Debates of April 8th, 2019

Criminal Records Act

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague shot down many of the arguments presented by the Liberals, who do not want to completely expunge the criminal records of individuals who have been convicted of simple cannabis possession. One of those arguments was economic in nature. The Liberals are saying it would cost too much. However, I think that we can further refute their argument by reminding them that individuals who were convicted of simple marijuana possession and who will still have a criminal record, because it will not go away completely and could be reinstated, will find it harder to get a job and will therefore be less able to contribute to the economy than someone who has no criminal record.

Does my colleague agree that that further refutes the Liberals' economic argument?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga made an excellent point, which, frankly, I had not thought of before. The cost benefit of this is staggeringly in favour of expungement. If people cannot get jobs, they are likely to be collecting some sort of social assistance, employment insurance, or the like. Whereas, if they can get jobs, because one no longer has a criminal record and can say that truthfully to the employer, then obviously the benefit to the economy and to individuals, their self-worth and so forth, is self-evident. I could not agree more with the member's helpful suggestion.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to the Liberals' latest pot plan, Bill C-93, an act to give pardons to people who were charged with possession of an illegal substance in years past.

I would like to salute the NDP members for their ability to bring pressure to bear on the Liberals and force them to address this issue. The government did not respond until after the NDP brought this forward in the House, calling for action. They need to be recognized for forcing the government into acting.

The Liberal government of course has said that it has always had a plan. However, it sure seems to have been rushed for something that was a long time in the planning.

In the public safety committee, we have the Liberal government's plans that are poorly developed, they lack consultations and they often miss the point or have negative consequences and unintended impacts on the Canadian public. The Liberal government has proven that virtue signalling is a bad way to manage a country because it creates more problems than it solves.

Bill C-93 makes its first mistake on the very first line of the bill, “An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions.” While I am sure the Liberals meant no-fee record suspension, there is no such thing as a no-cost record suspension. The process of suspending a criminal record costs the taxpayers money, $630 specifically. It is a cost recovery process in that an individual pays for the administrative costs for an application. Taxpayers will be on the hook for each pardon request, each suspension request. While providing the record suspension for an individual with historical convictions for a minor offence is not a big issue, allocating taxpayer money to the cost of that at a time when millions of Canadians are saying that everyday costs are out of reach, just shows how out of touch the government is to the everyday working Canadian.

This can hardly be called a priority for Canadians and the average Canadian family. That is the main issue I hear from many in the justice and policing community. The priorities of the government seem to be out of step with the needs of Canadians, the needs of our country and the needs of community safety, whether it is in the cities fighting gangs or in rural areas, providing police response to support and fight the rising crime rates. As I have said many times in this place, it must be the top priority of the House of Commons to put protections of Canadians ahead of political priorities, parties and election. Protecting Canadians is far more important than one's political fortunes.

Clearly, this is not the case for the Liberal Prime Minister, his senior cabinet ministers and staffers. While we can draw this conclusion from their priorities in the public safety portfolio, the SNC-Lavalin scandal brought this in clear view.

The Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Minister of Finance and senior staff, including Gerald Butts and Ben Chin, noted that elections were more of a priority than the independence of our judicial process. Intervening in a criminal prosecution, quite possibly attempting to obstruct justice, and undermining the independence of our justice system was not as important to them as helping out their friends from a Montreal-based employer. “I'm an MP in Quebec” the Prime Minister is said to have responded. Sadly, the few jobs that might have been impacted, and SNC-Lavalin says almost no jobs would be impacted, pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of jobs lost in my province of Alberta in the energy sector.

The Prime Minister is fond of suggesting his words are important, but sadly his actions are found wanting. The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about an issue that is very important and has been raised by many people in my community, and that is the issue of pardons in the context of cannabis legalization.

There is an issue of relevance here as to what the member across is speaking about, which is not at all about the bill before him. I would ask if he could be directed to speak about the bill. It is an important bill and I would like to hear his thoughts.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for raising the point of order. Members will know, of course, that relevance is indeed one of those standing orders. It is a limit, if you will, on debate in the House. I recognize that the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner is only about five minutes into his 20-minute speech. I will assure the hon. member that I will listen carefully, and of course, he will be reminded that this is something he will do in the course of his remarks to ensure that they are on the subject that is before the House.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and yes, I would ask my hon. colleague to be patient. I will get to my point forthwith.

The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities of this Liberal Prime Minister and his government, and this could not be more clear than when two former cabinet ministers were removed from their party. They were banished last week, and there was a breakdown in trust. Sadly, the fault lies clearly with the Prime Minister and his cronies, while the penalties continue to be placed on the members who were removed.

The Prime Minister has offered one falsehood after another trying to it explain away. Quite bluntly, it has been painfully obvious to the rest of the country that he put politics ahead of the best interests of Canadians.

The Liberals have tabled their bill for taxpayer-funded records suspensions. There it is; I am back on the issue. How does this align with the needs of Canadians? In general, how does it fit with public safety? The many issues facing our country in protecting our communities and ensuring a strong, fair justice system go well beyond the Prime Minister trying to interfere with the independence of the former attorney general or the director of public prosecutions.

We know where Canada is struggling with public safety. According to Statistics Canada information, Canada has a gang problem in our cities. We have a justice problem, with backlogged courts and court appointments for judges. We have a rural crime problem. We have a sentencing and recidivism problem, with revolving doors in the justice and jail system. We have evidence-lab challenges and RCMP police-resourcing challenges. Stats Canada has shown that gang-related shootings are primarily responsible for recent increases in violent crime in this country, and to date, the only Liberal response has been unfulfilled promises.

Instead of action, the Liberals' legislative changes, like Bill C-71, for example, went after licensed firearms owners instead of criminals. As the Department of Public Safety noted in its own consultation document, the vast majority of licensed firearms owners are not involved in crime. In fact, statistics provided to the public safety committee suggest that it is under 1%. The Liberals' legislative response to gang violence and illegal weapons has been to crack down on less than 1% of the problem and to ignore the 99%.

What would help? I know a number of items that could help improve public safety and reduce violent crime. First is spending the money the government promised for policing and to go after organized crime. Second is to put more resources into public prosecutions, courts and evidence labs. These have all been shown to be under-resourced, especially with the recent court decision to limit trial length. Third is to stop softening sentences for violent criminals, as proposed in Bill C-75. Serious crime needs serious punishment for reform to work, and all these ideas have evidence to show that they are needed and would have an impact.

What will not have an impact is a taxpayer-funded pot pardon. No one would be safer because of this policy. A very small number of Canadians would benefit from it. The truth, from my experience, is that most individuals likely to seek record suspensions may have a number of other convictions as well. While they may receive a single free record suspension, their other charges may not be so free. Possession might be only one of the many charges on a person's record.

Where would Bill C-93 leave this House and Canada on the constant effort to combat crime in an ever-changing and evolving world? After three and a half years of Liberal mismanagement, we have a strained legal system that sees more and more criminals going free, rather than facing charges, or pleading to significantly less-serious charges.

Prisoners will now have access to needles whenever and wherever they want in prisons. As our correctional officers have told us and have pointed out more than once, even in Europe, which the Liberals claim to be copying, the needles are never in the general population; they are in the hands of medical staff. Rather than dealing with the cause of crime, most often addiction, the Liberal plan is to continue the addiction.

Under the current Liberal government, we have seen a horrific record of protecting communities from returning ISIS fighters. When we asked the committee how many outstanding monitoring warrants were placed on the 60 ISIS terrorists who have returned, the number was zero.

While I have no doubt that teams at CSIS and the RCMP are working to keep tabs on these individuals, and are doing a great job, limited by the legislation from the government, the red tape and oversight rules proposed under Bill C-59 would no doubt make it harder to watch known radical extremists who have participated in horrific, hate-based crimes. To me and many Canadians, a desire to join ISIS is itself an admission that someone supports violence.

The Prime Minister is happy to talk about being opposed to radicals and extremists, but none of his actions suggest that he is serious about combatting the sources of radicalization or the threat of domestic terrorism. Words matter, but actions have impacts.

We have seen a radical and damaging string of policies that have increased drugs in our communities and have not helped make anyone safer. Whether it was the poorly thought-out and rushed legislation on marijuana, which ignored reasonable requests from police and medical professionals, or the unnecessary risk of drug-impaired driving, to my knowledge, we still do not have a reliable roadside mechanism to test for drug impairment or to increase supervised injection sites.

Nothing so explains the potential harm of the Liberal approach to crime as the issue of rural crime, which we are dealing with in rural Canada. My riding has a small city and an expansive rural region. Across Alberta, Saskatchewan and other parts of our country, we have heard from Canadians about the rampant, escalating crime in rural communities committed, for the most part, by urban criminals victimizing rural Canadians where police response is minimal, delayed, or in some cases, nonexistent.

Canadians have told us heartbreaking stories of violent encounters, financial hardship and trauma from repeated thefts and victimization. Canadians have spoken of fear, alienation and abandonment. That is not Canada. That is not my Canada, but it has become an unfortunate reality in the Prime Minister's Canada.

With Bill C-93, the government is proposing a no-fee, no-waiting-period record suspension without any enquiries or reviews of personal history or conduct. The reason we have a Parole Board, both the administration and the regional organization, appointed to conduct hearings is to exercise discretion in the review of individual cases. Parole hearings can uncover vital information about convictions, such as a plea deal with lesser charges despite the person having been involved in serious and violent crimes.

While there are likely to be a very limited number of cases like this, such cases may be separated from simple possession issues. Moreover, some plea deals may have been arranged with lesser charges but with specific instructions, such as an agreement to have no record suspension, as appropriate to the person's personal history.

This means that these pardons would be granted as a matter of process, and the board would take up no inquiry of the person and would have little or no opportunity to exercise discretion. This means that even in cases where it was patently obvious that the person continued a criminal lifestyle but did not have a conviction entered against him or her, a pardon would be granted.

The police in this country have raised some concerns about Bill C-93. They suggest that our officers need to feel confident that individuals who are a threat to public safety and the public order are going to be popping up on CPIC, even if they have been convicted of simple possession.

Here is a scenario as an example. There are many individuals who have been charged with more than one serious criminal drug offence, but once they have gone to court and worked out a plea deal for simple possession for a multitude of possession charges, these charges are then reduced for multiple reasons, such as to ease a court backlog, to save witnesses from testifying or to secure testimony for the conviction of a bigger criminal player, etc. The plea to a simple possession charge would be used by the Crown with the understanding, as I said previously, that the conviction would still be a permanent part of that individual's record, ensuring that any future investigation of a similar nature could be appropriately linked and applied to that person's own personal history.

This does not serve the best interests of officer safety or community safety. It does not promote the rehabilitation of those entrenched in the criminal element, the ones who threaten to be repeat offenders.

I appreciate the fact that we cannot hold unproven facts against individuals. That would be unfair. However, we cannot ignore the circumstances that would lead to the arrest, charging and conviction of individuals using the available laws and the discretion of the day, which is key. The Crown and the courts would not have accepted the lesser pleas knowing the proposal today. This itself would affect the administration of justice.

There are two very different scenarios at play here: one person who is stopped and charged for carrying a dime bag of marijuana versus a person who is caught up in a drug ring and pleads to a simple possession charge. They are two very different people, but the proposed changes would treat them the same way. One is not a danger to police or the community, and the other continues to pose a risk. That is what should be screened. There should not just be blanket pardons.

While the Liberals are happy to talk about there being discretion in our justice system, they have removed the discretion of the public service at the Parole Board as well as the discretion of the Parole Board itself. It is important to keep in context the arrest charges and plea deals, especially since many plea deals would never have considered the possibility of a future government legalizing drugs and imposing record suspensions without any review or context.

The House should consider that no individuals would benefit from this act who would be excluded otherwise, and I can see no way to make that happen without an appropriate review.

I hope that members of the committee are not prevented from making minor and common-sense amendments to the legislation that would ensure public safety. Already we have seen too many pieces of legislation from the Liberals that ignore common sense and public safety in favour of policy and division.

To be clear, I know, and I believe members know, that these are not the public safety priorities of Canadians. This bill would not help victims recover from the trauma of violent crime. It would not prevent criminals from victimizing rural Canadians. It would not stop gang violence or deter youth from joining gangs. It would not address illegal firearms in our country. It would not address the many concerns and challenges faced by prosecutors and police across the country.

I see Bill C-93 as a continuation of the Liberals' plan: more minor gestures without the requisite actions to combat addiction, crime and poverty to improve public safety. It is a plan that would provide a benefit to a select and small group of Canadians at taxpayers' expense, a plan that would double down on legalizing marijuana while ignoring real, serious and important threats to Canada's public safety. These are not the priorities of Canadians. This bill does not address the issues, and from what I have heard from police and prosecutors across the country, it does not address their concerns.

I can only assume that Liberal MPs will once again be called on to vote in blind faith with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, because today more and more Canadians are seeing clearly that the priorities of the Liberals are not the priorities of Canadians.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to be on the public safety and national security committee with the member across the way. At committee, we worked together on a joint report on record suspensions, which was tabled in the House in December. We all agreed in the report that a criminal record has a negative impact on a person's ability to find employment, housing and education, to travel and in the adoption and custody of children. We recognized that an applicant's financial situation and ability to pay may be a barrier to applying. In fact, we asked the government to review the record suspension system and the cost of it. Therefore, I was actually very surprised to hear the member now speak from what seems to be a position that is contrary to the report he agreed to when it was put forward in the House.

Perhaps the member could explain why it makes sense for people to face a financial barrier in achieving a record suspension for something like simple possession.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that there is no dichotomy in what I have said and what I support at committee. I fully appreciate that when moving on in life, an individual's record could limit his or her ability to acquire appropriate employment, housing and all those things. We need to approach this in a manner that is fair and just. That does not mean the taxpayer foots the entire bill. It means there is a balance that has to be struck.

Not once did I suggest that the record suspension should not be considered. I think it is something that needs to be considered. However, we need to look at this. We need to be open to amendments to the current legislation. We need to understand its implications. We need to make sure we do not give record suspensions straight across the board because someone has a minor possession. We need to have the Parole Board continue to examine each file and, where appropriate, issue those suspensions potentially, but not completely, at the taxpayers' expense. As a government, we need to look at that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen a pattern of behaviour by the current government and it is too little too late. It is a lazy approach. It is half-measures. I do not understand the concept the Liberals are proposing now, when the member for Victoria proposed a reasonable bill that had support and could have run through this House. Mediocracy and a lack of willingness to work on things is what really exemplifies the current government.

Here is an example where we have some unification in the House and some half-forward progress presented in front of us and the government has refused to do it. Housing is a good example. It is something that is serious for people. This bill is not going to help people who have been affected by this type of a record historically. I would ask the member to highlight that, because it is a very significant consequence. Again, I cannot understand the half-measures.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do see the impact one's past can have on one's present and future.

Although I am new to the House, at times I often wonder why as parliamentarians we cannot come together on legislation of this importance to find a common ground and to be accepting of amendments from all parties who have the best interests of Canadians in mind. I am hopeful that when the bill is sent to committee, the government members will be open to amendments that are designed to better the lives of Canadians.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There will be six minutes remaining in questions and comments when the House next undertakes this topic.

SNC-Lavalin Employees

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 3,500 people in Quebec are at risk of losing their jobs because of the SNC-Lavalin saga. However, in Ottawa, the parties do not care, as we see from the pathetic legal squabble between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

The Conservatives are spreading falsehoods without any regard for the 3,500 workers, all of whom they labelled as corrupt last week.

How did the Prime Minister react to all this nonsense? Accused of political interference in a court case, he finds a way to legally interfere in a political case. This is childish. This is not even something you would see in a school yard, and I have seen lots of school yards in my life.

Quebeckers deserve better from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition than a cat fight. The Conservatives must stop trying to score political points on the backs of the workers. As for the Liberals, they must stop their legal grandstanding and take action to protect SNC-Lavalin workers.

We Stand Movement

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a message from Amaan Khandia, a grade seven student at Thomas L. Wells Public School in Scarborough—Rouge Park. He is part of the “We Stand” movement. These are his words, as published by the Toronto Star:

Because of the continuing movement of hate around the world, I feel scared. I have more anxiety than I’ve ever felt before. I feel anxious walking into a place of worship, the mosque, that now has to be guarded by security personnel 24/7....

It feels as if hate and Islamophobia will be a regular part of life forever. My younger brother will have to grow up witnessing even more hate and bigotry. He will have to grow up with the impact of Islamophobia hitting harder than ever.

That is, until we speak up....

Let’s make it a priority to unite and connect with each other, to understand each other and to take down adversities caused by hate within our schools, communities and our world.

Together, we can.

Together, we will.

Together, we stand.

Religious Freedom

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House and of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, I would like to bring the House's attention to the unjust imprisonment of Dennis Christensen, a prisoner of conscience.

Mr. Christensen is a Jehovah's Witness and a Danish citizen. In May 2017, he was arrested in Russia along with other members of his faith community. The charges related to nothing more than the peaceful practice of his religion. In February, after appearing in court more than 50 times and a detention of over 600 days, he was sentenced to an additional six years imprisonment for “continuing the activities” of an extremist group.

His arrest is one of the many measures Russia has taken to crack down on Jehovah's Witnesses, which include Russia's Supreme Court officially banning it as an extremist organization. This is a gross violation of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Will the Liberal government put the spotlight on Mr. Christensen's imprisonment and oppose this grotesque assault on religious freedom in Russia?

Pulmonary Fibrosis

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pulmonary fibrosis is a very serious lung disease that affects far too many Canadians.

Over 20 years ago, Parvinder Maloni watched as his mother died from this disease. One can imagine how he felt when he was diagnosed with the same disease five years ago. His outlook was not good, and as his condition deteriorated, he received, on Mother's Day of last year, a life-saving donor lung. Parvinder firmly believes that was by fate of his mother's intervention.

To honour her, he and his brother Narinder have set up the Parkash Kaur Ahluwalia Maloni Legacy Fund, and to date they have raised $70,000 for the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating the brothers on the wonderful work they have done to support this excellent cause.

Tax Evasion

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since we learned from the Panama papers the enormous scale of overseas tax evasion three years ago, $1.6 billion has been recovered globally, yet there has not been any charges or any convictions in Canada. The minister never tells us how much she has actually collected.

Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said he cannot get the CRA to give him the data to measure how much we are losing to tax evasion and has threatened to take the Liberals to court.

Canadians are fed up with the lack of tax enforcement for the one per cent. Recovered revenue could be used to fund pharmacare, build housing and invest in infrastructure. Nine out of 10 CRA professionals have agreed, “It is easier for corporations and wealthy individuals to evade and/or avoid tax responsibilities than it is for average Canadians.”

Tax experts agree that my private member's bill, Bill C-362, would help but again the government is silent.

Will the Liberals please get serious about our tax evasion crisis?

Carbon Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about our government's climate action plan.

Canada, as scientists have told us, is warming at twice the rate of the global average. It is important that governments take bold steps. Our government has shown leadership by making polluters pay, while providing a climate action incentive to Canadians. This, according to the former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, is the right thing to do.

Ironically, while the Conservatives cry that the price on pollution will create havoc, it was Stephen Harper who, in 2008, proposed a carbon tax of $65 per tonne. Ours is only $20 a tonne. Talk about hypocrisy.

Eleven years ago, British Columbia introduced its carbon price and now it has outpaced the rest of Canada in reducing emissions and increasing its economic growth. This is proof that a price on carbon works.

The Economy

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a stretch of bad news for Canadians, all brought on by the Prime Minister and his tax-and-spend government that has delivered another $20-billion deficit.

This deficit will push each and every Canadian, every senior, every newborn, every veteran and every student over $500 further in debt. Now the government has doubled down with a punitive carbon tax, a tax that will hit hardest on seniors with fixed incomes and young families that are struggling to balance their household budgets.

It is a tax that will take money out of people's pockets but will do nothing to take pollution out of the air. I have heard from the people in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap, and 90% of them are opposed to this carbon tax grab.

It is time for a Conservative government that will end the carbon tax, a Conservative government led by a responsible leader who respects hard-working Canadians, a Conservative government that will let Canadians keep more of their money in their pockets.

Nellie Cashman

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend of International Women's Day, I attended the world's largest mineral conference, the PDAC in Toronto. I was reminded of an unsung Canadian hero, Nellie Cashman.

In 1869, Cashman was one of the only active women prospectors, and she became one of the most influential voices in the industry. Unfortunately, her amazing story has been sadly forgotten.

Cashman prospected in Canada, the United States, Mexico and South Africa for 52 years. She gained a reputation for bravery and leadership by leading a crew on a 77-day rescue mission, braving snow over 10 feet deep in rugged terrain to help 100 ill prospectors and miners. Her entrepreneurship funded her own prospecting adventures and grubstaked many others.

I stand today, and I hope members will join me, in recognizing Nellie Cashman and calling for her name to be added in the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame.

710 Ste-Rose, Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of visiting the 710 Ste-Rose Air Cadet Squadron in Laval, where I attended the commanding officer's parade. The squadron's cadets perfectly executed a musical program in preparation for the annual parade to be held on May 18.

As a former air force major for the air cadet camps at CFB Bagotville, I know that the work of the squadron's commanding officer, Captain Mélanie Paquette, is very important, and I sincerely thank her for her efforts.

I commend all the cadets I had the pleasure to meet for their commitment. I want to repeat for them loud and clear the motto on the badge that they wear so proudly: “Never give up”.

Carbon Pricing

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, On April 1, the Prime Minister once again increased taxes on Canadians. This time he added another tax, which was, as members can guess, the carbon tax. My constituents in Niagara West and Canadians across the country are now paying more for virtually everything: gas, propane, groceries, home heating and much more.

Because of the carbon tax, gas has already gone up by 5¢ a litre. In a vast riding like mine, where public transit is limited, constituents have no choice but to drive their kids to practice after school or to work.

What are the Liberals going to do with all this new carbon tax money from my constituents and ordinary Canadians? Well, today the Liberals gave us a sneak preview of things to come. They gave $12 million of it to Loblaws stores so that the stores could retrofit refrigerators.

It seems like the Liberals have no problem raising taxes on ordinary families, only to give the money to their corporate billionaire friends. It is obvious that the carbon tax is a cash grab, plain and simple.

Make no mistake: A conservative government will scrap the Liberal carbon tax and help Canadians keep their hard-earned dollars where they belong, which is in their wallets.

Armenia

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, we remember and honour the lives of the more than 1.5 million Armenians who were killed during the Armenian genocide.

In remembering this atrocity, we work to recognize, understand and prevent genocide around the world today. All nations must recognize genocide and hate as an issue for humanity, one that we must confront.

The victims' memories are desecrated by many people who actively deny that these horrific events occurred and who perpetrate hate today. We must recommit ourselves to making genocide history, never to happen again.

I want to say to the Armenian community in Cambridge and across Canada and to Armenians around the world that I stand with them in recognizing, remembering and proclaiming, “never again”.

Vaisakhi

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

Mr. Speaker, today in Ottawa we celebrated the annual Vaisakhi on the Hill. On April 20, in my riding of Surrey—Newton, half a million people from all backgrounds will come together to celebrate the birth of Khalsa. As the host MP for the largest Vaisakhi and Khalsa Day parade outside of India, it is my honour to recognize this important occasion.

This annual event, championed by Dasmesh Darbar Gurdwara, shows the strength of our diversity and our country. It is moments like these that I want celebrated across Canada, with the passage of my bill to recognize April as Sikh heritage month.

As Canadians, we are one people, with one history and a shared future. On April 20, I invite all members of the House and all Canadians to join me in celebrating this unique and amazing event.

Agriculture

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last week, 338 young Canadian women sat in this place. Although a small Conservative cohort was chosen, these principled, intelligent, articulate Conservative women made their mark with grace and tenacity in the midst of adversity.

Along with her colleagues, Kaitlyn Kitzan, a University of Saskatchewan agribusiness student and third-generation cattle and grain farmer from my riding of Yorkton—Melville, made us proud. She spoke to the plight of our farmers facing international trade disputes, transportation issues and harmful environmental policies.

It is time that the Liberals admit they have ignored the world-class sustainable practices of our Canadian farmers. Their transportation policies are not helping our landlocked resources and products. The Liberals fail to champion the high quality of our canola because of their ineptness on the international stage. Our farmers are gearing up, ready to seed, and they have had the ground pulled out from under them.

This is another international debacle, another blow to Canadian agriculture in another failure for the Liberal government.

Organ Donation

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, April is “BeADonor” Month.

April 7 is recognized as Green Shirt Day in Canada in honour of Logan Boulet. He gave the ultimate gift and helped save six lives by donating his organs and inspiring 100,000 people to register as organ donors.

Each year, 200 Canadians on the organ recipient list die waiting for a second chance. However, a hero emerged in Logan. Facing unspeakable loss, the Boulet family saved lives.

Many individuals and families live with pain and anxiety every day, hoping that a selfless act will allow them a second chance. I ask all Canadians to take charge, find their courage, channel their inner hero and have this conversation at the kitchen table with their family.

There are no more excuses. It takes two minutes. Please register to be a donor today.