Debates of June 7th, 2022

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to clarify that we are actually speaking about the main estimates today and that we are going to be talking about what is coming out of some committees. I just want to be sure we are on the right topic.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to remind everyone that we are speaking to certain specifics here.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are, as the member's interim leader talked about, focused on what we are spending and where we are getting our revenues. It is one thing for the interim leader to be saying that, but it is another thing to just watch the behaviour of the Conservative Party in opposition. It is very different.

If we take a look at the types of behaviours we have witnessed virtually from the beginning back in late 2015 and going into 2016, we see that the Prime Minister in particular has been very much concentrating on the real issues of the day that Canadians have to face. We have been doing that from the very beginning.

When the interim leader talked about how the government needs to be focused and talked about the motion they were moving earlier in regard to the finances of the government, I believe there has only been one party, the party fortunately that is in government, that has been focused in its attention.

If someone listened to some of the speeches delivered today, were they a true reflection of the important issues that Canadians are facing? In good part, yes, for a lot of the debate. We concur with a number of the issues being debated that are in fact important to Canadians. It was kind of encouraging in that sense, that the Conservatives have chosen their last opposition day to raise a number of issues, some of which should be discussed and debated. However, that is something that is not a part of the normal routine.

I suggest that the Prime Minister, caucus and cabinet have been consistently focused on the issues that are important. We have seen real, tangible results. As an example, over the last number of months, we have seen the Conservatives stand up, I do not know how many times inside the House. As we talked about a budget presentation, what were the Conservative Party talking about? It was mandates and criticizing the Government of Canada for not lifting mandates. When people were outside protesting, the Conservatives were criticizing our having mandates. I can recall seeing one picture on social media of the interim leader out at a dinner where she was talking with some of the organizers of the “freedom convoy”.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make this quick. This is the business of supply on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and the member is talking about other things. I am just wondering if we can maybe talk about the estimates and the spending of the government, instead of the stuff that he was talking about for the last five minutes.

Let us talk about money and the spending of money, as we are supposed to be doing today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind all members of the House that we do try to stick to the topic at hand.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is having a difficult time following the logic here, I would suggest that she leave the chamber or not listen, as opposed to interrupting.

This is in fact very relevant. We have the opposition focusing their attention on an issue, but the government of the day is focused on the issues that are facing Canadians. Whether it is today or during the budget debate or debate on Bill C-19, we are have been consistent on these types of issues. It is the official opposition that has not been consistent. The opposition has not been focused on these important budgetary measures because it has been focused on other issues to try to stir the pot.

I am using the issue of the mandates as a tangible example. The wannabe leader of the Conservative Party was out saying, “Let us end the mandates”, and the minions within the chamber who are supporting that leader are espousing the same policy. To say that this issue is not relevant is ridiculous, because those are the types of issues they were talking about during the budget debate. Even when the Province of Quebec still had a curfew in place, the Conservatives were focused on ending mandates.

The member for Carleton made reference to the Bank of Canada and its governor. It was very discouraging. When we talk about issues of inflation and what is happening in our economy today and the person who is likely the new leader of the Conservative Party is going around diminishing the value and the importance of the Bank of Canada and its governor, we should all be concerned. That person has not won yet, and maybe he will not win, but he is definitely supported by a majority of the members opposite in the Conservative Party, and these are important budgetary-type issues, because the Bank of Canada does play an important role. It is supposed to be arm's length.

The Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than in dealing with the issues. We have indicated very clearly that we are going to deal with the real issues that Canadians are facing day in and day out. When Conservatives talk about inflation, they try to give the impression that the sky is falling and that Canada is going straight downhill. They put their collective heads in the sand, not recognizing what is happening in the world.

Conservatives talk about inflation. The Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus are all concerned about inflation, and we all understand the reality of what is happening in our environment that goes beyond our borders. It is affecting our inflation rate. If we could stop the war in Europe, we would do that. We do not have that kind of influence. We do have a great deal of influence in working with our allied countries. However, to deny the impact of what is taking place in Europe in the illegal Russian war that is happening to Ukraine is highly irresponsible. That war is having an impact on inflation.

To try to click our heels and think that mandates and the coronavirus would be gone and we would have nothing more to worry about would again be irresponsible. We just have to take a look at what is happening internationally.

Even today some members will say that someone can be on a boat for 24 hours but that cannot be done on a plane. Have members ever been a boat, compared to a plane? There is a big difference between being in a fuselage, where there are 220 people or whatever number of people, and being on a ferry between, let us say, Vancouver Island and the city of Vancouver.

We within the government benches continue to review and look at the situation, listen to what science is telling us and work with health experts. That is what is dictating our policies. Remember, the Conservatives have been saying to end mandates for months now.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

One member is saying “Hear, hear!”

Even when the Province of Quebec had a curfew, Conservatives were still advocating getting rid of mandates or mandatory masks. The Province of Quebec just got rid of mandatory masks. Are those health experts also wrong?

This is the type of focus we see from the Conservatives. Maybe it is because of the leadership convention that there seems to be a vacuum within the Conservative caucus today. There is no consistency.

When we take a look at the policies being brought forward from this government, whether they are legislative initiatives or budgetary initiatives, we see that they are having an impact for Canada from coast to coast to coast. Look at some of the numbers.

Conservatives will criticize us. It is truly amazing. The Conservatives will say that we are spending too much money, but in the last federal election they committed to spending more money than what we committed. They criticize us on the deficit, yet the Conservatives were projecting more, and that was only a number of months ago.

What is the actual reality? When looking at the reality, one needs to do a comparison and take a look at it. As we continue to receive and spend tax dollars, how is Canada actually managing? Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and the G7 includes some pretty important countries, including the U.S.A.

We have actually recovered 115% of the jobs that were lost as a direct result of the pandemic. Again we are doing much better than the U.S.A. We have been able to do this because we worked with Canadians and stakeholders when going through the pandemic and in planning the budgetary expenditures that formulated our estimates so that we would be there to support them in real and tangible ways.

I have given many speeches in the House giving examples of that support. Is there any wonder that we have been able to recover 115% of the jobs lost when we actually supported small businesses? We did this by providing rent subsidies, wage loss subsidies and better access to loans.

I would ultimately argue that because of the actions of the government in working with the different stakeholders, we prevented many companies from going bankrupt. We allowed for small businesses, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy, to be in a better position to hire back when the opportunity came.

A lot of the expenditures for which the Conservatives will criticize us were there to support people in having disposable income, whether it was supporting the poorest seniors in the country through the GIS or individual seniors 65 and older through the OAS, not to mention the literally tens if not hundreds of millions that were allocated to non-profit organizations that support our seniors.

We can also take a look at students and the doubling of summer jobs for young people and a continuation of that program within this budget. I remember the Conservative days when they cut back on that expenditure.

These are the types of initiatives that the government worked on, from the Prime Minister to the cabinet to the individual members of the Liberal caucus. We did that because we believe it is important to take the ideas and thoughts from our constituencies and bring them to Ottawa to ensure that the budget reflects what Canadians want to see in a national budget.

We have been successful by listening. We are concerned about inflation, as my constituents and all Canadians are. Canada's inflation rate is at 6.8% and yes, we are concerned about it. Whether it is the GIS, the OAS or the Canada child benefit, the benefits programs are all indexed to inflation. If people are 75 and older, they are getting a 10% increase in the OAS.

We are concerned about the 6.8%, even though it is actually less than the United States' inflation rate, which is 8.3%, or the U.K. inflation rate, which is 9%, or Germany's, which is 8.7%, or the OECD's, which has an average of 8.8%. Just because our rate is lower than all of those countries does not mean we are giving it any less attention. We understand that it is hurting pocketbooks, and that is why we see a number of budgetary measures that are going to help provide some relief.

We constantly see Conservative members vote against all of those measures. On the one hand, they talk about cutting taxes, and cutting more taxes, and looking at ways to cut tax. As a side point, when we provided them with a chance to do that by cutting taxes for Canada's middle class, they voted against it, but they sure like to talk about it. At the end of the day, they can be all over the map on a wide variety of things and have their focus on two issues in particular that I mentioned, but we will continue day in and day out to focus on the issues that Canadians are facing.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech carefully, and one of the things he said is that the CPP and the OAS were increased based on inflation. Is that an accurate statement? I know the OAS had a 10% increase for individuals who were 75 years of age and older, but does he really believe that seniors between the age of 60 and 75 did not have the same increase in costs as someone over the age of 75?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member would know and as I would hope that all members would know, from my understanding of it there is a formula that is put into place that enables the cost of living increases for the GIS, the OAS and the Canada child benefit. That is my understanding, and if that is not the case, I would be more than happy to apologize. I am sure there will be some people who will be very quick to find out and ask me to apologize if in fact that is not the case.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Biden made a bold move and announced that he will be using the U.S. Defense Production Act to accelerate the manufacturing of solar panels, grid infrastructure, heat pumps and building insulation. I am curious as to whether this government is also looking at Canada's Defence Production Act to ensure that we are accelerating these clean energy industries as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specifics of that. The member might want to raise this with the minister responsible.

I can say, though, that we have seen an incredible amount of money and dedication, whether it is coming from the minister responsible for the environment or the Minister of Finance, who are ultimately being led by the Prime Minister, to ensure that we are seeing greener jobs, technology and so forth being developed and encouraged. This is not just from direct government expenditures but also from working with the private sector.

The Conservatives have been very critical of the Infrastructure Bank, but it has been hugely successful on environmental projects. All one needs to do is take a look at what is happening in Brampton today, with the conversion of buses from diesel fuel to electric. This is an excellent example, and I think there are virtually endless examples. If I were provided the time and maybe allowed to do a little more research, I could provide all sorts of good details on that front.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of my concerns with the main estimates we are discussing this evening is with respect to the number of Canadians with disabilities, both in my community and across the country, who are living in poverty. We do not have here any emergency funds for these folks, nor do we have anything with respect to the Canada disability benefit.

I wonder if the hon. member can speak to what he could be doing to advocate in this place to ensure that we get funding to a group of folks across the country who need it most, Canadians living with disabilities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for disability inclusion actually made an incredible effort a couple of years ago in terms of bringing in some legislation and ultimately having it passed. I thought she gave a brilliant speech in terms of why we need to focus more attention and build the proper database in order to support people with disabilities. She went on to ensure that during the pandemic there would be a payment going out to people with disabilities.

Also, it is really encouraging that, just recently, the minister has once again brought forward disability legislation. This has been a high priority for this particular minister specifically, but I know that the government as a whole has been very supportive of the minister, recognizing how important it is to support people with disabilities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention and for repeating the concerns we all have around inflation. I also thank him for pointing out the comparison of Canada to other countries and the complexity of the problem we are dealing with in trying to get support to the Canadians who really need it, rather than just everybody getting some kind of a handout.

Could the hon. member talk about the expenditures that we are putting forward to target the people who need help the most?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to talk about something that I know the member is very proud of, as am I, which is the national child care program.

The national child care program is now going to make day care affordable for hundreds of thousands of people from coast to coast to coast. It is going to enable people to enter into the workforce, and it will have a profound impact.

I am very proud of the fact that this administration and the minister responsible were able to get the provinces and territories onside. We have, for the very first time, a very progressive, national program in regard to child care. If members want to get a sense of just how well it is going to work into the future, they can look at the positive impact it had when it was brought in by the Province of Quebec.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North if he could explain to seniors in my community who are living below the poverty line, who have had to take a line of credit on their property in order to stay in their home, why they were, in effect, told by the previous minister of seniors, “Why do you not just sell your house and move on?”

What kind of a response is that to someone who has lived in their home, raised their children, paid their taxes and taken care of a dying husband, who had no choice but to leave, and who at 72 years old does not get the $500 and has to go and get another job?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not here when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, but I was, and if she wants to talk about dishing out zip for our seniors, we can take a look at what Stephen Harper did not do for our seniors. I would love to compare how we have been there in a very real and tangible way for our seniors. Any day of the week, I would debate the member in any type of forum in regard to what we have done in comparison to what Stephen Harper did, and we have been in for only six or seven years, whereas Stephen Harper was there for 10 years.

I can talk, right from the very beginning, of lifting hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty with the immediate increase that was made to GIS back in 2016; I can talk about the grants that were given via direct payments to seniors, both OAS and GIS, during the pandemic; I can talk about the 10% increase for seniors over 75; and I can talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars invested into non-profit organizations to support seniors.

It is an endless list. The member cannot try to tell me that Stephen Harper was sympathetic to seniors. This is a government that is not only sympathetic but has taken action after action to support the seniors of Canada, because they deserve that support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned the Infrastructure Bank, and I have to say that some of the early spending by the Infrastructure Bank was very encouraging, but I am devastated that budget 2022 does not promote the continued building of interties to connect our electricity grid so that we can have a functional, robust electricity grid working east-west and north-south to move renewable energy from one province to another. As the member will know, I am very disappointed in his government's climate plans, but I do not understand why it is ignoring the urgent need to build a strong electricity grid to meet our needs to decarbonize energy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if we take a look at the voting record, we will probably find that the former leader of the Green Party voted against having a Canada Infrastructure Bank. Now, if we take a look, anyone can google the Canada Infrastructure Bank and take a look at the projects that are there. Many of those projects are green projects.

I made reference to what is happening in Brampton: the conversion of fuel buses into electric buses. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. That is happening, in good part, because we created, a number of years ago, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, something that many members of this House did not support and that many other members continue to criticize today. They need to check out the website, at the very least, and take a look at what the Canada Infrastructure Bank has been doing. That is without even mentioning the many other initiatives the Government of Canada has taken by working with partners, whether they are provincial or other stakeholders in the private sector and so forth.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who is a great MP and doing a great job for her constituents.

On Friday, May 27 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the punishment of life without parole in cases concerning mass murderers. There had been a change in the law that allowed consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, which meant that mass murderers would not receive a discount for the extra lives they had taken.

The case at the core of this ruling is with regard to the 2017 killing of worshippers at a Quebec City mosque. Shortly after 8 p.m. on January 29, 2017, an armed 27-year-old man entered the mosque and began to shoot at the people inside. Six people were killed and at least five others were wounded. He was charged with six counts of murder, convicted, and sentenced to 40 years without the possibility of parole.

Following this ruling by the Supreme Court, this killer will now be eligible to apply for full parole after only 25 years. It is now the case in Canada that, regardless of whether mass murderers kill three people or 20, they will be eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. The message that this decision sends to Canadians is that every life does not in fact matter. I do not agree with that sentiment, and I know that most Canadians would not agree with it either.

Just yesterday, MPs from all parties stood in this House in a moment of silence to remember the victims of the hate-motivated killing of a Muslim family in London, Ontario, on June 6, 2021. Every single member of that family who was killed in that attack mattered, but right now, sentencing law in Canada will not reflect that fact. The killer responsible for the attack in London, Ontario, was 20 years old at the time. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, he will not even be 50 years old when he is eligible to apply for full parole.

The Canadian justice system must be fair and balanced, but it is becoming increasingly imbalanced, with the scales too often tipped toward the perpetrators of violent crime and away from the victims, who are left to pick up the pieces of their lives. In the court ruling on life sentences for mass murderers, the provision struck down by the court was originally introduced in 2011 under the previous Conservative government. The bill was entitled “Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act”. It is worth noting that this bill was passed with the support of all parties in the House.

The bill made sure that an offender was held responsible for each and every life taken when these horrific mass murders occur, and they do, unfortunately, occur. It ensured that the length of offenders' sentences reflected the severity of their crimes.

This decision of the Supreme Court effectively repealed this act. To provide some background, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act addressed two specific concerns that victims of crime raised again and again. These concerns were, one, the need for accountability for each life taken and, two, the mental and emotional turmoil that victims face when an offender is granted a parole hearing and family members have to relive the worst day of their lives every two years at repeat parole hearings for the rest of their lives.

The act actually expanded judicial discretion by allowing judges, if they deemed it appropriate, to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. In the years after this legislation was passed, that is exactly what many judges across the country did. They used their discretion to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility when they thought it was appropriate. Specifically, since 2011, when this act was introduced, the law has been used in at least 18 cases. These were the worst of the worst, cases that many Canadians would be familiar with as the news of these horrific crimes shocked communities right across our country.

The law was used to sentence the killer who ended the lives of three RCMP officers in Moncton, New Brunswick, and wounded two others in 2014. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. The law was used to sentence the notorious killer who took the lives of Tim Bosma, Laura Babcock and Wayne Millard. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. The law was used to sentence the killer of two grandparents and their five-year-old grandson in Calgary. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. These murderers, all of them relatively young, will now be able to seek full parole 25 years after they were first sentenced.

When the president of the organization Victims of Violence, Sharon Rosenfeldt, testified at the justice committee, she made an important point that I would like to share, as I believe it is just as relevant to the discussions we are having today as it was then. She stated:

We understand, in following the discussion on other bills, that there has been concern expressed by some members of Parliament over mandatory minimum sentences because they reduce judicial discretion. As you know, murder already has a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, although, with parole eligibility, the “life” part of the sentence does not necessarily mean being imprisoned. [This bill] would actually give judges more discretion at sentencing, so hopefully those MPs who have taken the position opposing a reduction in judicial discretion will support this bill, because it actually increases it.

Susan O'Sullivan was the federal ombudsman for victims of crime at the time, and she also appeared at the justice committee study on the bill. She stated:

Providing judges with the discretion to apply consecutive, rather than concurrent parole ineligibility will help ensure accountability for each life lost, and, where appropriate, will delay and in some cases prevent the trauma and devastation victims experience when faced with [repeated] parole hearings.

The former victims ombudsman makes a really important point here regarding the retraumatization inflicted on families throughout the parole process.

When confronted with the impact of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, the Liberals are determined to stick to their talking points, telling Parliament and concerned Canadians that we should not worry about mass killers actually receiving parole because that possible outcome is, in their words, extremely rare.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London made a really good point earlier on when she said that the discussion happening in the House really did not have anything to do with the main estimates. I am wondering if the member will bring his speech back to the estimates or if he is going to continue with justice policy and legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As I suggested during those last interactions, we should try to stick to the motion at hand, even though I did not correct or change the course of the previous speaker.

I see another point of order, from the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the member is in proper order by giving these remarks and he should be allowed to continue. This is very much on point and very much a priority. It needs to be discussed in the House, so I do not quite get what the point of order was for in the first place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

As I said previously, I will always ask members to stick to the motion or bill we are debating at hand. Again, I remind everyone that we are on the main estimates, so there is a pretty wide scope of information we can debate in the House.

The hon. member for Fundy Royal.