House of Commons Hansard #373 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was going.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented on Monday, April 25, 2022, be concurred in.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.
Today, we are discussing a report from the public safety and national security committee about guns and gangs, and frankly, we have been on this for quite some time. We began this study over three years ago, and boy oh boy have things gone downhill since then regarding gangs, guns and gun violence in this country. In fact, over the last nine years of the Liberal government, gun violence has gone up 116%, despite all of the announcements and all of the promises. We see that every day in the headlines.
Violent crime has doubled in the past nine years. Sexual assaults are up 75%. Sexual violations against children are up 120%. Canadians may be wondering why their once safe neighbourhoods have become havens for criminals. Why do we keep hearing announcements from the Liberals that something will be done about gun violence yet it is getting worse?
One of the reasons is the soft-on-crime legislation the Liberal government continues to bring forward. In 2019, the Liberals brought forward Bill C-75, which was specifically to reform the bail system. Members may have heard about the bail system from police and premiers across the country, because in the last few years, police associations, police unions and premiers from every political stripe have been screaming for change from the Liberal government. Of course, that has been falling on deaf ears.
They are demanding bail reform because it is exhausting our police services. They are unable to keep up and keep our communities safe because of the catch-and-release policies brought forward by Bill C-75. They are rearresting the same repeat violent offenders every other day, who are apparently going without being held accountable under the current Liberal government. We can see that right in the legislation. The aim of Bill C-75 was to bring forward the least onerous conditions for bail. In essence, it made bail the default position for violent repeat offenders.
That was in 2019. Here we are a few years later, and the impacts of that legislation have really come home to roost. Gangs and those committing violent gun crime in our communities are getting off scot-free in the revolving door of the so-called justice system under the Liberal government.
That same year, we saw Bill C-83, which made changes to the parole system so that it was least restrictive. Some people may wonder what all these things mean. These are legal terms. Unless they are a Crown prosecutor, it is difficult to understand them. For Bill C-83, I will talk a bit about what the Harper government was doing. Remember that under the Harper government, violent crime went down 26% and there was a decrease in gun violence in Canada. However, since the Liberals have come in, there has been over a 50% increase in violent crime and, as I said, over a 100% increase in gun violence.
If we look at Bill C-83, we see the priority for parole. Again, this is about violent offenders in jail with reason: They have committed atrocities in neighbourhoods, have hurt innocent people, have used guns illegally and have been involved in gangs causing crime and chaos in our streets. Under the Harper government, the parole parameters were as follows:
the Service uses measures that are consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders and that are limited to only what is necessary and proportionate to attain the purposes of this Act
The number one priority under Harper, under a tough-on-crime government that saw a decrease in violent crime among parolees, was for Correctional Services to use “measures that are consistent with the protection of society”. Under Bill C-83, under the Liberals, this was changed to the following:
the Service uses the least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders
The first priority became the least restrictive measures. That is important in a legal context. That signals to the Parole Board, corrections, judges and lawyers that the priority is the least restrictive measures.
Bill C-83 also facilitated, as we have heard, the movement of folks from maximum to medium to minimum security. For example, with Paul Bernardo, we have heard a lot about this in the last year. Bill C-83 helped facilitate his move from maximum security, where he should spend the rest of his days, to medium security. This bill has further permitted actions like that.
These bills have an impact. We debated them. The Conservatives fiercely fought these bills. We said this was going to happen and, of course, it did happen.
Since I have been elected, Bill C-5 has passed, in 2022. This bill, astoundingly, had soft-on-crime measures for criminals committing violent acts with guns. It removed mandatory prison time for individuals who commit drive-by shootings, robbery with a gun and extortion with a gun, or who discharge a firearm with intent to injure or use a firearm in the commission of an offence. All of these things had mandatory prison time. Someone who did a horrible crime and endangered their neighbourhood and community would go to jail for sure. They would be removed from society for a while, and rightly so, but Bill C-5 took away that requirement and, in fact, codified house arrest for a number of offences, like sexual assault. Someone can rape someone and serve their sentence in the comfort of their home. The priority of the Liberal government in bill after bill is making parole and bail easier to get for violent offenders and having less accountability and less jail time for people who commit gun crime.
We now have police associations across the country calling out the Liberals for their lack of action. Actually, that is not true. They have done a lot of things, have they not? They have done a lot of things on guns, but what they have not done is gone after the people responsible for gun violence. They have gone after people like me and the colleagues behind me, law-abiding citizens with firearms, which have been in Canada since its inception. They are part of our heritage of hunting and sport shooting and competing in the Olympics, and represent national pride.
That has been the target for the Liberals over the last nine years, people like us, innocent, law-abiding Canadians. They are the least likely to commit crime. Why is that? They are heavily vetted by the RCMP. They are tested. They are trained. We should take pride in our system, which ensures that only lawful, responsible people can own firearms. That is how it should be, yet those people have been the targets and punching bags, repeatedly, of the Liberal government.
Over and over, the Liberals fought election platforms targeting these people. Our hunters, like Grandpa Joe with his hunting rifle, have been the number one target of the Liberal government over the last nine years. Gang violence is up, violent crime is up and gun violence is up, and meanwhile, legislation after legislation is coming after lawful gun owners. That is going to cost the taxpayer billions of dollars.
We know about the Liberals' so-called buyback program, which is a misnomer because they are not buying back anything but confiscating lawfully owned property from lawful Canadians. So far, their confiscation regime has not taken one firearm from the hands of criminals and has already cost the taxpayer $100 million. It will purportedly cost, when all is said and done, as high as $6 billion. That is to go after Grandpa Joe while the Liberals, with their legislation, let criminals in and out of jail, with no jail time in many circumstances, and out early if they do finally get to jail for committing violent gun crime.
That is the priority of the Liberal government. That is why we are in this situation today. Those in Brampton, for example, see headlines every single day. The police, who are on the front lines risking their lives every day to protect society, saying goodbye to their families in the morning and praying that they come home, have to face these gangbangers every day. They know them on a first-name basis because they have arrested them so many times.
What are the police saying? They are saying that 85%, minimum, of the firearms and handguns smuggled in from the United States are being used in crimes. That is where the problem is coming from: violent criminals smuggling guns into Canada from the United States. We need to do better at our border. We need to ensure that police are being invested in. We need to ensure that legislative tools are being put in place that finally hold criminals accountable after getting off scot-free over the last nine years.
Ultimately, we will have a lot of work to do should the Conservatives get into government in the next number of months. Priority number one is going to be to stop the crime, cut taxes, of course, and finally make life more affordable. Stopping the crime is going to be a top priority for our government, finally holding criminals accountable. That is our mission, and we will fulfill that for communities and keep them safe.
Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, we just heard what the leader of the Conservative Party has instructed his Conservative caucus to talk about: crime in our communities. It is consistent with much of the misleading information that the Conservative Party puts on social media virtually every day. The bill the member is so critical of, the bail bill, is a bill the Conservative Party voted in favour of. It is the very same bail bill that provinces in all regions of the country supported.
I am wondering if the member can reflect on whether the Conservative Party today, because it might have flip-flopped on this, still supports the bail reform legislation that was brought forward by the government not that long ago, the bail reform bill that she herself voted in favour of.
Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Winnipeg North was not listening to my remarks. I was talking about Bill C-75, which was passed by the Liberals with support from the NDP in 2019. That is what caused all of the mayhem that police are now having to deal with. The member is talking about Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was a seven-page bill in contrast to Bill C-75 that was 200 pages. It was a measly effort for the Liberals to say they were doing something about bail. That passed well over a year ago and it obviously has done nothing to help.
In fact, if the member does not believe me, as he is saying I am spreading misinformation, let us hear from the Toronto Police. I will just conclude on this. The Toronto Police Association, which represents 8,000 police officers, said, “ Our communities are experiencing a 45% increase in shootings and a 62% increase in gun-related homicides compared to this time last year. What difference does your handgun ban make when 85% of guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?” It continued with, “Your statement is out of touch and offensive to victims of crime and police officers everywhere.” That is what the police say to the Liberal government.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying this increase, this femicide epidemic. Yesterday, former senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu came to testify, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about Bill S-205.
My colleague spoke about violence against women, but we do not understand why, in Bill S-205, the maximum period of good behaviour was reduced from 2 years to 12 months, when, for some criminals, this is an extremely critical period of time. This is precisely the time when they harbour animosity towards their former spouse, and that can last more than 12 months. Reducing this maximum period from 2 years to 12 months is only one of the ill-advised measures adopted when we finally voted again on Bill S-205.
Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her hard work on FEWO. Certainly, she brings up a lot of good points about Bill S-205. I was proud to sponsor that on behalf of Senator Boisvenu, who has since retired but certainly made it his life's mission to protect women from violent offenders and abusers.
The member has pointed out a number of things that happened at status of women last year by Liberal and NDP members who looked to gut the bill. Really, the goal of that bill was to ensure that an abuser, an intimate partner, who is a life threat or a physical threat to a woman and her children, was held accountable. What ended up passing was one good step, but there were many provisions to be tough on those abusers, to keep them away from the people they violate and abuse, that were gutted by Liberal and NDP members. That is just another example of them going soft on the criminals at the cost of the victim's safety. We can go on all day, in fact, about what they have done.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, let us talk about them thinking people are soft in the head when they figure people have no memory. Tony Clement stole $50 million of border security money to buy gazebos in his riding that left us open to handguns coming in. Stephen Harper cut 1,100 CBSA positions to allow handguns in. Crime prevention programs were cut under Stephen Harper. This party has manipulated and falsified information to scare people while they supported criminals and while Tony Clement was taking money, which should have protected people, to buy fake boats and create fake lakes all across Muskoka. He did not even get re-elected.
Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to hear the arrogant tone from that member when every step of the way he has voted in favour of soft-on-crime legislation that has cost the lives of women, children and innocent people across this country because of his efforts to support the Liberals.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is very aware of the rules, but to accuse a member of being responsible for the murder of women is very inexcusable. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologize to the House.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member knows full well that she is not to attack individual members personally. I would ask her to withdraw and apologize.
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, it is difficult to apologize for something that is true. The member has voted in favour—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
We have a point of order.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, when the Speaker asks someone to withdraw a heinous remark like that, they do not get to debate. She either withdraws and apologizes or you do not recognize her.
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I believe, if you check the records, you will find that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said that the member voted for legislation that caused this. She did not say that he caused it. I believe you need to check the record on this.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The member accused another member in this House of being responsible for the deaths of women and children. That is inexcusable. The member needs to withdraw and apologize unequivocally.
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It was because of the Liberals and the NDP bringing a bill that led to the murder of women and children.
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I sat here listening to this and clearly heard the member talking about how the hon. member from the New Democratic Party was responsible for the deaths of women. That is something that absolutely needs to be withdrawn. It is so unacceptable.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I will allow two more points of order. At the end of the day, given the information that is going back and forth about what was exactly said, I will take the time to review the tape and come back to the House.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, this is a classic case of if people shout enough then quorum gets interrupted.
The ruling was that you asked the member to withdraw, not to debate. Under Standing Order 18 and House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 13, you asked the member to withdraw. Now you are saying that it is okay not to withdraw if we debate it. Therefore, I would ask you to go back and check Hansard for what you said. You asked her to withdraw. She refused—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I am sorry. The hon. member's mic was cut off unexpectedly.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, you asked for a withdrawal, so you cannot decide later to allow this debate. You asked for a withdrawal. The member has refused.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. My point is around procedure.
I have listened to similar points of order in the past, and the practice, if not the rule, has been that when the Speaker makes a ruling on a point of order, that ruling is dealt with prior to hearing other points of order. What happened in this case is that you heard the point of order, you ruled on it and then heard several other points of order, some of which possibly were points of debate on that point of order. Therefore, if you reverse your ruling on the point of order and do not require the withdrawal and apology, I think it sets a very dangerous precedent for this House and we are going to continue to decline into disorder in debate, which is not serving anyone. Therefore, I would ask you to follow your first ruling and uphold the rules of the House.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Despite the attempts to silence a strong Conservative woman in this House, I would note yesterday that the Speaker in the Chair did entertain from the New Democratic Party a challenge to a ruling that had been made the previous day. Therefore, the precedent was set yesterday that a ruling could be in fact challenged. It was the NDP that championed it yesterday, so let us let the member, my colleague from Manitoba, finish her speech. If the other members of this place are offended by the consequences of their votes, then they can enter into it in the context of Qs and Cs or debate later on, but let us get back to work so we can stand up for victims.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Again, I want to indicate that, given the points of order that have been raised, I took the hon. member's word because I did not quite hear what the hon. member had indicated. I will review the video, given the points of order that have been raised, and will come back to the House and advise the members of what has transpired from that video. I hope this is good.
I still have people rising on this point of order. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, you are given the authority to ensure order in this House. You required that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul withdraw and apologize for her reprehensible comments. I hope you will stay with that ruling. It is a clear violation of Standing Order 18.