I don't want to offend the sensitivity of my Liberal colleagues. I'll move away from the word “censorship”, but she certainly wants to restrict my parliamentary privileges—and Mr. Baber's, Mr. Gill's and Mr. Lawton's—by unilaterally deciding that, as parliamentary secretary, and I guess by extension, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice, who promised the House that he was going to be meeting with stakeholders over Christmas.... We've heard that several stakeholders have reached out to his office asking for a response, and he doesn't have the decency to respond, nor have we heard anything from his office or through Ms. Lattanzio as to who he met with. How many individuals did he meet with? What were their concerns? What were their suggestions? What did he telegraph?
Ms. Lattanzio, as parliamentary secretary, has decided that she wants to breach parliamentary privilege. She wants to put a limit on our democratic rights as members of Parliament. We all represent constituencies, some larger than others. I have heard loud and clear from stakeholders in the great riding of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I've taken meetings. I've answered emails. I've responded to phone calls. I've made presentations at churches and at community groups. There is absolute outrage out there that this government, not on their own initiative....
Now, I appreciate Mr. Housefather's passions, and I'm sure that as a very strong advocate he made his position known not only to Ms. Lattanzio, but to Mr. Fraser: his concerns about the events that we heard about through Monsieur Fortin, about that radical Islam preacher in Montreal, which in my belief was the genesis of the creation of their amendment. I'm sure Mr. Housefather shared those concerns. I have no doubt that he advocated, to some degree, for its removal.
For Bill C-9, as introduced in the House at first reading, as debated at second reading and as studied over the course of I don't know how many days, Mr. Chair—but several, at least a half a dozen days—we heard from witnesses chosen by the Conservative Party, by the Liberal Party and by the Bloc Québécois.
I'll say this again. I've repeated this comment at least three times. This might be the fourth time. Apart from Monsieur Fortin's advocacy, the focus of all of his interventions was to gain a perspective as to whether or not individual witnesses from across this country supported the removal of the religious exemption.... Not one member of the Conservative Party pursued that avenue, and not one member of the Liberal Party, maybe with the exception of Mr. Housefather. If Mr. Housefather raised it during one of his questions, I'll stand corrected. It certainly was not, Mr. Chair, a persuasive theme that was introduced by any member of the Liberal team, save and except the advocacy of Monsieur Fortin.
We get to the point where clause-by-clause is about to start and all three parties put forth their suggested amendments.
There was no amendment from the Conservative Party that supported Monsieur Fortin's amendment to remove that exemption and, of great significance, I might add, there was not one amendment by the Liberal government to support Mr. Fortin's amendment to remove that defence.
I would dare to say that, perhaps with the exception of Mr. Housefather, not one member of the Liberal front bench—including the justice minister and the Prime Minister—or backbench spoke in favour of the Liberal government supporting the Bloc amendment. I want Canadians to really appreciate that narrative because that narrative is the absolute truth. It is all on record for anyone who sees fit to review the comments I've made, to verify those comments as being said in the House of Commons or even outside the House.
I'm a ferocious reader when it comes to Canadian politics. Sometimes my staff get quite angry with me because I might be reading something at five o'clock in the morning and I feel the need to share that. Sometimes I'm disturbing the sleep of my staff. That's just who I am. I've warned all my staffers in the interview process, “You have to accept the idiosyncrasies of your boss. Sometimes an idea might come to me at three o'clock in the morning, and I need to reach out to a staff member. That's just who I am.”
During the course of all of my review of various political articles from all the major publications that are out there and of the media, not once did I review anything remotely coming from the Liberal Party of Canada, specifically the members on the justice committee, telegraphing any support for Monsieur Fortin's amendment.
We were optimistic, as Conservative members, that we were going to work collaboratively with the Liberal government. I agree with Mr. Baber's assessment that there is nothing in Bill C-9.... In fact, in part of my speeches that I made on Bill C-9, I clarified that Bill C-9 is completely redundant, absolutely redundant. Does this give the police services that magic elixir to finally deal with the hatred that has been spewing on our streets on a daily basis? No.
This never was an issue of a lack of tools. This was a lack of will, a will being dictated either by management of police services or by—or in conjunction with—their municipal leaders and partners.
In fact, I think on the last occasion I gave an example; I didn't identify the city. I'll repeat it again. There were blatant examples of criminality directed towards Jewish people who simply wanted to enjoy their faith, to congregate with their peers and to celebrate whatever celebration existed on the Jewish calendar when that event took place. What they were subjected to in the presence of police was appalling.
Really, Mr. Chair, it's no small wonder that the Canadian public has completely lost faith, not only in our federal institutions but also in police services, and this is another theme that I often speak about in my interventions in the House and at committee.
I recently returned from a trip in Surrey. I spoke to media out there. I spoke to victims of extortion and this is, in my view, not only a local but a provincial and national crisis. Again, the theme is, “We don't trust the police.”
The police are telling them to just pay whatever the amount is that they're trying to extort from them or to maybe hide in their basement or in a locked room, or create a safe room. It's horrible advice. It's absolutely despicable advice. Someone should enjoy the sanctity of their castle peacefully, knowing that they're not going to be facing an extortion crisis or someone shooting into their residence or their business and threatening to kill them. This is what life is like on the streets in Surrey. It's a breakdown again in policing.
Again, it's full circle. Where are we at now? We're at this point where the government.... I don't know why. There has not been any explanation offered by the Prime Minister or any member of this committee on the Liberal side or from our justice minister, Sean Fraser, as to why he saw fit to secretively reach out to the Bloc Québécois and broker a deal to support the Bloc's amendment to remove a four-decade-old law and defence in the Criminal Code in exchange for buying support for the passage of the rest of the bill.
The media certainly caught on to it. That particular weekend, I read about this secretive backroom deal. The only thing I could surmise from that, given the history that I have shared with this committee today and on other days, is that there must have been some fear on behalf of the government that Bill C-9 was in jeopardy. Why else would they make an absolute political decision that runs completely contrary to anything that they did by way of communication or in terms of interviewing witnesses at this committee?
I think it was Mr. Lawton or Mr. Baber who raised the point that, had we known that this would be an issue, perhaps there would have been a refocusing of questioning from my Conservative colleagues. Quite frankly, we need to hear evidence from subject matter experts on this issue. I don't think we necessarily got the best evidence for any member of this committee, maybe with the exception of Monsieur Fortin, to make that reasonable conclusion that there was evidence to support his position.
We were critical of the government's approach to prioritizing Bill C-9 as the first piece of criminal legislation introduced by this so-called new Liberal government led by Mark Carney. We knew that crime was a major issue in the last election because all the parties were talking about it. How could they not talk about it? I dare say, I can't wake up—sometimes at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning—and look at my news feed. I can't read another heartbreaking story of some other repeat violent criminal promising the court that they'll comply with all of these conditions.
I don't care how restrictive the conditions are, Your Honour, I'll agree to electronic monitoring if necessary, I'll stay away from victims, I'll stay away from certain places, I'll refrain from the use or possession of firearms. It's a whole litany of conditions, knowing full well....
Again, this hearkens back to some 20 years of crowning in the province of Ontario. They'll say just about anything, include anything, to secure their passage out of jail. It's one story after another, and in literally minutes, sometimes hours, sometimes, days, they've completely abandoned that promise they made to the courts, sometimes putting sureties at risk. Sometimes these sureties might be close friends, maybe family members. They're putting the whole process at risk just so they can continue what they know best, and that is breaking the law without any concern about consequences. Why would they be concerned about consequences when in the last 10 years this Liberal government has created a climate of non-compliance and zero consequences? It is telegraphed.
