Kerry-Lynne Findlay

[Apology by the Speaker, September 25th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your taking responsibility for your part in this. It is weighing very heavily on all of us here. A lot of the public does not understand how this person or anyone with that history could possibly have been here and how we could not have known. It has been explained that there is no ability for opposition members to know when someone is introduced from the gallery. We had no notice or context for that.

However, in law, there is a concept of responsibility, which is that someone either knew or ought to have known. This is where we have a disconnect in these discussions today, because who sits in the gallery is not only up to the Speaker of the House. It is the responsibility of those charged with our national security and our overall security in this House. Those of us who lived through a terrorist attack back in 2014, when someone charged into Centre Block with a weapon, know this all too well. We were all engaged in that terrible day.

We used to have just an unlocked door in front of Parliament, and our naïveté was shattered that day; changes were made, as the House leader has already said. Those changes determined whom the responsibility for the safety and security of all members in this House is squarely put on. There are countries that have bulletproof glass between the public galleries and their legislators; that is not what we have here. We still have a very open way of doing our business. However, we put trust in those in authority: the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and the Speaker's office. We do this to ensure that we have our debates and discussions free from worry about security issues. When it comes to recognizing people, we trust that the reason we are being asked to recognize them is that they have made significant contributions, either to Canada or internationally, or they are noted and elected government officials from provinces or other countries. We repose that trust in our authority positions.

In my view, it is wrong, and it is trying to escape responsibility, for the government to say its members had nothing to do with it. If they did not have anything to do with it, they should have. If they let it all happen and they are on the outside and mere observers in the great play of life, as they often say about so many things, I say no, they are the government. They are the executive, and they are the ones in charge; they should have done their job, and they did not.

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, after discussions between the parties, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Mr. Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) for Mr. Nater (Perth—Wellington).

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, ultimately, we are dealing with an approach to dealing with criminality. When the approach is to do the least amount necessary, that is what ends up happening. The least amount is done in response to egregious acts of criminality.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the concern is over the philosophy of catch-and-release.

It is a term we usually use when fishing. However, it has come to mean someone being arrested, sometimes for a violent crime, early in the day, then the police seeing that person going down the street in the afternoon, and they end up arresting them for another crime. Then the police see that person in the evening, and there they are again arresting them for something they have done with criminal intent.

This idea of catch-and-release, this endless revolving door, does not work. There is no deterrence at all in a system like that when we are talking about people prone to violence, when we are talking people who would attack with chains and concrete blocks, who stab strangers at public events. This is destroying confidence in our justice system.

At the end of the day, the federal government has control over the Criminal Code, over sentencing and how this should go forward.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the reference to the horrific murder outside the Starbucks is about the rise in violent crime generally in Canada, and in my province of British Columbia, which we see unfortunately playing out, including on social media where people, and it is hard to even say, tape and send the videos out of actual murders of Canadian citizens.

That was one such situation. It is horrific. It has been brought about by an overall attitude of the Liberals and NDP in their coalition that is soft on crime and that does not deal with the most prolific repeat violent offenders. That is who we want to see targeted in our Criminal Code legislation. We will take the steps to do what is needed to get that job done.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, let me first echo the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in response to the news earlier today and offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was murdered near my home in Surrey.

Crime, chaos and disorder is the Prime Minister's legacy after eight years. This is the direct result of his dangerous soft-on-crime policies. Canadians' lives and sense of security are being destroyed in record numbers by criminals who should never have been out roaming the streets in the first place. Canadians are not feeling safe in their communities, on public transit, at public events or in coffee shops. They are rightly worried that they may be the next victim of the Prime Minister's crime wave.

The government's own statistics illustrate a stark reality. Violent crime has gone up 39%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Sex crimes against children are up 126%. Gun crime has increased every year and is up over 100% since 2015. The Prime Minister's response is to go after law-abiding hunters.

Across the country, murders are up 43%, the highest rate in 30 years. In Vancouver alone, murders have gone up 55%, and firearms-related offences are up 22%. In the last seven months alone, eight police officers were killed in the line of duty. There were eight in seven months. These statistics are alarming. We in the federal government, charged with national security, can never forget that they are more than statistics. These are real crimes happening to real people, with devastating consequences.

There are commuters carjacked at gunpoint, students lit on fire on the bus, teenagers stabbed at the subway and executions in the street, parking lots and driveways. This crime wave is a direct result of Liberal legislation passed, which was sponsored by the most radical minister of justice in Canadian history, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. His bill broke the bail system. Where is he now? He is no longer in cabinet. Under his bill, Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, violent offenders are arrested, then released on a promise that they will appear in court. They then commit another offence within hours. They have time and opportunity to commit crimes literally morning, afternoon and evening.

Take Vancouver, for example. As my colleague just mentioned, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in a single year. That is 150 arrests each. Last year in Toronto, there were 17 gun-related murders committed by violent criminals out on bail. This summer in Edmonton, a father of seven children was stabbed in the chest, murdered at a transit station. Again, the accused was out on bail. The crime wave is evident in B.C. as it is elsewhere. In Surrey last April, a 17-year-old boy named Ethan Bespflug was stabbed and killed on a bus. A few days later, a young man was stabbed on the SkyTrain. In August, a man was shot in the face at a Surrey bus stop.

Recently, at Vancouver's Light Up Chinatown! festival, meant to bring the community together, a man who previously had murdered his teenage daughter by stabbing her stabbed three people. Last Thursday, Vancouver police arrested a man for four assaults committed in the span of 45 minutes. He used a chain and a concrete block.

One of the most horrific incidents in downtown Vancouver was last March. It was videotaped and shown on social media. A man standing outside a Starbucks was brutally and senselessly attacked, stabbed to death in front of his wife and daughter in broad daylight. We are talking about mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbours.

Sadly, the urgency of this crime wave seems to be lost on the new Minister of Justice. Just days after he was sworn in, he said, “'I think that empirically it's unlikely” Canada is becoming less safe. He is in complete denial of the dangerous reality on the streets. He is telling victims of crime and Canadians who are rightly concerned, many living every day in fear, that it is all in their heads. Even by Liberal standards this was a ridiculous statement. Frankly, he should apologize for it.

For Liberal elites in their ivory towers, understanding the reality Canadians are facing in our communities is a difficult concept. I am pleased to see that the Liberals have finally woken up and are paying some attention to the heinous violence committed by criminals on bail. They should be listening to the experience of frontline law enforcement officers.

Constable Shaelyn Yang was tragically and senselessly stabbed to death while on duty by a man who was arrested for assault and out on bail on the condition that he would appear in court. He failed to appear. A warrant was issued for his rearrest, and when Constable Yang found him living in a park in Burnaby, he murdered her.

The case of Constable Yang is sadly not isolated. Last December, Constable Greg Pierzchala was shot and killed in the line of duty. The accused was out on bail, had a lengthy criminal record, including assaulting a peace officer, and was the subject of a lifetime firearm prohibition. Did I mention that he was shot?

Following this despicable murder, all 13 premiers wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister demanding urgent action. Finally, after public blowback, the united call for change from the premiers and fierce criticism in the House from the Conservatives, the Liberals have admitted that they broke the bail system.

Today the Liberals have brought forward Bill C-48. We should all support this bill because it imposes a reverse onus on certain firearms offences and requires courts to consider the violent history of an accused. This is the reason the Conservatives asked for unanimous consent to pass this bill today. The NDP initially denied consent but has since agreed with the Conservatives that this bill should be passed today at all stages.

It is our view that Bill C-48 is a good start but still falls short, and a Conservative government will take steps to strengthen it. The legislation in its current form ignores several key recommendations put forward by the premiers, including the creation of a definition within the Criminal Code for serious prolific offenders and to initiate a thorough review of Canada's bail system.

Under Bill C-48, the accused killer of OPP Constable Pierzchala and countless other repeat violent offenders would have still been released back into the community. Under pressure from the Conservatives, the Liberals have now proposed a partial fix to an obviously broken bail system. The Conservatives can be counted on to fight for common-sense, thorough and meaningful improvements when we form government. It remains doubtful that the dangerous NDP-Liberal coalition will ever put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.

Last year, this coalition passed Bill C-5, removing mandatory prison time for serious crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, drug trafficking and the production of heroin, crystal meth or fentanyl. Bill C-5 also expanded the use of house arrest for several offences, including criminal harassment, kidnapping and sexual assault.

Thanks to NDP and Liberal MPs, those who commit sexual assault can serve their sentence at home in the same community as their victim. Think about that. The Liberals and the NDP would rather be on the side of violent men than their female victims. There is perhaps no greater example of this than the case of Paul Bernardo, a notorious serial rapist and killer of teenage girls. The Liberals allowed that monster to be transferred out of maximum security and into medium security over the objections of the victims' families. We brought a motion to the House calling for Bernardo to be returned to maximum security but Liberal members denied consent.

All of this is proof that the Liberal Party and its partners in the NDP cannot be counted on to protect victims or to restore safe streets. For that, we need a change in government. A common-sense Conservative government will bring home desperately needed safety to our streets, and we will do it by ensuring that prolific offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial. The days of catch and release will be over.

After eight years, crime, chaos and disorder in our streets is the new normal. It should never be normal. Conservatives know we have a lot of work ahead, but we will fix our broken bail system and bring back safety to our communities.

[Justice, September 18th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, crime, chaos and disorder, this is the Prime Minister's legacy after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government.

Violent crime is up 39%. Vancouver homicide is up 55%. B.C.'s London Drugs reports a 500% increase in violence in its stores. Vancouver's JJ Bean Coffee Roasters has closed for good due to crime.

Canadians are living in fear, businesses are closing and the new justice minister says that it is all in their heads.

Vancouver's Light Up Chinatown festival ended in a triple stabbing by an accused who had stabbed his own teenage daughter to death. Celebration turned into fear and tragedy. On top of this is the out-of-control release of government-funded free hard drugs. Overdose is the leading cause of death among B.C. youth.

We need jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders; mandatory prison time for violent crimes; treatment and recovery for those struggling with addictions; common sense not nonsense. Let us bring it home.

[Small Business, June 20th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a notice that the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has unilaterally cancelled the committee's meeting this afternoon. The committee was scheduled to meet to begin a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20, government legislation regarding a complaints process for the RCMP and the CBSA.

Conservatives have given notice of a motion to call the Minister of Public Safety to appear on the Bernardo transfer travesty. I call on all party whips to manage the resources of the House in a way that reflects the priorities of the House.

[Points of Order, June 20th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to this now. In fact, when the Speaker thought the member was heckling and asked her to stop, she did not continue to do so. She was speaking to a colleague. However, when we consider the outrageous interruptions that came from the member who just spoke and the member for Kingston and the Islands during our leader's four-hour speech recently, when they would not allow him to even get through what he had to say minute to minute, we are talking about the acceptance of an apology that was given when demanded. It was accepted that the language that was spoken had been unparliamentary, and the apology was given. It is not consistent ruling for the member for Lethbridge to be told she cannot participate in debates afterward.

[Points of Order, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a serious point of order with respect to the right of the member for Lethbridge to speak during the debate that is currently on in the House.

At the end of the time provided to question the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his use of time allocation on Bill C-18, the online news act, there was a heated exchange between the minister and the member for Lethbridge. It is no secret that the member for Lethbridge is a fierce critic of the minister and has opposed his legislation every step of the way. She makes the point that Bill C-18 is the next step in the government's censorship of the Internet. The member has repeatedly argued that the minister is the one rewarding tech giants, as he will give them more power with Bill C-18. The minister accused the member for Lethbridge of using the talking points of tech giants in opposition to the bill. In response, the member for Lethbridge accused the minister of lying.

We know that term is unparliamentary, and I accept the decision of the Assistant Deputy Speaker to call her to order. It should also be pointed out that, when one member makes a false claim about another member, it is not uncommon for disorder to follow. The member for Lethbridge did the right thing when she said clearly, “I will apologize for using that word.” She went on to say, “He misinformed the House.” This is a matter for debate, although for my part, I agree with her.

The Chair took exception to that comment, informing the House that the member for Lethbridge would not be recognized for the remainder of the day. To be clear, the member did not accuse the minister of deliberately misinforming the House. She simply made the point that the minister was misinformed and brought that misinformation to the House. At most, this is a point of debate. It is not something that a member should be sanctioned for.

The irony is not lost on me that the member is being censored during debate on what amounts to a censorship bill. In my view, this is a heavy-handed response from the Chair, given the poor behaviour of Liberal members in recent days. The Chair has accepted apologies for behaviour that is far more egregious without Liberal members attracting any sanction.

We can take the member for Kingston and the Islands as an example. Last week, he gave me the middle finger when I called him out for denying a unanimous consent motion that called for Paul Bernardo to be put back in maximum security. That member gave the most insincere apology I can recall in the House. There was no sanction for him. In fact, later that day, he was given the floor in the debate.

Therefore, I would expect that the apology from the member for Lethbridge would be accepted by the House and that the Chair would allow her to participate in the debate this afternoon. Further, the House would benefit from even-handed application of the rules that is not seen to benefit one party over another. I would like the Speaker to clarify how the rules should be applied, regardless of who is presiding over the debates.