SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

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

May/21/24 6:02:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill C-381, an act to amend the Criminal Code on the important issue of extortion, which is something that I and, I expect, all parliamentarians are deeply concerned about. Bill C-381 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to address the rise in extortion offences. I will focus my remarks today on the proposed amendments relating to mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs. I want to say at the outset that we know MMPs do not actually deter crime. Our government knows this, and frankly, the Leader of the Opposition knows this. However, he will continue to pretend for political purposes that they do deter crime. Our government is committed to evidence-based policy, not empty sloganeering, to combat crime. The proposed amendments in the bill would reverse reforms introduced by our government in Bill C-5, which reflected the government's commitment to the introduce legislation that takes action to address systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system, while ensuring strong penalties remained in place to target serious crime. Bill C-5 helps address the disproportionate negative impact that MMPs have on indigenous people, Black persons and members of other marginalized communities by repealing all MMPs in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as well as a number of MMPs in the Criminal Code for which there was evidence to demonstrate that they contributed to the overincarceration of these populations. MMPs remain for extortion in cases where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used, or where the offence involves a firearm and was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. Such conduct continues to carry an MMP of five years for the first offence and seven years for second and subsequent offences. I know that some will argue that Bill C-5 has weakened the ability of our courts to impose fit sentences, which is completely false. In fact, it is nonsense in my opinion. I think it is important to note here that the maximum sentence for extortion is life in prison. Judges have the option to give the full range of sentences for extortion, depending on the severity of the crime. Courts have repeatedly highlighted the importance of proportionality in sentencing. Giving judges greater flexibility in their ability to impose sentences does not mean that offenders will receive a slap on the wrist or otherwise receive a penalty that does not reflect the seriousness of the crime. Giving judges flexibility ensures that our system works fairly in all cases, and I applaud the effort made by our government to ensure that our criminal justice system is effective, efficient and fair for everyone. Bill C-5 was a significant step forward in addressing the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black persons and other marginalized communities. To reinstate penalties that could contribute to overincarceration would be contrary to the government's ongoing commitment to tackling systemic racism in the criminal justice system. What is more, research shows that increased use of MMPs has also had significant impacts on the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan has brought heightened attention to the issue of trial delays. The imposition of MMPs can exacerbate delays in the trial process, as accused persons may be more inclined to exercise their right to trial rather than accept a guilty plea and face a minimum mandatory provision. Evidence also shows that MMPs do not support deterrence from crime. Rather, they increase costs for all levels of government, diverting finite resources from evidence-based crime prevention programs. This is the position taken now by former Stephen Harper legal adviser Ben Perrin. I want to note some of his statements on MMPs. He said, “If history is any judge, [the Leader of the Opposition]’s MMPs may not be worth the paper they’re printed on. What’s worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the...challenges facing the criminal justice system.” Here is another one: “MMPs are ineffective at reducing crime, may actually increase recidivism, are highly vulnerable to being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, can increase delays in an overburdened system, and perpetuate systemic racism.” Finally, he states, “[the leader of the Conservative Party]’s idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” While it is true that MMPs can be a tool to denounce criminality, there are more effective ways to denounce criminal offending while avoiding the negative impacts that MMPs have on our criminal justice system. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that increasing maximum penalties is one way that Parliament can denounce and has effectively denounced offending. Again, here I want to note the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for extortion. Other ways that Parliament has effectively denounced certain types of offences include enacting aggravating factors and directing sentencing courts to prioritize denunciation and deterrence in certain cases. Our existing legal framework provides judges with the tools and discretion needed to tailor sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender. While it is important for all parliamentarians to recognize the serious threats posed by the rise in cases involving extortion, sentencing measures in the Criminal Code allow judges to impose stiff penalties in cases where circumstances warrant it, without being constrained by rigid MMPs that may not adequately account for the nuances of each case. This is why we will be opposing the flawed proposal.

943 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/21/24 6:08:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will try to give a nuanced speech, without too much partisanship, because partisanship too often hinders debate. Bill C‑381 fulfills a promise made by the leader of the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑381 in principle. This bill aims to reinstate mandatory minimum sentences for extortion crimes, particularly crimes involving weapons. My colleagues have gone into a lot of the details. I will avoid repeating the same things they said. In this speech, I will briefly go over the position that the Bloc Québécois took during the study of Bill C‑5. I will reiterate our position on minimum sentences for crimes. Lastly, I will suggest a few avenues for tackling the sources of the problem. When Parliament was studying Bill C‑5, which is now law, the Bloc Québécois was in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, except in cases involving crimes against the person. It is very important to mention that. We were in favour of abolishing minimum sentences, but not for the same reasons as other colleagues in the House. We were in favour of this because mandatory minimum sentences do not take into account the context in which the crime was committed. For some people, mandatory minimum sentences can take away their hope of improving themselves, of repenting, of getting their lives together. It also removes the potential discretion judges should have. One of the reasons mandatory minimum sentences were removed is that certain populations are overrepresented in prison. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that as well. However, is the problem really mandatory minimum sentences, or does it go deeper than that? For example, is it tied to socio-economic issues? Would removing mandatory minimum sentences really solve the underlying problem? We have to ask ourselves those questions. It is important to do so. I am going to fumble my way through some of Thomas More's thoughts in Utopia. He basically says that punishing a crime without tackling its root cause simply ensures it will happen again. The more modern way of putting it is that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If the same punishments are continually handed down in a broad, indiscriminate way and we fail to see any results in terms of helping people get their lives together and improving their socio-economic situation, then it should come as no surprise if repeating the same actions fails to achieve the desired results. It is important to understand what is causing a particular problem. Several years ago, a father was sentenced to six months in prison because he was caught stealing medicine for his children, who had colds. It was an unarmed robbery, but he was caught stealing, and stealing is a crime. No consideration was given to the context of his crime. Nevertheless, he was sent to prison, which made his family's situation even worse. That is why it is important in some cases to contextualize and understand what happened. In other cases, the crime might be serious enough to warrant a mandatory minimum sentence. It is a well-known fact that overcrowding is a problem in our prisons right now. We all know the impact that overcrowding has on people. The impact can be significant, particularly on mental health, but also on the physical health of inmates. These effects have been linked to an increase in violence and they undermine inmates' ability to integrate into the community and engage in good behaviour. When prisons are overcrowded, inmates are always on high alert. When people's thoughts are focused mainly on their safety, they spend a lot less time thinking about empowerment or getting their lives back on track, even in prison. Yes, we support minimum sentences for crimes against the person, but with some allowance made to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. The word “exceptional” is important because it refers to an exception, something that very rarely happens. If used indiscriminately and without regard for the circumstances of the offence or the situation of individuals, minimum sentences can create injustice. It seems quite a paradox that the justice system could ultimately create injustice. We must ensure that our justice system does not cause injustice. Nevertheless, we believe that maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes is justified, because we believe that legislators have the legitimate authority to rank crimes in order of severity and that mandatory minimum sentences ensure that the penalties reflect that ranking. It should be noted that the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased over the past few years, especially firearm-related violent crime. In Ontario, there were 1,016 more cases, or a 24% increase; in New Brunswick, there were 64 more cases, or a 24% increase; in British Columbia, there were 194 more cases, or a 12% increase. This is serious, and we must take action. I will come back to how we might do that. During our study of Bill C‑5, lawyer Julie Desrosiers told us that if we decided to keep minimum sentences in some cases, we should also provide a possibility of making an exception to them in exceptional circumstances. What I suggested just now has the support of Julie Desrosiers. Her colleague Mr. Henry also mentioned it. If a minimum sentence is prescribed and the judge is not given the discretion to depart from it in exceptional circumstances, the sentence will not reflect the complexity of reality. Let us also focus on the sources of the problem, namely protecting our borders, education, social integration, socio-economic support. Let us not cause injustice from birth. I invite everyone to read Thomas More's very edifying writings on this topic. Let us think back to the Heritage Minute about the Klondike, where the RCMP officer would not let anyone with a weapon into Canada. Right now, our borders are like Swiss cheese, and weapons that should not be crossing our borders are constantly being let into the country. Violence is unacceptable in Canada and Quebec, and the mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes against the person serve as a reminder that it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable to use violence against others. That is also in keeping with our history, or at least the prouder moments in our history. Lastly, the Bloc Québécois invites the government to keep the promise of Quebec and Canadian society, which is that everyone can succeed and live a good life within the law. In order for that to happen, the necessary foundations must be laid, and those who did not have those foundations must be given an opportunity to get back on track. Everyone has the right to a second chance, but we need to send the message that violence is unacceptable and that, eventually, something has to give.

1167 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/21/24 6:18:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last November, many people in the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford and Surrey were disturbed by stories on the front pages of our local newspapers. We recounted letters sent to local businesses, extortion letters. The letters read: Read carefully do not think this is a fake letter!! We are Indian gang members, we want our share from your businesses like protection money. As you seen on news on November this month two shotting on houses.... The shooting of houses was in Abbotsford, in my riding. The letter said they were targeted because they did not give these gangs money. The letter went on to say that they wanted to “peacefully” take their money to avoid more shootings. This is the reality that many of my constituents live with in respect to extortion. I am proud tonight to speak to the member for Edmonton Mill Woods' private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code to address extortion. Many of my constituents in the Punjabi and broader Indian community have been targeted by extortion letters. The RCMP is taking this issue so seriously that it assigned over 200 officers to this, with over 20,000 hours of investigative time put into stopping transnational crime targeting Canadians of Indian descent. My constituents have been scared, their businesses have been targeted and their lives have been impacted. This bill is an attempt to listen, especially to those in the Punjabi community who have asked for these measures and who have asked for the Government of Canada, for the Parliament of Canada, to take action to stop violent crime, to stop threats and to stop drive-by shootings and extortion. I am proud to represent one of the most diverse ridings in all of Canada, and one of the greatest honours of my professional life has been to immerse myself in the Sikh and Punjabi community. Down the road from my house is the Khalsa Diwan Society, a national historic site where Canadians of Sikh faith come together every week to worship. They have shared langar with me, more meals than I can count. What I know from my constituents of Punjabi descent is that they want law and order back. Since the Liberal government came into power, crime has increased by 39%. We see more shootings. We see more deaths. We see more chaos on our streets. It is not rhetoric; it is a statistical fact. This bill would specifically restore the mandatory minimum penalty for extortion with a firearm to four years. It would restore the mandatory minimum penalty for discharging a firearm for recklessness to four years. It would restore the mandatory minimum for using a firearm in the commission of an offence to one year in the case of a first offence and three years in the case of a second or subsequent offence. It would eliminate eligibility for bail if there are prior Criminal Code convictions within the last 10 years where the Crown proceeds by way of indictment and establish arson as an aggravating factor for the charge of extortion. British Columbians have been very clear: They want tougher laws to stop crime. This bill is a direct response to the needs and desires of the people we represent, who feel let down by the lack of enforcement of the Criminal Code and the soft-on-crime policies of the Liberal government. I do not want local shops that I go to receiving extortion letters. I want new immigrants to Canada and established businesses alike in places like Cedar Park, where these letters were distributed, to be able to operate their business freely and without fear of violence. It pains me to even have to state these words in the people's House of Commons, but in reality, it has to be said, because of so much crime taking place. My constituents want this. They want safety. They are asking us for safety, so I plead with all members of Parliament to work with the Conservatives to see this bill passed, a common-sense bill that is a direct response to what my constituents in Abbotsford, and many constituents of Liberal members in Surrey, specifically asked for.

703 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:24:01 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods has five minutes for his right of reply.

15 words

Hon. Tim Uppal (Edmonton Mill Woods, CPC)

May/21/24 6:24:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, after listening to the debate today and the first session of it as well, I am quite disappointed in hearing that the NDP and the Liberals will not be supporting tougher penalties for such serious crimes as extortion. The fact is that after nine years, backward, soft-on-crime Liberal policies have resulted in a full-blown crisis across Canada. Canadians are suffering the consequences of the Liberal government's failed policies on crime with skyrocketing auto theft, extortion, gun violence, random assaults and arson right across the country. Crime is not only more frequent, but the severity of crime has also gone up. In fact, we see extraordinary crime statistics in almost every possible crime category. Statistics Canada paints a very grim picture, reporting that car thefts are up over 300% in some cities across the country, and the rate of firearm-related or violent crime in 2022 was the highest ever recorded. According to a recent report, violent crime is only getting worse, and Canada's violent crime severity index is at its highest level since 2007. Extortion, which we have been discussing today, is up across the country. In Ontario and Alberta, extortion offences are up almost 300%, and 386% in British Columbia since 2015. This is the result of the last nine years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies allowing crime, chaos and disorder to run rampant in our Canadian streets. Instead of addressing this Liberal-made crisis, the government continues to make life easier for criminals and their organized crime organizations. In today's Canada, it is common for criminals to get released within hours of arrest, allowing them to return to the same communities that they terrorized just hours earlier. Under the current Prime Minister, our police are sick and tired of arresting the same criminals over and over again just to see them walk away unpunished. They know that despite doing their job and catching these criminals, the criminals will be released because of the bills the government brought in: Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is not surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our justice system. After nine years of the Liberals' catch-and-release chaos, the majority of Canadians do not have confidence in our justice system anymore. None of this is normal. None of this makes any sense, but most importantly, it does not have to be this way. Our Conservative plan in Bill C-381 would ensure that anyone who commits extortion will serve jail time. This common-sense bill would establish a mandatory sentence of three years for any criminal convicted of extortion. It would send a clear message to organized crime rings that if they do the crime, they will do the time under a Conservative government. The bill would undo the serious damage caused by the government's reckless Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. Not only would Bill C-381 restore a mandatory four-year prison sentence for committing extortion with a firearm, but it would also make arson an aggravating factor. Additionally, any criminal who commits extortion on behalf of a gang, criminal organization or crime ring would get a mandatory five-year sentence. Finally, we would reverse the damage done by the government's Bill C-75 and restore jail, not bail, for repeat offenders who continue to benefit from Liberal soft-on-crime policies. This common-sense bill would give prosecutors and the police an important tool to go after the ringleaders of criminal organizations and allow them to put away those who work on the ringleaders' behalf. Canadians deserve safer streets and secure communities that are free from extortionists and organized crime. It is our Conservative common-sense plan that would bring home safer streets, reverse the damage of the last nine years of the Liberal government's chaos and restore peace in our neighbourhoods.

657 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:28:59 p.m.
Watch

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.

51 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

May/21/24 6:29:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:29:39 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

25 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/21/24 6:30:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, nine years of the same failed policies from this government have resulted in small businesses getting pushed to the brink of collapse and many are shutting their doors altogether. According to the superintendent of bankruptcy, business insolvencies in the year ending March 31 increased 56.7% year over year. The Business Development Bank of Canada reported last year that we now have 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs than we did 20 years ago, despite a massive increase in our population. In 2000, Canada had three entrepreneurs for every 1,000 people. By 2022, that number dropped to 1.3 per 1,000. April's labour force survey showed an alarming loss of more than 11,000 jobs in Canada's construction industry. In the same month, housing starts dropped by 2.2%. One of the biggest challenges businesses are facing is finding workers, largely because those workers cannot find an affordable place to live. How are we supposed to build the homes Canadians need if our construction industry is shedding jobs by the thousands each month? A result of the challenges businesses are facing is that Canada's productivity has drastically declined. Recently, the Bank of Canada's senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers, declared Canada's low productivity to be an emergency. In 1984, Canada produced 88% of the value generated by the United States economy per hour. As of 2022, we produced just 71% of the value that the U.S. does per hour. This ranks us second-to-last among our G7 peers, with only Italy witnessing a larger decline in productivity over the same period. Adjusting for inflation, Canada's GDP per capita is lower now than it was in 2014. Budget 2024 ignores this emergency, pours more fuel onto the inflationary fire and sends a signal to investors that Canada does not want them to invest in our economy. Even the former Liberal finance minister, Bill Morneau, has criticized this government for its reckless spending and tax hikes that will take Canada in the wrong direction. For Canada's economy to thrive, it must be competitive with the economies of our allies but, right now, it is not. Why is this the case? Canada has an uncompetitive tax system and burdensome red tape policies that continue to drive job creators and our brightest minds south of the border. In America, there is a competitive tax system. According to a recent study from the Fraser Institute, which ranked Canada's provinces and America's states by highest combined marginal income tax rates, nine provinces rank in the top 10 and all 10 provinces are in the top 13. Why would an entrepreneur stay in Canada when they can go to pretty much any state in America and keep more of their money to invest back into their business or save for their retirement? At the core of Canada's economic problems are a lack of affordable housing, an uncompetitive economy, an out-of-touch budget and rampant crime in our downtown cores. That is why Conservatives are so resolutely focused on our four key priorities: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. The carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything. It costs more for farmers to produce food, more to ship goods and more for businesses to keep the lights on. Businesses struggle to find workers because those workers cannot find affordable places to call home. Nine straight budget deficits and hundreds of billions of dollars in added debt have driven interest rates higher than they have been in decades, making it harder for entrepreneurs to access the capital they need to grow their businesses. People are scared to go to our downtown cores and support local businesses because they are worried about being a victim of the rampant crime that has increased by 39% since the government took office. Addressing these issues is paramount to turning around our economy and becoming competitive with our global leaders once again. Frustratingly, the budget failed to axe the tax on our farmers and food. The budget failed to put forward a real plan to build the homes Canadians can afford. The budget failed to cap spending and implement a dollar-for-dollar rule. The budget failed to address the productivity emergency Canada faces. In fact, it will only make it worse. After nine long years, this budget is just more of the same from this costly and reckless NDP-Liberal coalition. For these reasons, I will be joining my Conservative colleagues in voting against this terrible budget.

767 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:35:43 p.m.
Watch

Before I go to questions and comments, I just want to remind members that if they are going to have conversations, they should maybe take them outside. I have my speaker on, and yet I can see that it can be disruptive. A few members were having conversations. I just want to remind members that they would want to be tuned in to the discussion in order to ask questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. deputy government House leader.

81 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/21/24 6:36:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will have a chat with the member for St. Catharines later about that. My question for the member is as follows. Conservatives have been going on for months now, talking about fuelling inflation with more, I think they called it, budget inflation. They keep talking about how inflation is going to skyrocket and get even more out of control as a result of the budget. However, none of that happened. We have now seen four straight months where inflation has stayed within the Bank of Canada's target of 2% to 3%. Today's inflation numbers are the lowest that they have been in three years. Why does the member continue to suggest that false narrative, that the budget is contributing to inflation, when reality suggests that he is completely wrong?

134 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/21/24 6:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the member for Kingston and the Islands. The target from the Bank of Canada is in fact 2%.

25 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/21/24 6:37:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I actually agree with my colleague on several points. We are not necessarily voting against measures that are good for Canadians. Rather, we are voting against jurisdictional meddling and interference. I would like to hear my colleague thoughts on the importance of upholding a contract, especially the most important contract of all for a country, namely, a Constitution.

60 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/21/24 6:37:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. The federal government must do a better job of protecting our Constitution. Our party, the Conservative Party, wants a policy of open federalism.

36 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/21/24 6:38:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with this minority government, the NDP has used its balance of power to make meaningful gains for people and their families. Among other things, there is the dental care plan. It is incredible progress for the less fortunate and for people in the middle class. This year, seniors can sign up to be reimbursed for 80% or 100% of their dental care. Millions of people will benefit. In the first week, 45,000 or 50,000 people have already taken advantage of the program. If my colleague's party comes to power after the next election, heaven forbid, will it drop the dental care program for seniors or will it maintain the program?

115 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/21/24 6:39:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie failed to mention the broken promise of the NDP-Liberal government, and that was to provide a national pharmacare program. It did not provide a national pharmacare program, even though it said it was going to do it in the last election platform for the NDP. With respect to dental care, I will note representatives from the B.C. Dental Association have said that they do not want to participate in this program. As we have said on this side, the program is so cumbersome and has so much red tape, it does not actually achieve its objectives, because the NDP-Liberal government is so poor at governing. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

123 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:39:48 p.m.
Watch

Order. If the hon. member has anything to contribute, he should wait to the proper time. We have time for a brief question from the hon. member for Abbotsford.

29 words

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

May/21/24 6:39:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, every time our Liberal friends across the way get up, they tell us how good Canadians have it. In fact, just a moment ago the member from Kingston and the Islands got up, telling us Canadians have never had it so good, and to look at inflation, it is only 2.7%. Perhaps my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon could explain how harmful the reckless spending of the Liberal government has been, and how that spending has stoked the inflationary fires in Canada.

88 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/21/24 6:40:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, I was on a Mission friends and neighbours Facebook site in the community of Mission, with about 25,000 community members. There was a mother on there who asked if it was just her who could not get by with $350 a week for groceries any more. All we have to do to see the impacts of inflation is to look at the cost of food, specifically beef, and fresh fruit and vegetables. Unfortunately, due to the policies of the reckless government, fresh fruit and vegetables have become out of reach, even for the middle class.

101 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/21/24 6:41:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe North on May 8, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2221 and the testimony of the Department of Finance on the subject matter of Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill. Question No. 2221 asks for information about overpayments for the Canada child benefit. The member acknowledged in his intervention that the government did respond to significant parts of his written question. However, the government was unable to respond to a sub-element of the member's question, and I will quote that part. The question states: ...collected from taxpayers who received overpayments following or due to death of a child; and (b) what is the amount of money represented by the overpayments in (a)(i) and (a)(ii)? There is a simple and straightforward response to this. The Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, has an identifying code for why a child has become ineligible for the Canada child benefit. However, CRA does not have the reason codes for the overpayment. The reason for this is that the CRA does not have the information about a child's death, but the CRA cannot determine the reason for an overpayment or a recovery and how that relates to the child's death. The death of a child could form one piece of potentially multiple pieces that would result in an overpayment. The question posed by the member on May 7 at the finance committee was about cancelled eligibility for the Canada child benefit and was not requesting information about overpayments. These are two different questions. In conclusion, the specific information sought in Question No. 2221 relates to overpayments. The answer provided to the member reflects the data available in the CRA systems relating to overpayments in the manner requested by the member. Where there were limitations to the provision of data, a rationale for the limitation was provided in response to the member. As you can see, Madam Speaker, there was no intent to mislead the member or the House in the government's response to Question No. 2221. Moreover, information the member referred to in his intervention from testimony at the finance committee on May 7 differs from the information provided in response to Question No. 2221 since they are different questions. As I have previously stated in the House, the government can only answer the question posed in the Order Paper Question. It cannot assume that a member is making a different question. I can confirm that the government's response to Question No. 2221 was accurate, and we stand by it. A question was posed through the Order Paper process. The government responded to the precise question accurately and within timelines established in the Standing Orders. This matter does not in any way affect the member's rights or privileges in discharging his parliamentary duties.

494 words