Bill C-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to persons who undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It also amends the Judges Act to provide that the Canadian Judicial Council should report on seminars offered for the continuing education of judges on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have acted on several fronts to ensure that victims of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect.

Several bills, including Bill C-3 and Bill C-51, have made substantial reforms to Canada's sexual assault laws to do just that, protect victims. These are some of the most progressive laws in the world. We have invested in programs that help victims of sexual assault.

That is our priority. We will continue to support victims of sexual assault.

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑291. Some bills seem less substantial than others, but are just as important. The bill amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” and make consequential amendments to other acts. Words sometimes carry great weight.

As I just mentioned, this bill makes no other changes than replacing the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, and has no legal consequences per se.

First, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Even though this bill has no legal consequences, it does make us think about the importance of terms, their scope and their deep meaning. According to the bill's sponsor, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, the objective is to link the charge of child pornography to sexual abuse. Without changing the definitions, since the notions of consent and current sentences will stay the same, Bill C‑291 explicitly expresses the fact that such an offence is an act involving the sexual abuse of a child.

We understand and support the underlying principle. In my speech, I will share my thoughts on the importance of the words used to provide additional detail about this bill, reiterate the importance of training judges and conclude by expanding my argument to include cybercrime.

First, the term “pornography” seems overused and ambiguous in the sense of both the legal definition and the general definition, because its scope is very relative and can depend on a given individual's sensitivity. Moreover, some schools of thought disagree on the degree of consent pornography supposes and whether pornography is essentially a form of violence. Some feminist thinkers see it that way, and regular consumption of pornography also contributes to rape culture.

One thing is clear: Pornography in and of itself is not a crime, but there are the exceptions we are all familiar with, including child pornography. In other cases, it is difficult to see a clear and consensual difference between eroticism and obscenity, pornography and violence. It all comes down to the participants' consent, which is impossible to establish or obtain. When children are involved, the Criminal Code pretty clearly defines the acts, but I will spare my colleagues a reading of that.

It is understandable to be shocked by the fact that a term with no criminal or even negative connotations is attached to such despicable acts, hence the principle of Bill C-291. In the healing process, it is important, from the outset, that the victim is relieved of guilt about the events and that the burden is carried by the abuser. Naming the abuse can also help the victim. It may not seem important, but being a victim of child pornography does not have the same connotation as being a victim of child sexual abuse. A person charged with possession of child pornography will not be charged with sexual assault. However, they are indirectly participating in it by not reporting it and by taking advantage of the situation to deliberately indulge their deviant urges.

Most of the time, the victim is not mentioned in child pornography cases, except to say that they were indeed a child. When we talk about child sexual abuse material, we are doing two things: We are naming the abuse that the child is suffering, and we are calling the accused a child molester. These are much more powerful words, even though we are talking about the same act. They put things in perspective. In a crime involving child pornography, there is a victim of abuse and there is an abuser, the child molester.

In many types of crime, there is often a grey area, extenuating circumstances, possible doubt over the degree of guilt, participation and consent of the victim. In the case of child abuse, everything is clear and we have to call a spade a spade.

What is more, this term is already being used by some advocacy groups, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and Canada's national tipline for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children. Children are disproportionately the victims of sexual offences and are especially vulnerable. In Quebec, 54.4%, or the majority, of victims of sexual assault are adults, but the number of victims under 18 is growing faster than the number of adult victims, with annual increases of 9.5% and 4.3% respectively. Victims of other sexual offences are nearly exclusively minors, at 90.8%. These offences include sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, luring and publication of intimate images.

These statistics make it clear why victims and their loved ones feel as though these situations are being downplayed.

If an offence is not a direct aggravated sexual assault, then it gets classified under “other offences”. In reality, however, the possession of child pornography often involves sexual assault that is often even documented.

According to the Quebec Department of Public Safety, these types of crimes are on the rise. Cases of sexual interference and luring have risen by 6% and 9% respectively. These are moderate increases. Cases of incest have risen by 4.3%. Cases of publication of an intimate image without consent have risen by 7.4%, and cases of invitation to sexual touching have risen by 1.4%, and that number has held steady. These are chilling statistics.

Sexual acts and activities must only take place with the free and informed consent of the participants. The concept of consent is essential. It is based on the idea that the person is fit to make a decision and that they understand the implications and consequences.

In Canada, the age of consent to sexual activity is 16. However, in the case of all minors, including those who are aged 16 and 17, a young person cannot legally consent if a sexual partner is in a position of authority over them. If the young person is dependent on their sexual partner for support and has nowhere else to go and no one else to care for them, then they are in a relationship of dependency.

The relationship is exploitative when, as of the age of 12, there are close-in-age exceptions. A person who is 12 or 13 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than two years older. A person who is 14 or 15 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than five years older. That means that even if one of the partners is over the age of majority, as in the case of a couple consisting of a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old, consenting sexual contact can take place with a minor as long as they are close in age.

This also means that, conversely, in a situation where one member of the couple is over the age of majority, as in the case of a 14-year-old and a 19-year-old, the child cannot legally consent to sexual activity and the act becomes a sexual offence, even with the consent of the minor's parents. There is no possibility of consent when a child is under the age of 12.

It is worth noting that the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee took only 30 minutes. This is an uncontroversial bill, despite the number of amendments that were moved. In fact, most of the amendments came from the government. There was absolutely no debate on the substance of the bill, and all the amendments proposed by the government, 15 in all, were adopted unanimously. This is important work. Amendments G-1 and G-12 essentially added the notion of exploitation to the term “child sexual abuse material” to make it clear that possession of such material automatically involves the exploitation of a child. Naturally, these amendments were also adopted.

Also, not all judges have the knowledge required to deal with sexual assault cases or cases involving certain groups. We have been talking about this for a long time. Training for judges is important. The case of Judge Jean-Paul Braun is a shocking example. He said out loud during a trial that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the assault, had a pretty face and should feel flattered to have attracted the attention of an older man. An Alberta judge was fired after making what were considered sexist and racist remarks about indigenous people, abused women and victims of sexual assault.

An acquittal was overturned because a judge who found a man accused of sexually assaulting children not guilty relied on stereotypes. The judge suggested that, because nobody noticed anything, the girl, who was only between the ages of 6 and 12 at the time, was not credible. The judge said the child's testimony was not transparent, reliable, sincere or credible. Forcing all judges to participate in sexual assault and social context training would destroy certain stereotypes and myths that influence judges' decisions and their attitudes toward victims.

Fortunately, Bill C‑3 called on the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that federal judicial appointees to various courts have the tools to help them preside over sexual assault cases. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who worked on that bill, pointed that out. The third time around, Bill C‑3 was finally unanimously passed by all MPs. It was passed on division in the Senate and received royal assent on May 6, 2021. It is an important bill.

In addition, the whole issue of cybercrime is also troubling. Last week, I had a chance to talk with Hugo Loiseau, a professor at the Université de Sherbrooke who is studying this issue. A cybercrime is a criminal offence committed through a computer system that is usually connected to another network. This whole issue of child pornography content, along with incitement to terrorism or hatred, falls under the category of cybercrime.

In conclusion, the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking is following this issue closely and is considering recommendations that could be made to the government to take action.

Judges Act

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we voted in favour of Bill C-3 in the previous Parliament, which originated as a private member's bill from the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I completely support it. I know there was some debate about whether Parliament telling judges they must get educated interfered with their independence. I do not think it did. Judges, like everybody, should be fully educated and informed on the topics they have to address.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

It is an honour for me to be here today to engage in the debate on a very important topic, the reform of the Judges Act.

Bill C-9 introduces comprehensive reforms to the Judges Act. It introduces comprehensive reforms to the process through which judicial conduct is reviewed and sanctioned. The proposed reforms to the Judges Act aim to enhance the Canadian Judicial Council's capacity to effectively respond to all allegations of judicial misconduct. It is not necessarily highly contentious instances, but also instances of lower measure.

The proposed measures seek to promote procedural fairness in an independent, effective and efficient judicial conduct review process designed to minimize delays and to contain costs. The Canadian Judicial Council, under this new set of rules, this new legislation, will be able to respond to all allegations of misconduct. The process of the investigation and review will be streamlined. There will be new tools for procedural fairness. There will be fewer delays. Importantly, there will be funding to make sure that all of this is done in a cost-effective and efficient way.

Importantly, there is also procedural fairness for judges in their pensions in the event they are dismissed for misconduct, if that is ultimately what the finding is. Of course, we all want to be fair to our judges.

There will be new powers for the Canadian Judicial Council to make orders such as ordering a judge to make an apology publicly, or require that a judge undergo counselling, if that is the right response.

There will also be a capability for the Canadian Judicial Council to order that the judge undergo continuing professional development, something that we all agree with, something that judges and all professionals should engage in, as we all have to do. There are a number of members of the bar here. They have to undergo continuing professional development every year.

There will also importantly be a right of appeal for judges. My colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, went into some detail as to what all the new processes and procedures are. I will not read them into the record.

What is important here is that we want to be fair to judges, but we also want to be fair to complainants, people who feel they have been wronged by the conduct of a judge.

Very importantly also is that Canadian society wants judicial independence. This is so important to help Canada operate as a country. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our judicial system and indeed of our whole democratic system. We are a society that believes in the rule of law. Everybody is subject to the law. Everybody is equal before the law, including the judges who make the law and including politicians who make laws.

It is important that judges be free from political interference, that the whole justice system be free from political interference. Unfortunately, we have seen some bad situations, for example, with the SNC-Lavalin scandal a couple of years ago, where politicians tried to interfere with the judicial process, rather than allow it to operate the way it is supposed to under judicial independence rules. It is inappropriate for politicians to get involved in that.

It is also important to understand that judges must be free from political pressures. The superior courts are masters of their own scheduling, of their own operations. That is fundamental to the way we operate.

Courts are self-governing when it comes to judges' professionalism, competence, ability and conduct. This came up in the previous Parliament under Bill C-3. This was new legislation that was brought in requiring judges to undergo sexual assault training. At that time it was a deep concern to many members in this Parliament and previous Parliaments and to many Canadian citizens that not all judges were properly trained for sexual assault cases. We deemed it important that judges understand how sexual assault cases are different from other kinds of criminal cases.

The reason I raise that here is that judicial independence became an issue then. That was another bill where everybody was in agreement. We deemed it important that it be debated because the issues surrounding that were so important to Canadian citizens. There were, at that time, academics and jurists who said that Bill C-3 was going in the wrong direction and undermining judicial independence. Here again, it was Parliament telling judges what they had to do and saying that they needed to take a course in this and they needed upgrading in that.

After a lengthy debate, Parliament came to the conclusion that there is a balance to be found between integrity of the judicial system and allowing judicial independence. That bill, I submit, found that right balance. After a lot of debate, it went to committee. We heard from experts and we deemed that to be the right way to go with the right balance between judicial independence and ensuring that judges have proper training. The same is true here. It is so important for us to find that right balance.

I said earlier that one of the key cornerstones for judicial independence is that judges be free from political pressures and from outside pressures as well. Sometimes it is difficult for citizens who are not trained in the law to understand how judges operate and how they make decisions that are perhaps controversial.

One example comes to mind. It is going back a lot of years, but it is the O. J. Simpson trial in the United States. Mr. Simpson was charged criminally, but the jury found him to be not guilty, yet he was sued on the same set of facts in a civil court and was found to be liable. People did not understand how that worked and why one court could find him not guilty and the other one could find him civilly liable. That is the difference between the criminal benchmark for finding somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the civil courts where a judge or jury find that someone is liable on the balance of probabilities. That is just one of the important points of judicial independence.

That said, judges are also human beings. They are Canadian citizens. They know what is going on in the world, so we require them to be sensitive to community standards. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we saw recently in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bissonnette, where the Supreme Court of Canada found that consecutive sentences were unconstitutional. Many Canadians are having a hard time understanding that. This Parliament needs to look into that to ensure there is fairness according to common-law conditions, and also so that the citizens of this country know that the courts are operating in a way that values and understands community values.

In another case, R. v. Brown, just very recently, a person was found to be not guilty by reason of extreme intoxication and therefore he could not form mens rea, as we call it, which is the guilty intention to commit a crime. Again, Canadian citizens have a hard time understanding that. It needs to be reviewed as well by this Parliament, and I hope that happens soon.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House on such an important piece of legislation. To be very clear, in budget 2021 the government has outlined a plan to allow us to finish the fight against COVID-19, heal the wounds left by the COVID-19 recession as much as we can, and ultimately create more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come.

This is critically important legislation, and we would encourage all members of all political stripes to support it. Within it is a continuation of the government's focus on the pandemic. In the last federal election, Canadians wanted Parliament to work well together. They wanted us to come together to do the things that were necessary to facilitate a more positive environment for all Canadians, and being thrown into a pandemic made the priority fighting COVID-19: the coronavirus.

From the very beginning, our Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear that fighting the pandemic was our number one priority. We put into place a team Canada approach and brought together all kinds of stakeholders including different levels of government, indigenous leaders, individuals, non-profit organizations and private companies. We brought them all in to hopefully minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus.

It is because of those consultations and working with Canadians that Canada is in an excellent position today to maximize a recovery. The statistics will clearly demonstrate that. We have a government that has worked day in and day out, seven days a week, and is led by a Prime Minister who is truly committed to making Canada a better community.

I have, over the last number of months, witnessed a great deal of frustration from the opposition, in particular the Conservative opposition. The Conservatives continuously attempt to frustrate the process on the floor of the House of Commons. There was a time when all parties inside the chamber worked together to pass necessary legislation, and worked together to come up with ideas and ways to modify things so we could better support individuals and businesses in Canada. However, that time has long passed. The degree to which we see political partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons today is really quite sad.

Yesterday was embarrassing. I know many, if not all, of my colleagues found it embarrassing and humiliating to see one of Canada's most noble civil servants at the bar on the floor of the House of Commons. The New Democrats and the Bloc joined with the Conservatives to humiliate a civil servant who should be applauded for his efforts over the last 12 months. He was publicly humiliated by being addressed in the manner he was, on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was distasteful. I say shame to the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives.

There were alternatives. If they did not want to take shots at the civil service, they could have dealt with it in other ways. For example, the Minister of Health provided the unredacted information to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was made up of parliamentarians from all political parties. Instead of passing the motion they did, they could have passed a motion for that committee to table the documents they wanted from the civil service. After all, the civil service provided the unredacted copies to that committee, not to mention that documents that had been redacted for national interest and security reasons were sent to another standing committee.

The political partisanship we are seeing today is making the chamber, for all intents and purposes, dysfunctional. We have seen the official opposition, less than a week ago, come to the floor of the House of Commons and within an hour of debate attempt to shut down Parliament for the day. It actually moved a motion to adjourn the House. The opposition is oozing with hypocrisy. On the one hand, it criticizes the government for not allowing enough time for debate, and on the other hand it tries to shut down the chamber in order to prevent debate.

If we were to look up the definitions of the words “hypocrisy” and “irony” in Webster's, which I have not, I wonder if they would describe what we are seeing from the opposition party, which moves concurrence debate, not once or twice but on many occasions, so that the government is not able to move forward on legislation, including Bill C-30, which we are debating today. That legislation is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members of the Liberal caucus have fought day in and day out to ensure those voices are heard, brought to Ottawa and ultimately formulating policy that will take Canada to the next level. However, we have an official opposition that I would suggest has gone too far with respect to its resistance and destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have stated before that I have been a parliamentarian for approximately 30 years, the vast majority of which were in opposition. I am very much aware of how important it is that we protect the interests of opposition members and their rights. I am very much aware of the tactics opposition parties will use, but at a time when Canadians need us to work together, we have an official opposition that is acting as an obstructive force. When we talk about how Bill C-30 will be there to support small businesses and put money in the pockets of Canadians so they have the disposable income necessary to pay the bills that are absolutely essential, the Conservative Party continues to play that destructive role. It continues to focus on character assassination and on ways to make something out of something that is often not real. The Conservatives are more concerned about political partisanship than getting down to work, which was clearly demonstrated last Thursday. They are more concerned about character assassination, as we saw the official opposition, with the unholy opposition alliance, take personal shots at a national hero, someone we all know as the Minister of National Defence. This is unacceptable behaviour we are witnessing.

We have critically important legislation before the House. We can think about the types of things Bill C-30 would do for Canadians. If we want to prevent bankruptcies from taking place, we need to support this legislation, as it supports small businesses through the extension of the wage subsidy program, a program that has helped millions of Canadians, supporting tens of thousands of businesses from coast to coast to coast.

This is the type of legislation that we are actually debating today. It is not the only progressive, good, solid legislation that we have brought forward. Yesterday, through a closure motion, we were able to push through Bill C-10. We can imagine that legislation not being updated for 30 years. It is a major overhaul. We can think about what the Internet looked like 30 years ago, compared to today.

The Liberal government understands, especially during this pandemic, and we see it in the budget, the importance of our arts community, whether it was with Bill C-10 yesterday, where the government had to push hard to get it through, or the budget implementation bill today, where we are again having to use time allocation. It is not because we want to, but because we have to.

If we do not take measures of this nature, the legislation would not pass. The opposition parties, combined, often demonstrate that if the government is not prepared to take the actions it is taking, we would not get legislation through this House. The opposition parties want to focus on electioneering. We have been very clear, as the Prime Minister has stated, that our priority is the pandemic and taking the actions necessary in order to serve Canadians on the issue. It is the opposition parties that continuously talk about elections.

In my many years as a parliamentarian, in the month of June we have often seen legislation passing. It happens. It is a part of governance. One would expect to see a higher sense of co-operation from opposition parties, in particular from the official opposition party, not the obstruction that members have witnessed, not the humiliation that we have seen on the floor of the House of Commons at times.

Liberal members of the House are prepared to continue to work toward serving Canadians by passing the legislation that is necessary before the summer break. We still have time to address other pieces of legislation. Minutes prior to going into this debate, I was on a conference call in regard to Bill C-19. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. I challenge my colleagues on the opposition benches to come forward and say that we should get that legislation passed so that it could go to the Senate.

I mentioned important progressive pieces of legislation, and the one that comes to my mind, first and foremost, is this legislation, Bill C-30. Next to that, we talk a lot about Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. We talk a lot about Bill C-10, dealing with the modernization of broadcasting and the Internet, and going after some of these large Internet companies.

We talk about Bill C-12 and net zero, about our environment. We can check with Canadians and see what they have to say about our environment and look at the actions taken by opposition parties in preventing the types of progressive legislation we are attempting to move forward with.

We understand that not all legislation is going to be passed. We are not saying the opposition has to pass everything. We realize that in a normal situation not all government legislation is going to pass in the time frame we have set forth, given the very nature of the pandemic, but it is not unrealistic for any government, minority or majority, to anticipate that there would be a higher sense of co-operation in dealing with the passing of specific pieces of legislation. Bill C-30 is definitely one of those pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately, some opposition members will have the tenacity to say they are being limited and are unable to speak to and address this particular important piece of legislation. Chances are we are going to hear them say that. To those members, I would suggest they look at the behaviour of the Conservative official opposition and remind them of the Conservative opposition's attempts to delay, whether it is through adjourning debates, calling for votes on those kinds of proceedings, concurrence motions or using questions of privilege and points of order as a way to filibuster, which all happen to be during government business.

Bill C-3 was a bill that initially came forward a number of years ago from Rona Ambrose, the then leader of the Conservative Party, about judges. We can look at the amount of debate that occurred on that piece of legislation. It is legislation that could have and should have passed the House with minimal debate. It was hours and hours, days, of debate. Even though the Conservatives supported the legislation, even back then they did not want to have the government passing legislation.

Their purpose is to frustrate the government, prevent the government from being able to pass legislation, and then criticize us for not being able to pass legislation. What hypocrisy this is. Sadly, over the last week or so, we have seen the other opposition parties buy into what the Conservative opposition is doing, which has made it even more difficult.

As much as the unholy alliance of opposition parties continues to do these things and frustrate the floor of the House, I can assure Canadians that, whether it is this Prime Minister or my fellow members of Parliament within the caucus, we will continue day in, day out to focus our attention on the pandemic and minimizing its negative impacts.

We are seeing results. Over 32 million vaccine doses have been administered to Canadians. We are number one in first doses in the world. We have close to 35 million doses already in Canada, and we will have 50 million before the end of the month. Canada is positioning itself well, even with the frustration coming from opposition parties. We will continue to remain focused on serving Canadians, and Bill C-30 is an excellent example of the way in which we are going to ensure that Canadians get out of this in a better position. We are building back better for all Canadians.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening very closely to what has been said. In good part I agree when members talk about the partisanship we are seeing on the floor, but I take it from a different perspective, where, over the last while, there has been a great deal of partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons.

I know that a good number of people are watching and are very much interested in this piece of legislation ultimately passing and receiving royal assent. There was a great sense of disappointment when it passed the House of Commons but the Senate was not able to get its royal assent. There is no doubt that a vast majority of Canadians recognized that it should be a crime to travel abroad without the donor's consent in order to get an organ transplant.

They try to give a false impression. I referred to it yesterday, and more and more we are seeing this unholy alliance of opposition parties coming together to try, in every way possible and in as partisan a way as possible, to make the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus look bad. Seriously, I am not aware of any Liberal member of Parliament who would want to prevent this from becoming law. There are procedures that need to take place. Each political entity has a House leadership team with whom the issue could be addressed.

I say, to individuals like Irwin Cotler, David Matis, Maria and so many others who have been strong advocates on this issue, that what they are witnessing today is a partisanship that is not coming from the government. The government is doing what it can to ensure that there is a series of pieces of legislation. I could cite specific examples that have been provided to me. We know that we could pass this with unanimous consent, as we could do for a number of pieces of legislation.

Where was this empathy for the people the legislation would benefit, for example, when we dealt with Bill C-3? Bill C-3 was about the judicial appointments and training. Members will recall that it, too, passed the House of Commons in the last Parliament and the government reintroduced it as Bill C-3. How many hours of debate took place on that bill, even though it went through the full process the previous time? It was hours and days, but the Conservatives did not want it passed, and for what reasons? I will let people follow the debate.

Members will say that the issue has been debated already. I remember opposition members, when the shoe was on the other foot, would say that it was the previous Parliament and there are new members of Parliament who were just elected back in 2019 and ask if they should not be afforded the opportunity, if they want to be able to contribute to the debate. I understand the rules, the process and how things operate regarding legislation. We now have an offer saying that if we pass this bill unanimously right now, we will be allowed to debate Bill C-30. Members can imagine the hypocrisy. That is the reason I raised the matter of privilege I raised earlier today.

Last Friday and this Friday the NDP and the Conservatives were working together through privileges to prevent the government from being able to deal with legislation. Is this legislation not also important? What about other private—

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the chief whip of the official opposition in the House of Commons.

Let us be clear from the start. We have no problem with extending work hours at this time of the year, as in fact our standing orders provide.

However, we are extremely concerned about the motion introduced by the government and voted on a few moments ago, because we know that facilities are limited, given the current pandemic situation. A lot of technical efforts are being made and government officials have made generous offers to co-operate with us, and we greatly appreciate that. However, when we get to this time of year, there is a kind of bottleneck. That is why we have to strike a very fair and reasonable balance between extending the work hours in the House of Commons and keeping parliamentary committees running. That is where there is a disconnect with the motion put forward by the government.

I would remind members that the House of Commons is part of Parliament, and as its very name suggests, Parliament is a place for parley, in other words, for discussion. We in the official opposition discuss things with our counterparts on the government side and with the other opposition parties. I would never, ever go into the details of those discussions. However, one thing is certain and indisputable, that is, that we had honest, good-faith discussions with our counterparts and could not come to an agreement. That is the point.

As we saw, when my colleague, the chief whip of the official opposition, asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons a very specific question, that good man, whom I like and respect a great deal, was unable to give anything even remotely resembling the merest hint of an answer. As parliamentarians, we cannot give carte blanche in terms of which committees will survive this proposal and which will not.

It should be immediately obvious why we have some very serious concerns about the lack of clarity on the parliamentary committees. We need only look at this government's track record over the past few months in terms of parliamentary work.

However, it was funny to hear my Liberal colleague for Winnipeg North talk about everything being in limbo because of Conservative opposition members, that their tactic on a daily basis is to delay, delay, delay, and that there is a filibuster each and every step of the way on each and every bill. This is anything but true.

When we talk about filibustering, I think that the king of filibustering is the Liberal Party of Canada, especially in this session, and there is a record of that. I do not think that the member for Winnipeg North and his colleagues would be very proud of what they have done in committee.

Let us look at what the Liberals have been doing in parliamentary committees over the past few months. They were the ones who accused us earlier of filibustering, as in talking for hours and hours in order to waste time rather than get to the bottom of things.

We can look at the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs where the Liberals had filibustered for 73 hours.

The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours, preventing the committee from doing its work. Why?

It is because we wanted to get to the bottom of things and allow witnesses to appear and explain why the government prorogued Parliament. The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours to prevent witnesses from testifying. Now they are the ones accusing us of being the bad guys holding up the works. It is ludicrous.

However, it does not end there.

We can look at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics where the Liberals filibustered for 43 hours. Why? It was to block getting to the truth about the WE Charity scandal.

There is a common thread in all this, however. When we want to get accurate information on Liberal scandals, they filibuster. They are very unhappy about that and accuse us of wanting to delay parliamentary work, when we are just doing our job.

These are concrete examples, but it does not end there. At the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberals filibustered for 35 hours, once again to prevent parliamentarians from getting to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal.

At the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Liberals filibustered for over 16 hours. The committee chair, who is a member of the government party, unilaterally suspended the meetings 23 times.

This is starting to really add up: 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at a third, 16 hours at a fourth. I have not even mentioned the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, where the Liberals filibustered for 10 hours, between February and April, on the study we wanted to conduct on the COVAX facility, which was created by rich countries to provide poor countries with access to vaccines. Sadly, members will recall that Canada, a rich country, helped itself to the supply for poor countries because it did not have the vaccines that the Prime Minister had announced at his December dog and pony show. That is the reality.

I hear government members accusing us of being the bad guys and filibustering, when they are the ones who filibustered for 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at the Standing Committee on Finance, 16 hours at the Standing Committee on National Defence, and 10 hours at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In light of the Liberals' dismal parliamentary record, we feel it is perfectly valid to want to be sure of what is planned for the committees before we give the government carte blanche to extend the committee and House sittings. However, the government refuses to tell us its plans and instead demands a free hand. We think this is unacceptable.

I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North explaining the status of some bills, so we will take a look at that assessment.

He talked about Bill C-3, regarding judges, which is modelled on a bill originally introduced by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. We are very proud of that legislation, but the Liberal government used the strongest weapon in its arsenal to delay its passage or concurrence, namely prorogation.

Let us not forget that last summer, when the Liberal government was in a real jam over the WE scandal, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met day after day in July and again in August. The official opposition members strenuously challenged the government's moral authority, because it had adopted a despicable strategy for dealing with this scandal.

What did the government do when it was in trouble? It prorogued Parliament. This was the worst thing it could do to slow down the work of parliamentarians. Once Parliament is prorogued, everything goes back to square one. That is what happened with Bill C-3.

What about Bill C-11? I heard the member for Winnipeg North say how important this legislation is, and he is absolutely right. I even remember the member and Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry calling out the Conservatives on Twitter in February, accusing us of delaying Bill C-11 and saying that it was awful.

I quite like the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who is the minister responsible. I have a lot of respect and regard for him, but when I saw that on Twitter, I found myself thinking that I had not seen Bill C-11 in a long time. When I checked, I saw that the last time the government had brought Bill C-11 forward in the House was on November 24, 2020. The bill then sat around for three months, through November, December, January and February, before the government brought it forward again. However, the government went after us in February, claiming that we were delaying it. That is completely absurd.

The member also mentioned Bill C-14, on the economic statement, since there was no budget. The government accused us and is still accusing us of filibustering it, when two-thirds of the official opposition members did not even speak on it.

I am proud to be the House Leader of the Official Opposition. Our caucus has 120 members who duly represent eight Canadian provinces and regions in the House of Commons. We are the only truly national party. I am very proud of the calibre of people I work with, and that is why, when they ask to speak, I am happy to add them to the political debate. However, it is utterly ludicrous to accuse us of filibustering when two-thirds of our caucus did not even speak.

That is why the motion, as currently presented, is unacceptable to us. We are ready and willing to work longer hours as long as the parliamentary work in the House of Commons can be done without compromising the work of the committees, but that is absolutely not the case with this motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

Sexual Assault Awareness Month

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Sexual violence continues to be under recognized within the criminal justice system and has increased significantly during the pandemic. May is a month for us to bring awareness to the realities of sexual violence within our communities and to recognize that certain communities are disproportionately impacted by sexual violence, in particular indigenous women.

I would like to thank SAVIS of Halton for educating our community on the realities of sexual violence while providing direct support and resources to survivors in Halton.

Last week, I was pleased to see Bill C-3 receive royal assent, which will ensure education is provided for judges on sexual assault and social context. I would like to give special thanks to Conor Lewis from my office, who worked on this bill since 2017.

Today and everyday, I send my support to all survivors, as we continue to advocate for the end of sexual violence in all forms.

Justice

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Bill C-3 became law. It is an important step, but so much remains to be accomplished.

Whether the person was a member of the military or a victim of domestic violence, the evidence is unequivocal. The legal system is failing the vast majority of sexual assault survivors. Consultations have already taken place and experts have laid out a road map that includes establishing a specialized sexual assault and domestic violence court and ensuring consistency between criminal, family and youth protection court decisions.

Even if judges are now receiving training, they are still operating inside a broken system. Is the Minister of Justice ready to commit to doing more, to tabling legislation that would truly reform the system and ensure that all survivors of sexual assault could access justice?

Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to relevance. The member has been going off on a tangent that is nowhere near the concurrence report we are debating. He is talking about Bill C-3, Bill C-14, Bill C-19, all except the matter before the House right now. This is a concurrence report. We are supposed to be debating about Line 5. This is important.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, to say whether I am surprised or disappointed, the short answer would be no. I am not surprised that the Conservatives would move a motion of concurrence on a particular report. They have demonstrated in the recent months that they have really lost focus on the pandemic. I am trying to be nice in my criticism here, but I do believe at times that I need to be bold and to say what I believe the Conservatives are actually doing, which is not focusing at all or giving the attention that should be there from the official opposition in dealing with what is a very important issue to all Canadians.

The Conservatives continue to want to play partisan politics, and that is why I am not surprised, because they have been doing this for a while now. I am disappointed. I am disappointed again, and ongoing, because as the Conservatives insist on playing games on the floor of the House of Commons, they are filibustering whenever they can in an attempt to encourage a dysfunctional House of Commons and discourage important legislation from being debated so they can ultimately say that the government cannot even get its legislation through. If we look at the behaviour of the Conservative Party, it does not take a genius in a group of 12 to cause a lot of frustration on the floor of the House of Commons, and we get the official opposition choosing to do that.

Today is an excellent example. Earlier today, I was on a Zoom call with the Prime Minister, my Manitoba colleagues and a hundred nurses in the province of Manitoba. We were listening to what nurses in Manitoba had to say. That is the priority, and has been the priority, of this government from day one. I contrast that to what we have witnessed day in and day out over the last number of months coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. They should be ashamed of themselves.

The member for Chilliwack—Hope tries to give the impression that I do not care about Line 5 or the jobs and the other indirect and direct things related to Line 5 and that is why I do not support having us debate this motion we are debating today, the concurrence on the report. That is balderdash. It is just not true. Like all Liberals in the House of Commons, I am very much concerned about Line 5 and the impact it is having, not only on Canada, but also on the U.S. We understand and appreciate the importance of the issue. The Minister of Natural Resources, whether in question period or other debates, including the emergency debate, has been very clear on the issue.

The Conservative Party, surely to goodness, would recognize that we just had an emergency debate on the issue, just last Thursday. Members should listen and read in terms of what was actually said then. It started off with Conservatives just bashing Ottawa and saying how bad we are in regard to Alberta, to try to perpetuate more misinformation, as if this Prime Minister and this government do not care about the province of Alberta. Members can look and see what kind of ideas came from the Conservative Party in the emergency debate. There was not one Liberal who said “no” to having an emergency debate.

I had a chance to speak during that debate, and I am going to share some of the comments I made on Thursday night, but even with the emergency debate that took place, the Conservatives came up with this concurrence motion on a report that has absolutely nothing to do with Line 5 or a relationship between Canada and the U.S. For those who are listening or participating, or who care about what is taking place in the House, that is not the real motivation here. The Conservatives can say whatever they want and try to come across as meaningful as they want, but at the end of the day, it has more to do with frustrating the government's legislative agenda, the things we want to accomplish in the House of Commons.

They continue to push, saying that the House of Commons is dysfunctional. The Conservatives try to do two things. The first is character assassinations, and I understand I was one of them earlier today in an S.O. 31. The second is the ongoing filibustering taking place in the House of Commons so that important legislation cannot get through.

We should look at some of the debates and frustrations that have been sensed on the floor of the House of Commons because of the irresponsible official opposition. Those who might be sympathetic to their terrible behaviour should look at Bill C-3, as an example, and the hours and hours of debate on the education and training of judges in the future on sexual assault and so forth. It was a Conservative bill. It passed everything and is coming back. We introduced it as a government bill so we could put it in place. Everyone agreed to it, even in the Senate. It got royal assent very recently. The Conservatives debated that for hours and hours on the floor of the House of Commons. Was that really necessary? No.

What about Bill C-14? The economic statement was released in November, and the legislation was brought forward in December. No matter when we called it up, the Conservatives attempted to filibuster that through concurrence motions, too. In that legislation, there were important things to subsidize and support Canadians, individuals, families and small businesses. One would think the Conservative Party would have cared, but it had no problem filibustering that one, too.

We just had to bring in time allocation on Bill C-19. It is a minority government. We have to ensure, as much as possible, that Elections Canada is best prepared, enabling it to do a little more on a temporary basis. However, the political spinners within the Conservative Party do not want to go that way. They say they want to remain focused. Being focused to them is to push for a dysfunctional chamber and character assassination. That is what they are all about. It is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

May 6, 2021

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Administrator of the Government of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 6th day of May, 2021, at 6:27 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, and Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Criminal Code

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a question around prosecutorial and police discretion because I still have concerns about the lack of understanding that still exists in Canada.

I am wondering what other additional measures the member would like to see. I am thinking about Bill C-3, which made it mandatory for judges to have training around sexual assault. What about trauma-informed care? What about information around residential school experiences, or about Canadians who continue to be oppressed in our country? Are there additional measures that the member would like to see in this bill?

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was part of a wonderful Zoom discussion. It was a great recognition of the importance of some health care workers, while at the same time a celebration of Canada's diversity. We also had some special guests.

On the call we had our Prime Minister, health care professionals from coast to coast, and a number of other special guests, all there to recognize a couple of things. The first was the fabulous work that our health care providers are providing Canadians in all regions of our country, day in and day out. We also recognized something important to the people who were participating in that call, and in fact to many Canadians, and that is the celebration of Vaisakhi.

It was really quite nice to be a part of that discussion, where we recognized our diversity and, at the same time, the Prime Minister listened to first-hand experiences of what is taking place at the ground level of our health institutions dealing with the coronavirus.

Having said that, it is important to recognize that from day one this Liberal government has been listening to Canadians. It has not been making political discussions as much as it has been listening to what health experts have had to say and following that advice, so Canadians would in fact be protected. From day one, the Prime Minister has been there to assure Canadians that, as a government, we will have their backs. We have done that in so many tangible ways.

Nothing has changed. We continue day in and day out to look at ways to support Canadians, the people and their businesses, get through this pandemic. We have seen a lot of highs and lot of lows. We could talk about the wonderful people who have made life that much easier for us during this pandemic and the difficulties we have had to overcome, which at times can be very hard on a person, whether mentally or physically. Through this pandemic, we have seen life and death.

It is so encouraging that we could finally see, in the not-too-distant future, things coming back to a new normal. I suspect I speak on behalf of all members of Parliament when I say that we want things back to that new normal as soon as possible.

I want to provide some thoughts, and some of them are a little critical of my Conservative friends. I have been listening to what they have had to say today. I must say that I am not surprised. I am a little disappointed, but not necessarily surprised.

I gave a little tease when I asked a member about the deficit. The Conservatives are once again becoming preoccupied with Canada's deficit at a time when Canadians in parts of the country are in lockdown situations and are looking for the government to demonstrate ongoing leadership. What we have clearly demonstrated is that we are working day in, day out with Canadians. From a national perspective, we are there for Canadians in tangible ways.

However, before I get into that, I want to hold the Conservative opposition to task for some of the things they have said, this whole preoccupation of theirs. On the one hand, Conservatives say they like the CERB program, the rent subsidy program and the wage subsidy program, which account for billions and billions of dollars in spending. That is, in good part, borrowed money. They are telling us that this is good stuff and we need it. Then, on the other hand, they are talking about the debt and saying there is too much spending from the government.

I can envision two or three years from now, the Conservatives will forget about the pandemic, even the fact that it occurred, and focus 100% of their attention on the deficit. I would like to suggest to my Conservative friends that, had we listened to the Conservative Party of Canada and its leadership within the House of Commons, Canada would not be doing anywhere near as well as it is today in its position to recover from the pandemic. I genuinely believe that to be the case.

If we asked people to reflect on what has taken place over the last number of months, I believe we would find a fairly even consensus among Canadians about their fear for the manner in which the Conservative Party would have managed us through this process. This is based on the types of questions Conservatives have been asking and the type of support they have been providing to legislation. I argue that in the last seven months, they have been more of a destructive force inside the House of Commons, rather than providing a proactive, constructive critique of the government and the policies we were making.

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul made reference to the Liberal Party and the Liberal government doing a terrible job pre-pandemic on the deficit and that we had a sluggish economy. If one wants to get a sense of the Conservative spin out there, all one needs to do is read the member's speech and listen to some of the other points that have been made. In many ways, nothing could be further from the truth.

In the first four years of our mandate, going into the fifth year, we had record highs in employment rates. We very much had a manageable deficit situation. We had created well over a million jobs. It took Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, nine years to accomplish what we were able to accomplish in four and a half years. We did a much better job on the financing of Canada than Stephen Harper did.

The programs, initiatives and impact we were having by working with our partners, whether they were Canadians, businesses or members at the provincial level, were having a profoundly positive impact on our economy. The numbers clearly demonstrated that.

Prior to the pandemic, Canada was doing exceptionally well. Then when we were hit by the pandemic, we took specific actions to protect Canadians. As we have gone through the pandemic, we have brought in important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-14. I find it truly amazing that Bill C-14 still has not passed the House of Commons, whether it is because of the Conservatives and their filibustering tactics or even other opposition parties that are at times preventing this legislation from ultimately being able to receive royal assent.

The economic statement was presented by the minister of finance back in November of last year. The bill was introduced in December so that members would be able to go over the bill during the late December-early January break. There was plenty of time for Conservative members to have discussions and raise it with ministers or whomever they chose to have a dialogue with. They come up with so many ways to prevent the legislation from even getting to a vote. They did not even want it to get out of second reading. They had to be shamed into doing it.

I remember the day the Conservatives put forward a concurrence motion that I believe was on human trafficking, something that could have passed by a unanimous vote. Who in the chamber did not support it? There are so many reports, but they used that report and that issue to filibuster, preventing Bill C-14 from passing. Here we are, in mid-April, still debating a bill that was based on the Deputy Prime Minister's speech back at the end of November. It is not because we have not attempted to put it on the agenda. We do not have the same sort of luxury as opposition parties in terms of opposition days where, at the end of the day, there is a vote because there is a process that enables a vote to occur.

In a minority situation, we have to give a lot more attention to what the opposition is doing, and it only takes one opposition party to prevent something from passing. I remember well how the Conservatives resisted the bill passing. Today, as I listen to my Conservative friends speak, they say they do not like the debt and so forth. Is that going to be their excuse for not wanting to pass it today or tomorrow? Are they going to say it is a whole lot of money and they want hours and hours of debate?

Do members remember Bill C-3, a non-controversial piece of legislation? It was actually a Conservative bill. There were hours and hours of debate on that bill and we debated it for a number of days, when we could have been debating other legislation. It would have freed up more time, so that when Bill C-14 came up for debate, there could have been more time to debate it. How about the MAID legislation? My colleague from Ontario asked for leave on several occasions to extend the debate in the evening so we could, in essence, free up more time for other government legislation that had to get debated. The MAID legislation was life-and-death legislation. It was a Superior Court decision that had to be dealt with.

The government has a number of pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with, yet the opposition continues to want to play games. Conservatives tell Canadians they are being a responsible opposition because, after all, it is worth billions of dollars. They are right that it is worth billions of dollars, but they are not recognizing the urgency. We have provided opportunities to get this bill through much earlier, and the Conservatives find one way or another not to, to the point that here we are debating it on April 12.

This legislation was brought in months ago, and the bill is finally in a position where it could pass. It has taken a long time to get this far, and I encourage Conservatives to pass it, as I did at second reading. It was not until the Conservatives started to feel embarrassed that they allowed the bill to pass. I think they need to be shamed into passing it at third reading or they will not do it. If they are not told to wise up and recognize that this bill is going to have a positive impact on the lives of Canadians during this pandemic, they are not going to pass it. They need to be held accountable for not recognizing how important this legislation is to Canadians.

We have indicated that our government will do whatever it takes. We are going to invest wherever it is necessary. We want to be helpful, and we will support Canadian families and businesses. This is very important legislation, and it would do all of that.

For example, this legislation introduces a temporary and immediate support for low- and middle-income families that are entitled to the Canada child benefit, over $1,000 in 2021 for each child under the age of six. It would ease the financial burden of student debt. It would provide for over half a billion dollars as part of a new strategy to deal with safe long-term care, funding to support long-term care facilities, including funding to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection, outbreaks and deaths in supportive care facilities. The vaccines have really helped, but these are the types of measures.

There is no reason this House could not have passed this bill back in February. It is not that the government did not want it passed, but every time the government would bring it up, the Conservatives would give some indication that it was not going to pass and would continue to be debated.

There is other legislation as well. I am the parliamentary secretary who is ultimately there to support the passage of Bill C-19, which is on the Canada Elections Act and the impact of the pandemic on elections, to ensure Canadians would be healthy. This is a minority government, and we never know when there is going to be an election. Bill C-19 is the responsible thing to do, but it is incredibly difficult to get legislation passed with the official opposition taking the approach it has during the pandemic, and it is unfortunate.

We understand and appreciate how difficult it has been for Canadians from coast to coast to coast over the last 12 months. The federal government, by working with Canadians and health care experts and listening to what is taking place, has done what is necessary in order to ensure that Canadians can have hope.

Contrary to the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who was trying to marginalize it in terms of the number of doses earlier in her speech, we should listen to what the Minister of Public Services and Procurement stated earlier today in question period: “Canada now stands eighth in the G20 in terms of doses administered per 100 people. We have received 10.5 million doses in this country to date. We are on track to receive 44 million doses by the end of June”. We are a country of 37.5 million people.

The Conservatives love to twist the facts and give misinformation to Canadians. However, we have been consistent. Members can go back to December, when we were saying that we have targets and a portfolio to ensure that we will get the vaccinations. We have compensated as much as possible for not having that immediate manufacturing capability here in Canada. We understand the importance of the issue, and we will continue to have Canadians' backs throughout this process.

International Women's Day

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in the House of Commons. The magnitude of this reality is not lost on me, especially today on International Women's Day, a day when we celebrate and advocate for women's rights around the world. I wish I could simply deliver pleasantries, highlight the work of some incredible women and wish all present a happy International Women's Day, but based on the real experiences of women across the country and around the globe that would not be enough.

I would like to begin by exploring some of the history of the women's rights movement. It is rooted in struggle and conflict, intertwined with colonialism and racism. Before the suffragettes, colonists arrived in North America and deliberately tore apart the fabric of the matriarchal leadership of the first peoples of this land. The intergenerational trauma of these acts continues to ripple through indigenous communities today.

International Women's Day can be traced back to 1908, when thousands of working women in New York City marched to protest their working conditions. These women worked at low wages with no protection and regularly experienced sexual harassment and abuse. This uprising continued for more than a year, leading to National Woman's Day in the U.S. in 1909.

At an international conference of working women in 1910, the idea for an international movement advocating universal suffrage was born. The day took on a truly revolutionary form in Russia in 1917, in a country exhausted by war, widespread food shortages and escalating popular protests. Russian women demanded and gained the right to vote in 1917 as a direct consequence of the March protest.

Suffragettes in the U.K., and their counterparts in the U.S. and Canada, looked to Russia as an example. White women in Canada were enfranchised in 1918, but this right would not be extended to women of colour or indigenous women until decades later.

We have yet to fully embrace the layers of intersectionality in feminism and tear down the many ways women continue to be oppressed. The pandemic has plainly demonstrated how race, gender, class, disability and immigration status intersect and compound risk, resulting in worse health outcomes, increased rates of domestic violence and greater economic struggle.

International Women's Day remains steeped in the fight for all women's rights. I think about the women facing violence in their homes. I addressed the House regarding gender-based violence on February 25. That same day, a woman from my home province was murdered by her intimate partner. In Quebec, five women were killed by their partners in just one month.

The government has put money into supporting shelters and services for women fleeing domestic violence, but it is not enough. I think about the survivors of sexual assault being retraumatized and stigmatized, again and again, by a court system that was designed to protect property. Bill C-3 will finally require judges to receive sensitivity training on sexual assault, which is a step forward, but our judicial system is so deeply flawed that this is not enough.

I think of Chantel Moore and of Joyce Echaquan. These women's final moments on earth were spent facing down racism and misogyny. Our policing and health systems let them down. We let them down.

The government has initiated an anti-racism secretariat, but it seems to be operating quietly behind closed doors. This is not enough. I am discouraged by the failings of our systems, reinforced by almost every statistic and by almost every headline. I am discouraged that I hold a seat of power, yet I often feel powerless to right what remains so very wrong.

I look to what brings me hope. I think of my sisters, my friends and the women I work with. Through their trauma, I see their strength. I see their resilience. This year they have given birth without their loved ones present. They have loved and supported family members in mental health crises. They have taken in their adult children who could no longer support themselves financially. They have bravely served, overrepresented on the front lines of this pandemic. They have left abusive jobs, they have left abusive relationships and they stand strong but not unscathed. What I need from the government is leadership that sees their resilience and meets it with equal force.

International Women's Day has always been as much about struggle and solidarity as it is about celebration. Today, for women across the country, the struggle is real. With some direct action perhaps next year we will have more to celebrate.

Opposition Motion—Religious Minorities in China

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been less than a month since I saw photo presentations of emaciated women and children lined up in the Auschwitz death camp and listened to Holocaust survivors talk about their scars from forced separation from family members, torture, the death of loved ones, gas chambers and the exploitation of their bodies for science experiments.

January 27 was International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Six million Jews died in the Holocaust, and the phrase “never again” is solemnly spoken as a reminder to be vigilant and a call to action to prevent and stop genocide.

Today my Conservative colleagues and I are calling on the government and members to acknowledge that the Government of the People's Republic of China is subjecting Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims to genocide.

Numerous entities have drawn the conclusion that the Government of China is committing acts of genocide that include mass detention, systematic population control and sexual violence. The reports provide elaborate details on the depth of the abuses perpetrated by the government against this minority group.

The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released a statement October 21, 2020 that reads:

The Subcommittee unequivocally condemns the persecution of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang by the Government of China. Based on the evidence put forward during the Subcommittee hearings, both in 2018 and 2020, the Subcommittee is persuaded that the actions of the Chinese Communist Party constitute genocide as laid out in the Genocide Convention.

I just want to note here that this is a statement by a committee of members across all aisles. CBC News reported a statement by Bob Rae that there are aspects of what the Chinese government is doing that fit the definition of genocide in the genocide convention. I would also like to note that Bob Rae is Canada's ambassador to the UN. Genocide is defined by the genocide convention with respect to three constitutive elements.

First, the victims form part of a protected group of national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Second, the perpetrators committed one or more enumerated acts against members of the group, killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Third, the perpetrators acted with the intent to destroy the protected group in whole or in part.

All three elements are present a genocide in the heinous acts of persecution against the Uighur people.

On January 19, 2021, outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo said:

After careful examination of the available facts, I have determined that since at least March 2017, the People’s Republic of China, under the direction and control of the Chinese Communist Party, has committed crimes against humanity against the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other members of ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.

The current U.S. Secretary of State Blinken has stated numerous times that he also believes genocide is being committed against the Uighurs. American officials acknowledge this as genocide. They are our neighbours and closest allies.

The existence of detention camps holding a million Uighurs has been confirmed through government documents, witness testimony and satellite imagery. Most people in the camps are innocent. They have not committed any crimes. They have no means to defend themselves. Human rights groups say their crime is being Muslim. They are being persecuted and killed because of their religion. This is unacceptable and it is not a time to be silent.

Between 2017 and 2019, approximately more than 80,000 Uighurs were forced from their homes to work in factories across China and in detention camps. The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote in a letter of “People being forcibly loaded onto trains, beards of religious men being trimmed, women being sterilised, and the grim spectre of concentration camps.”

This bears similarities to what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago. Indeed, Jonathan Sacks, the U.K.'s former chief rabbi, tweeted on July 22:

As a Jew, knowing our history, the sight of people being shaven headed, lined up, boarded onto trains, and sent to concentration camps is particularly harrowing.

Jewish leaders acknowledge the eerie familiarities of what is happening to Uighurs with what the Nazis did during World War II. These are serious statements coming from a community that experienced severe genocide.

In a BBC article earlier this month, according to independent testimonies, more than a million people have been detained in the internment camps. Former detainees have testified to having experienced or witnessed a system of organized mass rape, sexual abuse and torture. Women were also forcibly sterilized or fitted with IUDs. Many women turn to alcohol to cope with the trauma. One woman who fled Xinjiang says, of a victim who is now an addict, she was “like someone who simply existed, otherwise she was dead, completely finished by the rapes.... Their goal is to destroy everyone”, she said, “And everybody knows it.”

This is absolutely abhorrent. These women are experiencing trauma that will probably take a lifetime to overcome, if they survive: nightmares, anxiety, fear, depression, self-esteem issues, challenges in intimate relationships and the grief of forcibly losing one's ability to bear children.

When asked by reporters why the government has not yet acknowledged the actions of China's government against the Uighur Muslim minority as genocide, the Prime Minister said that the word “genocide” is “extremely loaded” and something that we should be looking at to determine if we can label it as genocide. The fact that leaders and members of his own party, Canada's ambassador to the UN and international communities are calling this genocide makes the Prime Minister's failure to acknowledge it as such disturbing.

On February 3, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asked the Prime Minister if he believed the testimony of female Uighur victims of systemic sexual violence in Chinese state-run concentration camps where sexual violence is sometimes paired with electrocution. The Prime Minister's response was:

For years now we have been advocating directly with Chinese leadership for transparency and better treatment of the Uighurs in western China...We need to have international investigators, including from the UN, accessing the Xinjiang province to be able to keep people safe there and everywhere around the world.

We know that the Government of China will not allow UN investigators access to its torture facilities. I wonder if the Prime Minister really understands the full ramifications of what is going on, because underneath his diplomatic response, it seems to me, as a woman, that the PM is saying, “I'll try to get the perpetrator's permission to check out the crime scene. If we can go there and see if what you're claiming is actually happening, well then we'll take it from there.”

Does he have more faith in the Chinese government to allow an investigation to take place or does he believe the victims? This is the same government that continues to disregard human rights and international law with regard to Hong Kong, Tibetans, Falun Gong practitioners, Christians and other minority groups. We also have the two Michaels still detained in China.

Going back to the Prime Minister's insensitivity, we just debated Bill C-3, and passed it unanimously. This piece of legislation had to be passed, because rape victims are often treated unfairly and often revictimized by judges who condemn the women and not the perpetrators, and their testimony is dismissed. The women relive their trauma and end up further victimized. Therefore, I would like to ask: Is it the Prime Minister's intention to gaslight the Uighur women who had the courage to step forward with their stories? By saying that he is consulting directly with the Government of China on these issues to seek investigations shows that he does not acknowledge the plight of these women.

My Conservative colleagues and I call on the Liberal government to join our allies in the U.S. to officially recognize the Uighur genocide, to take coordinated action with other countries internationally in response to this genocide and impose Magnitsky sanctions against those who are responsible for the heinous crimes being committed against the Uighurs.

I am sitting here in my constituency office today with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms behind me. This is our Canadian legacy. We stand for it at home. That is why we come to the House of Commons as parliamentarians: To uphold the dignity of every human being and do our best to allow each one to prosper uniquely in their own way. When we see our fellow humanity abroad suffering, as the Uighur and Turkic Muslims are in China, it is time to stand up and acknowledge the atrocity for what it is—genocide—and take realistic, practical steps with our international allies to hold the Government of China to account.

We have a moment of decision today on our values, the identity of Canada and what freedom and human rights are really about. There is no room for hypocrisy in this hour. I understand that there are complex economic and social layers in our relationship with China. However, genocide is genocide, human rights are human rights, and I implore the government and ask my colleagues across all aisles to adopt the position my Conservative colleagues and I are addressing today.

As we consider this motion, I would ask this: What is the legacy that my colleagues would like to leave behind? Is it one of fear or moral courage? We have come so far as a nation, and we still have a ways to go to really act with true freedom and moral courage, but in this hour there is an opportunity, and I fear that being indecisive about whether this is genocide is making us go backwards. Canada has a role—

Criminal Code

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise yet again to oppose this deeply flawed and dangerous legislation, Bill C-7. The Liberals have been complaining in the media that they think the Conservatives are holding up the legislation and that they are going to miss their court-imposed deadline of December 18, but they really have no one but themselves to blame. Conservatives are doing our constitutionally mandated job to hold the Liberal government accountable on its legislation.

Looking at the record over these past eight months, it is clear that my party has bent over backwards to give the Liberals the breathing room to implement emergency economic aid and other COVID-related measures. We have been very co-operative. We have also seen a great deal of government legislation move fairly quickly through the House just this fall, and in a minority Parliament at that.

Let us look at the Liberal record on moving the legislation forward. From the very beginning, the government really made its own bed on this one when it refused to defend its own legislation, Bill C-14, which was just passed in the last Parliament. Even some of its own members said on Twitter that the legislation was unconstitutional, admitting they felt it was unconstitutional even when they were voting for it, but they did not use the opportunity to appeal the legislation to the Supreme Court. That shows me that it was the government's intent to use the courts to circumvent Parliament.

Parliament was mandated, under Bill C-14, to conduct a thorough review of medical assistance in dying and that review was to occur next year. It is important to have these sorts of reviews built into legislation because when we talk about something as serious as medical assistance in dying, which is a novel legislation, a new innovation in our social fabric, Canadian people really have not had adequate time to digest how they feel about the legislation and to examine their lived experiences.

A five-year review was a very adequate provision to give Canadians a bit of time to assess the bill and then have Parliament make recommendations and possibly changes to the legislation so that we could fix the bill, whether that meant tightening up some things that were prone to abuse or maybe loosening up the legislation in cases where it was needed. However, with the Liberal government's desire to short-circuit the legislative process and the will of the previous Parliament, it chose to fast-track the legislation by not choosing to appeal it to the Supreme Court. I believe this was done very purposely to ensure the legislation would pass before a review took place.

If the review had gone forward, as we have seen from the Council of Canadian Academies, there are a lot of questions about the practice of the legislation and how it has been carried out over the past few years. Abuses have been raised in committee and in the House repeatedly, yet in the legislation the government has taken no efforts to take those experiences and make this a safer piece of legislation for vulnerable people.

Going to the next example of why the government's problem is one it made itself, with the COVID-19 pandemic, which I agree was not the government's fault, it was required to request several extensions of the bill. The courts were willing to approve those extensions and, in late summer, Liberals chose to prorogue Parliament. By proroguing Parliament, they made the choice to clear the decks of all of their legislation, start from the beginning and send us back to the drawing board. By doing that, they delayed the legislation further. For the Liberal government to claim that Conservatives are holding up the bill when what we are doing is our constitutionally mandated job, especially on an issue as important as life and death, it does not ring true.

Another example is that if the bill was so important for the government to get passed so quickly, why was it not the first justice bill it put forward? Bill C-3 was passed in a very expeditious manner with all parties' support in the House. It was passed, largely, with the support of committee and minimal amendments. Even in that expedited manner, that delayed the government's legislation by weeks. The Liberals are talking and complaining about how Conservatives are allegedly delaying the legislation, but it was their own choices that resulted in the delay of the legislation.

We are left today with the government complaining that the Conservatives are doing their job. We are doing our job by criticizing the Liberals' legislation. We are holding them to account. We are championing the rights of vulnerable people. We will never apologize for doing what our constituents have sent us here to do, which is to stand up for their deeply held beliefs, to stand up for their concerns and to stand up for vulnerable people.

Vulnerable Canadians made their desires known and their concerns known very loudly and clearly at the committee. I am pleased to see that the other place has had more time to hear from witnesses. I believe it has heard from over 80 witnesses, the vast majority of whom are opposed to the legislation. Frankly, in the House, we only had four committee meetings for this very important legislation, so I am pleased that the Senate is taking its responsibility seriously and thoroughly examining the bill and hearing from vulnerable people and others who are concerned about the legislation.

The members of these communities were afraid of Bill C-14. They were assured by the government that they would be protected and that there were protections for people with mental illnesses from accessing it. There were protections for children. There was the reasonably foreseeable death requirement, which was touted as a great protection for the disabled community. I can tell members that what they are saying is that they are terrified by what they see in this bill from the Liberal government.

I read today on CBC that the Minister of Justice appears to be in a showdown with disabled groups who are demanding a halt to the bill. The idea that the Minister of Justice, whose role is to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canadians, is fighting and ignoring the pleas of disabled and other vulnerable Canadians is just plain wrong.

Conservatives have been listening and we have been fighting for these vulnerable Canadians. It appears that nobody else is willing to fight for them. That is what we will do. We are fighting for these vulnerable Canadians. We are not being intransigent about this bill. Conservatives have a wide range of perspectives on this issue. We have put forward, as a party, some very common-sense amendments that do not undermine the legality of medical assistance in dying as a general practice but will do a lot to assuage the fears of vulnerable Canadians.

Some of these common-sense amendments proposed at committee included protecting patients from undue coercion. By coercion, people immediately draw up images of doctors in deeply immoral situations pushing medical assistance in dying on vulnerable people who are isolated from loved ones and family members. I am not trying to say that is happening. Frankly, I think what we have seen is that it is a lot more benign than that. It is not doctors aggressively pushing medical assistance in dying on people.

Someone may be in a situation where there is a power imbalance, and as a disabled person, other vulnerable person or a person who is older, they might not have family members or access to supports like social workers and psychologists. In this situation, they trust their doctors and that is a good thing because our doctors work very hard and they are very professional. However, if someone has that trust relationship with their doctor and the doctor comes and asks if they have considered medical assistance in dying, that could seem very benign for an average person. If I was in a situation like that and the doctor came to me, I would say no thanks, but we never know what someone else is going through and what challenges they are facing.

If they do not have someone to turn to, they can feel like the doctor is looking out for their best interests and the doctor is suggesting that they consider medical assistance in dying, so maybe the doctor is right and maybe that person should consider it. In this case, we recognize there is a power imbalance. At committee, we suggested putting forward some very strong protections to say that health care professionals should in no way be presenting medical assistance in dying as an option to patients. This is a basic protection.

This is something we talked about with the last bill. I was actually very disturbed, during debate at second reading, when a Liberal member stood up and talked about a couple they knew who had not ever considered medical assistance in dying. It was a very touching story. The member nonchalantly said that the doctor came in, passed them a brochure and asked if they had ever considered medical assistance in dying. The member, I think, thought that this was an innocuous and benign situation, but for me and for people in disabled and vulnerable communities, it was very scary that they could be put into this situation without adequate supports. They might feel like they were being coerced into a decision.

We also wanted to put in some stronger protections around a period of reflection. I think the period of reflection is key because, even in the government's own reports on medical assistance in dying, there were many cases in which people did not receive disability supports, and they received MAID while still not receiving disability supports. There were people waiting to get palliative care who had not received access to palliative care who also received medical assistance in dying.

It clearly illustrates that the government is not putting the resources in to help disabled Canadians, or to help Canadians who need palliative care. If we shorten the timeline or eliminate the timeline altogether, we are really losing an opportunity for people to access these wonderful services that can make the end of life much more peaceful.

One of the sad things about debating this bill today is that I feel like I am being forced to defend the status quo, implemented in the last Parliament under Bill C-14. I was not a big fan of Bill C-14, and as legislation it has proven time and again to fail to protect vulnerable people. It certainly did not protect the prisoners who underwent medical assistance in dying.

This issue was raised by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, and it has deep moral and ethical problems. Prisoners really have no power. He raised a case in which a prisoner was coming close to the end of life and wanted to die peacefully in the community with access to palliative care. They were denied the opportunity to do so, and then chose MAID instead. I think the correctional investigator was very astute in bringing that up. In situations where somebody does not have a right to determine their own manner of death or the manner that leads up to their death, how can they be given a choice to access medical assistance in dying? That raises some big issues.

In numerous cases, people were largely not sick with anything. In one case in the Globe and Mail a number of years ago, an elderly couple in their nineties wanted to die together. According to the article, they were not suffering from any pre-existing conditions, except arthritis, but it was ruled that because they were so old their deaths were reasonably foreseeable. That is really troubling. Medical professionals have raised the point that a reasonably foreseeable death is not actually defined in any medical journal. There is no definition of “reasonably foreseeable.” It is so subjective. One thing that I would have liked to see with this legislation was for the government to come forward with an actual medical definition of “reasonably foreseeable.” Instead, it has chosen to eliminate this language altogether, which waters down the protections.

Bill C-14 did not save people who were suffering from mental illness from receiving medical assistance in dying. There was a case in Chilliwack where somebody who had a history of depression was able to access medical assistance in dying in an expedited manner. Their family was not informed until very late into the process and they were not able to intervene and explain that this person, while they did have a reasonably foreseeable condition, also suffered from depression and other challenges and that maybe, with a social worker or a psychologist, those things could have been worked out and medical assistance in dying could have been avoided.

It is clear to me that we are removing even the barest of protections. We are removing this adequate reflection period and making this legislation, which is already prone to abuses, even more open with this new legislation.

The government claims this new bill is safe because it is explicitly denying people who are suffering exclusively from a mental illness from receiving MAID. When the previous legislation was brought in, even though I was not a member of the House at the time, I sat in on a lot of meetings. It is interesting that, in committee appearances and at the joint special committee, Dr. Sonu Gaind from the Canadian Psychiatric Association was very hesitant to endorse medical assistance in dying for people suffering from mental illnesses, especially exclusively mental illnesses. Their testimony said that they do not treat any mental illness as if it is untreatable. There is always a treatment. Sometimes it is a very difficult treatment or an ongoing treatment, but society must never accept that there is not a way to treat mental illness. The alternative is that we stop helping people and that they seek medical assistance in dying.

It is tricky when the government talks about excluding MAID for people with exclusively mental illness, but we are seeing that too many people who might qualify for medical assistance in dying because they have a physical condition and a reasonably foreseeable death also have a mental illness.

Where doctors are involved, they are very well educated but they are not necessarily educated in all aspects of health. Not every doctor is a psychologist or qualified to make mental illness determinations. How do we know that somebody who might have a reasonably foreseeable death, and who might have a previous condition, is not depressed and seeking medical assistance in dying for the purpose of their mental illness?

Under this legislation, there is no protection for those people seeking medical assistance in dying. While the government may say they qualify because they have a grievous and irremediable condition, we need to have more protections to ensure that people with mental illnesses are not seeking medical assistance in dying in the heat of the moment. Maybe they have had an incident that has led them to want it, and given more time to reflect maybe they could be dissuaded from seeking it.

There are no mechanisms, as I said. I am not going to just criticize, I am going to put forward actual, concrete ways I think we could make this legislation better. Unfortunately, it does not seem the government is in the mood to accept too many amendments from the Conservative side, but I will go ahead and say them anyway. We should require social workers and psychologists to be involved with decisions where underlying mental health issues, or issues related to access to income supports or to poverty, might be identified.

I was very disturbed to read in Maclean's magazine that some people are seeking medical assistance in dying because they are living in poverty. That was never written in the legislation. That was never intended as a purpose for medical assistance in dying. By including these important medical professionals, we could make it much more difficult for people to get medical assistance in dying who might not make that decision if it was between them and a doctor.

That leads me to one of my final points. The government is removing some of the witness requirements. Under the previous legislation, an independent witness who was apart from the medical process was required to be involved. That would provide accountability to ensure that doctors and health care professionals were crossing all their t's and dotting all their i's to make sure that this was a completely kosher procedure. By removing the independent witness requirement, it is leaving the decision up to a doctor and the patient.

I am going to be opposing this legislation. I look forward to the other place coming back with some very strong amendments. I look forward to debating those amendments again, and getting the best possible legislation that will protect vulnerable people in this country.

École Polytechnique in Montreal

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for allowing me to speak today.

The first words I spoke in the House were on December 6, 2019, in remembrance of the massacre at École Polytechnique. Today I think of the victims and the families of those lost, and indeed I think about Canada and what this day means for us as a nation.

I reflected then, as I do now, on the frame of mind of the individual who carried out the heinous act, and what could have possibly motivated a person to tear down the pillars of a community and snuff out bright lights.

Then, and now, I will say it was anti-feminism and misogyny. Violence against women and 2SLGBTQiA+ peoples continues to steal from us as a society. We lose aunties, sisters, friends, teachers and students. These words we share are important, our remembrance is essential and our actions must be immediate.

Since last December, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated the realities for women at risk, particularly marginalized women including trans women, girls, femme-identified and non-binary people, racialized women and women of colour, indigenous women and immigrant women.

We see article after article about record numbers of calls to women's shelters for those fleeing violence. We see survey after survey describing the increasing severity and frequency of the violence and torment women are facing in their own homes during lockdowns. We see the oozing growth of online vitriol and hatred.

In April, we saw another terrible massacre in Nova Scotia that began with intimate-partner violence. That day 22 people lost their lives, 13 of them women. I am also haunted by Chantel Moore's story. This young indigenous woman was shot in her home, alone, by municipal police in my home province in June, without an explanation.

Two weeks ago, the final report on the implementation of the Merlo Davidson settlement agreement shocked many of us, with revelations of systemic and horrific misogyny and violence within the ranks of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Hon. Michel Bastarache, independent assessor, describes Canada's national police force as having a toxic culture, and recommends nothing short of an independent external review to reform policing in Canada. We absolutely must undertake this work immediately.

When indigenous women disappear from their communities, their families cannot trust that their lives will be valued. As long as our policing institutions are fraught with misogyny and racism, police cannot possibly hold citizens accountable for their gender-based hate and violence.

Today we remember the women whose lives were taken on December 6, 1989, at École Polytechnique by a man who hated the women who dared to study. We must also remember Chantel Moore and those lost in Nova Scotia.

As each week passes we lose more. In 2018, there were nearly 100,000 victims of intimate-partner violence. Four out of every five were women. That year, 87 people were murdered by their intimate partners.

Amid this pandemic, we have come together in the name of health. The year 2020 has proved that when we are united with a common goal, and when we tackle a societal crisis with intensity, albeit desperation, we can move mountains. We know change is hard, but we have seen progress. Bill C-3 is a testament to moving the needle by legislating training on sexual assault for judges.

I challenge my colleagues in the House and I challenge Canadians. What will it take for us to come together and to recognize gender-based violence as the crisis it is? We need to move this mountain. May we always remember this day.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleague for the extremely important and very useful question he repeats every week on the status of parliamentary business.

This afternoon we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Tomorrow we will resume debate at third reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act. Monday of next week will be devoted to the study of Bill C-8, on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94. On Tuesday, we will begin our study of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, which was introduced earlier this week by my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Tuesday, November 24 for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Thursday, November 26 for the Department of Health.

Lastly, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That a take-note debate on the status of the French language in Montreal be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Wednesday, November 25, 2020, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) any member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

This afternoon, as planned, we are continuing with the NDP opposition day debate.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the parties for their collaboration and co-operation on this very important bill for all Canadians.

Tomorrow we will take up and complete the report stage and third reading of this bill.

Next week, as my colleague said, we will not be on vacation, but rather working hard in our ridings across Canada.

When we return on November 16, we will begin report stage and third reading of Bill C-3, which deals with training for judges.

The Wednesday and Thursday of that week will be devoted to Bill C-10, the important broadcasting bill that we really like.

Lastly, my colleague will be pleased to know that Tuesday, November 17, will be an opposition day.

Justice and Human Rights

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House of Commons, with amendments.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the clarification. Indeed, we will be in our ridings, not on vacation.

This afternoon, we shall continue debate on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying.

When we return after our constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-7. We hope we can begin the debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation. This bill has to do with Orange Shirt Day.

Lastly, I wish to inform the House that Tuesday, October 20 and Thursday, October 22 will be allotted days.

I wish all members a pleasant week in their ridings. I hope members will take care of themselves and their loved ones and come back in good health.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Don Valley East for her commitment to advancing women's rights. Our government is committed to addressing all issues of violence against women, including sexual violence. Bill C-3 will help ensure that newly appointed judges participate in continuing education in sexual assault law and social context, all while respecting the principle of judicial independence. Through this bill we will help enhance the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the Canadian public more broadly in our criminal justice system. I look forward to working with all members of the House to get this bill through quickly.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, supporting women's rights is key to creating a better and more prosperous Canada for all Canadians. Sexual assault is a crime that more often affects women, and it is known that women are almost four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than men.

Could the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada please advise the House how Bill C-3 will ensure that sexual assault victims will have greater confidence in the criminal justice system?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that there was a different expectation after the last federal election and I concur. Canadians do have a very different expectation and the government has risen to that, which is to work more with opposition parties. In fact, anything and everything that passes through the House now requires that support and we continuously reach out for it. Even the throne speech will have the support of at least one other political party in the House, otherwise it would not pass. It is the same thing with legislation. Canadians also sent a message to the Conservative Party, one of co-operation. What we have witnessed over the last couple of months from the opposition party is anything but co-operation. Those members seem to want a dysfunctional House of Commons.

Last Friday, we debated Bill C-3, the Judges Act. The Conservative Party is completely in support of it. Their former leader Rona Ambrose wanted that bill. At one point, the Conservatives wanted unanimous consent, yet they continued to talk out the bill to prevent it from passing.

Why is that the case? Why this destructive force in the House of Commons?

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his weekly question.

In passing, I want to point out that things are working well in this hybrid Parliament. We are able to debate and vote, whether in person or via the Internet. I therefore commend all members.

With regard to the legislative calendar, here is the agenda for next week. This afternoon, we will continue with the fourth day of debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

On Friday, tomorrow, we will start debate on Bill C-3, the judges training legislation.

On Monday and Tuesday of next week, we will have days five and six of the Speech from the Throne debate, respectively.

We will then continue with the judges training bill on Wednesday and Thursday, if necessary.