginalized communities are taken into consideration at the bail hearing. That directly responds to what we heard, particularly from small communities in Canada's north, including small indigenous communities in the north, which wanted their needs reflected and views heard at such bail hearings. Let me now turn to two changes the Senate is proposing to make to this bill. The first proposal of the Senate relates to an amendment that would require a statement in the record of proceedings as to how a justice or justice of the peace considered section 493.2 of the Criminal Code. This section states that, when making a decision relating to bail, courts shall give particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous accused and accused who belong to a vulnerable population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and that is disadvantaged in obtaining bail. This is a mandatory provision that requires courts to turn their minds to these circumstances anytime they make a bail decision. What the Senate is doing is doubling down on that provision and emphasizing its importance. In terms of the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous persons in the criminal justice system, overrepresentation is a critical problem and I welcome this amendment. The provision being cited by the Senate was originally enacted in 2019. Since then, many cases on the application of this provision have developed guidance for bail courts. It is clear from these cases that failing to adequately consider section 493.2 is an error of law that is a reviewable error. That said, the Senate heard from some witnesses that section 493.2 is not always considered and not always applied consistently despite there being a requirement to do so. What the proposed amendment from the Senate would do is ensure that bail courts are fulfilling their obligations to consider these particular circumstances in every applicable case and recording that they have done so. This amendment would also be consistent with the preamble of Bill C-48, which currently reiterates “the need to consider the particular circumstances of accused persons, including those from populations that face disadvantages at the bail stage and are overrepresented in the criminal justice system”. In light of this, the government and I support this amendment and invite all members of this House to vote in favour of it. Tackling the overincarceration of Black, indigenous and marginalized Canadians remains a fundamental priority for me and the government. We cannot accept a status quo in which marginalized groups are disproportionally incarcerated on account of systemic factors, including systemic racism and discrimination. To date, we have made progress on addressing this problem, including by removing multiple mandatory minimum penalties in the form of Bill C-5, which has already passed in the House. There is always more work to do. I am proud of the work we have done on implementing assessments of the impact of race and culture and relaunching the anti-racism action plan, as well as the work that is ongoing on the Black justice strategy and the indigenous justice strategy. This is all fundamental to the work that will continue to be done to address systemic inequalities in the justice system. The second amendment adopted by the Senate specified that this legislation be referred to a standing committee of the Senate for review at a future date. The effect of this amendment is that both the House of Commons and the Senate would be required to review the legislation five years after the act receives royal assent. I support this change as well. I am encouraged by the speed at which we were able to reach a consensus in the House of Commons last time we studied this bill on September 18. I would suggest that we do the same so that the bill can be passed as soon as possible. I would like to conclude by pointing out that bail is a responsibility shared by the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Every level of government has a role to play to make sure that our bail system works as intended. The government is doing its part, but non-legislative changes such as access to permanent housing and mental health and addiction support services are also key elements in improving our bail system. I commend the work recently done in these areas, and I will continue to collaborate with all levels of government to make sure that the objectives of the bail system are achieved. I also undertake to make sure that we collect accurate and complete data on the bail system in Canada, and I will continue to work with our partners to that end. Data sharing is essential for monitoring our bail system and ensuring it functions properly. I call upon provinces and territories to collect and share enhanced bail data. This will allow us to make evidence-based changes to bail law in the future.

2042 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Nov/30/23 4:13:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to read from a news article from this summer with respect to a shooting that happened in Toronto. It outlines that, in 2019, this person was previously sentenced for aggravated assault and weapons dangerous for an altercation with another man in 2018. He was acquitted of a charge of attempted murder. He also acknowledged in the article that he had a long rap sheet of previous issues, including a lifetime weapons prohibition, yet this individual is still out on bail for two other altercations that he had in 2022 and 2021. This summer, while out on the street, he shot and killed somebody. What is this bill going to do to make sure that this man gets jail and not bail?

125 words