Debates of Nov. 21st, 2024

Decorum

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As I indicated, I will review the tape and will come back to the House either way.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, out of respect for the House, I want to understand. If the Speaker asks someone to withdraw, but enough members of her party cause mayhem in the House then she does not have to withdraw. If that is the case, then we understand the rules of the House, so that is the ruling that we are working with under—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member. As I indicated, given the additional points of order that have been made on this issue, I will endeavour to get the exact wording that was said. I will come back to the House shortly. We are looking into it right now.

The hon. member was finishing up her response. I would just ask members to please be judicial in everything that they say. The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul has maybe 20 seconds to finish.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Public Safety and National Security

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to end my remarks commemorating Karolina Huebner-Makurat, who was shot by a man out on bail in Leslieville, Toronto.

There are many women who have been killed by people out on bail. That member voted for softer bail legislation. That is on him. If he is not comfortable with it, then maybe he should do something about it and stop supporting the Liberal government.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberals are not worth the crime or the chaos that they have unleashed on Canada's streets. This study on gun and gang violence was conducted back in 2022, two years ago. In rereading our common-sense Conservative recommendations and conclusions that were made at that committee and in that report, I see that everything we said at the time has come to pass. Liberal policies have done nothing to stop gun crime in this country. The legacy of the current Liberal government will be a weak justice system, the absence of good enforcement and a border that is leaking smuggled guns and stolen cars as it never has before. In fact, violent gun crime has increased by over 100% since the Prime Minister took office with the current government.

Now, the Prime Minister has been saying that he will ban the firearms of law-abiding Canadians while completely ignoring the crime wave that his government has unleashed with its soft-on-crime policies. After nine years, committing a crime and getting away with it has never been easier.

Professional organized criminals are taking note; they are taking full advantage of the government's soft-on-crime policies. Canada has become a massive exporter of stolen cars and a net importer of illegal firearms under the current Liberal government. At one time in 2022, there was a vehicle being stolen every five minutes in Canada, and we know what these stolen vehicles are used for. They are used to fund organized crime and international terrorism, as well as to finance the purchase of drugs and guns, which are wreaking havoc on our streets.

These sophisticated, industrial-level organized criminals are targeting Canada precisely because of the soft-on-crime policies of the government. Auto theft is not a victimless crime, despite what some have said. It is a crime that costs all Canadians because our insurance premiums go up; moreover, as we increasingly see, these desperate criminals are carjacking people's vehicles in broad daylight. In fact, in some cases, vehicles are being stolen with children sitting in the back seat. It is an absolute disgrace. Why does it only take $1 billion in insured losses in our auto-theft sector for the government to finally start taking action?

Conservatives have been consistent in calling out the Liberal government's abysmal record. In fact, back in 2022, at the public safety committee, we had the then chief of the Toronto Police Service come to testify about the government's gun buyback programs.

I asked the chief of police, “If the government's policy was that they wanted to buy hard drugs off the street [in a drug buyback] as a means to reduce the proliferation of drugs on the street, would that be an effective tool to get hard drugs off the street?”

This is what Chief Demkiw said: “I do not believe it would be an effective tool.”

To that, I responded, “Then why should it be effective for gun policy?”

His response was:

I would not suggest it was effective for gun policy. The City of Toronto's experience is that guns that are being used in crime are not from law-abiding citizens. They're guns being smuggled from the United States. Those engaged in handling those firearms are not law-abiding, licensed gun owners; they are criminals with no firearms licence.

That is coming from the Toronto chief of police. The Liberals have now squandered $70 million, and they are promising to spend over $1 billion more on this gun confiscation program. They have yet to seize a single firearm. Conservatives, experts and frontline police officers have all said that this is a flawed approach to crime on our streets.

Let us talk about this border under the Liberals. Conservatives have repeatedly said that this gun confiscation regime was useless. Taxpayer money needs to be spent on the technology and the manpower to secure our borders. The brave men and women of the CBSA have not been given the proper support by the government. At the public safety committee in 2022, the CBSA union representative said, “not only is Canada's ability to prevent smuggling lacking, but its capacity to gather reliable and sound data is also inadequate.” That is after nine years of the current Liberal government.

The Liberals can come here and talk about what the Conservatives did, but they have had nine years to take action, and this is what the CBSA union is saying today. Moreover, the representative said, “[T]here's...a zero per cent chance that any illegal weapons entering the country via rail will ever be found.” There is a huge gap at our border.

Canadians have lost faith. As we saw with numerous alleged cases of terrorists who crossed our borders in this past year alone, we have seen ISIS-inspired terrorists evade our borders. United States border statistics have shown that, in 2023, there were 484 matches on the U.S. terrorist watch-list at land ports of entry along the Canada-U.S. border. Since 2017, these numbers have gone up by 123%.

How many more of these terrorists are being allowed to cross the border from Canada into the United States? Why is Canada not taking action to protect our border and to assure our ally that we are taking the necessary actions needed not only to protect Canadians but also to protect our allies?

With crime and chaos skyrocketing, police unions have come out publicly. I have never seen such a thing. It is quite unprecedented. They have taken the step of calling out the government's failed record. I am just going to quote some of these police experts. We have the chief of Peel Regional Police, who said that “90 per cent of...firearms that we seize are directly traced back to the U.S.” and that “the remaining 10% are likely also from the U.S.” He also said, “The availability of firearms has just saturated the community”.

The Surrey Police union is saying, “The federal handgun freeze fails to address the real issue: the surge of illegal firearms coming across our borders”. The Toronto Police Association says, “What difference does [their] handgun ban make when 85 per cent of the guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?” The National Post says, “Peel Police are seizing an illegal gun...every 30 hours — an 87 per cent increase over the year prior.”

People can maybe say that they like the government's intent, but if we are judging it by the outcome of this policy, it has been an abysmal failure. In fact, back in 2022, when we had the previous minister of public safety come to committee, he was more concerned about Canadians who are going to the RCMP and the Canadian firearms program and getting their firearms licence than he was about stopping organized criminals from smuggling guns over our border and committing crimes in Canada. That just shows us what the priorities of the Liberal government have been after these last nine years.

Liberals prefer to go after law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and indigenous hunters rather than the real criminals, whom they are giving softer bail sentences to. They are cutting minimum sentences. They are not doing anything to stop the flow of illegal guns over our border or that of stolen vehicles leaving our country.

The Prime Minister's radical catch-and-release policies are allowing repeat violent offenders to avoid jail. Since the government passed Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which gave a high priority to releasing repeat violent offenders and took away mandatory jail time for certain violent crimes, a crime wave has been unleashed across this country as a result.

Data shows that, in 2022, 30% of people who were murdered in Canada were killed by somebody who was out on bail. The outcome of these Liberal policies is shocking. Regardless of what we think about the Liberals' intent, the outcome has been an abject failure. Experts at committee have also said that 68% of car thieves in Ontario spend under six months in jail. These are the ideal conditions for organized criminals, who are carrying out violent crime on our streets, and our communities now offer a low risk but a high reward for criminals.

In conclusion, in 2015, our country was far safer than it is now. We have become a huge exporter of stolen vehicles. We have also become an exporter of fentanyl. Canada has become the top exporter of fentanyl to the country of Australia. It is absolutely shameful. Canada is becoming a playground for organized crime, and criminals are using our country's lax laws to commit mayhem, bringing crime, death and destruction across the world. This was not the case before the Prime Minister came into power, and it will not be the case after the Conservative government gets into power. We are going to axe the tax, fight the crime, get rid of the corruption and make our streets safe.

With that, I would like to move an amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented on Monday, April 25, 2022, be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the committee for further consideration, with a view to studying the rates of violent crime which have remained unacceptably high in the 31 months since this report was originally tabled, and updating the recommendations with proposals to stop the crimes which are creating far too many preventable tragedies, provided that, for the purposes of this study:

(a) the following be ordered to appear as witnesses, for at least two hours each, at dates and times to be fixed by the Chair of the committee, but no later than Tuesday, December 17, 2024:

(i) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs,

(ii) the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; and

(b) it be an instruction that the committee

(i) hold at least four other meetings to receive evidence from law enforcement, victims' representatives, stakeholders and experts, proposed by the members of the committee,

(ii) invite representatives of the following organizations:

(A) the Toronto Police Association,

(B) the Surrey Police Union,

(C) la Fédération des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec,

(D) the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and

(E) the John Howard Society of Canada, and

(iii) report its findings to the House by Friday, February 28, 2025.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. deputy government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I am fully aware of the insanely busy agenda going on right now at SECU, as well as the games that Conservatives are currently playing there. In particular, they have been filibustering and introducing motions to prevent one thing, which is the study on foreign interference by India and Russia. By introducing the amendment in the House, the member is trying to get an order from the House to direct the committee to do even more work so that the Conservatives can further prevent that study from occurring.

Can the member please stand up and explain why the Conservatives do not want to have the study on foreign interference conducted?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is quite telling that we have a Liberal member over there who is unhappy that Conservatives want to do more work. That is what we are here to do: We are here to talk about the issues that are important to Canadians. All the issues that the member cited are important to Canadians.

However, if the Liberal government set out to implement a series of justice and public safety policies designed to increase the rate of death and murders on our streets, as well as the numbers of violent criminals, stolen cars and smuggled firearms, it is doing an excellent job. The Liberals have increased crime and made our country less safe. It is going to take a Conservative government to fight the crime in this country, to bring back common-sense public safety and justice policies. These policies will ensure that repeat violent offenders stay behind bars so that Canadian streets, Canadian children and Canadian vehicles are safe, and Canadians can walk our streets again. Not that long ago, Canadians felt safe in this country; however, after nine years of the Liberal government, that has changed, and it is a tragic thing.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about stolen vehicles. I met with people to discuss this issue, and they raised the following question. How could we better use technology in the ports to more easily determine what is in the containers? How can we make sure that there are more technologies in the ports to make it easier to discover stolen vehicles? This possible step towards a solution was suggested by several associations I met with to discuss this issue.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up that question. Technology is absolutely going to be essential in the fight against not only smuggled guns but also stolen vehicles. However, we cannot view technology as a crutch or an entire solution when we have a policy that lets repeat violent offenders or repeat car thieves out on the street in months. Humans are very capable of adapting to situations, and I worry that whenever we do bring in a new technology, there will be a very smart criminal out there trying to find a way around it.

Yes, we need to implement new technologies; however, we also need to do the very basic thing, which is to keep these repeat violent offenders, these repeat car thieves, behind bars. We also need to get people out of a life of crime, especially children, who are very vulnerable to being recruited into crime. We need fewer criminals, and then we will not need the technology as much. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we have a technological approach, but we also need a strong criminal justice approach. That is what a common-sense Conservative government promises to do.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, for my colleague from Sturgeon River—Parkland, recommendation 20 in the report states, “That the Government of Canada allocate additional human and financial resources to the Canada Border Services Agency to enable them to better investigate and apprehend those attempting to smuggle illegal firearms into Canada”. The Harper government cut 1,100 CBSA officers, and our southern border is of considerable importance right now, particularly in the context of the incoming Trump administration. The NDP has called for the reinstatement, the hiring, of those 1,100 border officers that Canada so greatly needs.

Will the Conservatives and the member stand with us to call on the government to hire back those important workers?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just ask members to look at the public accounts from the time. Conservatives were investing in our border. We were supporting our border agencies and giving them the technologies and the support they needed.

However, I think it is also somewhat of a simplistic solution to say that we need to hire more people. Of course if there are people who are ready and willing to do the job, then we need to give them an opportunity to do the job, but we are facing a recruitment and retention crisis across this country in the military, in the RCMP and at CBSA.

We do not need simplistic slogans about how we are just going to hire 2,000 more people to fill jobs. We need actual solutions that are going to result in better recruitment and more retention. We also need force multipliers to give those people who are continuing to work all the tools they need to complete the job so they can do the job that two people, three people or four people did previously. That is a solution we need, as well as hiring new people.

Decorum—Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that if they are not being recognized to please not shout out their questions or comments. It is very difficult to hear what members are saying, even if they are right beside me.

Before I go to the next speaker, I do want to come back right away to the House on the points of order that were raised. I thank everyone who contributed. I said that I would review what was indicated. I have reviewed, and it is clear that what was said was not directly attributed to the member; it spoke about legislation. However, it did solicit some disagreement in the House. I just want to indicate to members to please be judicious in how they say things in the House, to try to prevent disorder.

I have ruled on this, so I hope that members are not challenging the Chair.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not challenging your clarification. What I am asking for is clarity so we know in the future how procedures are going to take place in the House. The practice in the past has been that when the Speaker makes a ruling and asks a member to withdraw and apologize, the matter is dealt with prior to hearing other points of order. What happened today was that you made a ruling, waited a few moments, entertained several other points of order and then chose not to enforce your previous ruling.

I think this is a very dangerous road for us to go down, and I take my Conservative colleague's point that there has been precedent for this just recently from the Speaker. It does not matter which party is proposing the point of order. I think we need to uphold a situation where the Speaker's ruling is respected and enforced in the moment. If that is not going to be the case, then we are certainly going to increase points of order in the wake of other points of order so we can argue our points and try to overturn the Speaker's ruling.

I do not think that is a productive way for the House to proceed, so I would ask for clarity from the Table and from you as to how we are going to proceed in the future.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I think you have made the absolute correct ruling in this case, but the fact is that the point of order in your ruling would not have been necessary at all if the member for Timmins—James Bay had not misinformed the House and attributed a false statement to my colleague. I am happy to apologize—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate, and the hon. member knows full well that he should not say indirectly what he cannot say directly.

Sometimes during debate, words are used or context is put. Again, it is an interpretation, and that is the case in this instance.

To the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, it is not unusual for others to raise points of order in an attempt to clarify what was said. I indicated I would review the video and Hansard, which I did. I happen to have it. It says that the member voted in favour of soft-on-crime legislation, so it was about the legislation itself. As I indicated, this has caused disorder in the House, so I would ask members to please be judicious in what they say.

Again, as I indicated, this is based on the additional information that was provided to clarify what was said. I always try to take what members say they have heard. In this instance, it is an interpretation.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order. I hope it is not to challenge the Chair.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not a challenge to the Chair, and I respect your ruling, but what you just read was not the issue. The fact that I vote for legislation or do not is a fundamental issue of the House. My concern was having been accused of the murder of women and children, so whether I vote for certain legislation or not was not the issue for which a retraction was asked.

I am very concerned that the Speaker is putting on the record and repeating something that I was not contesting. It was not whether it was legislation; it was about being accused, which I think is really vile, of coming into the House and supporting the murder of women and children. It is a simple question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would again say that it is in the interpretation. It is clear by what was actually said to me that there was an interpretation piece, but it did raise disorder. I have asked members to please be judicious in what they say.

The matter is now closed.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Public Safety and National Security

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise today not necessarily surprised. I somewhat anticipated the Conservative Party's being consistent with its ongoing weeks and weeks of the multi-million dollar game the leader of the Conservative Party has chosen to play because of his personal self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party.

Conservatives are not concerned whatsoever with what is happening to the real lives of people in our communities throughout the nation. I find that disrespectful. Ultimately, no matter how the Conservative Party performs inside the House of Commons, I can assure people following the debate that whether it is the Prime Minister or any other member of the Liberal caucus, we will continue to be focused on Canadians, understanding and appreciating the issues that are so vitally important.

Whether it is on issues surrounding affordability, on issues surrounding the legislation we are trying to bring through to protect children from online harm, or looking at ways in which we can shift responsibilities from military courts to civilian courts in order to protect the interests of sexually abused individuals, the government's focus will continue to be on advancing the interests of Canadians.

Having said that, it is very disappointing that the Conservatives have chosen to raise this particular report and then, after moving the motion, have moved an amendment that ultimately would have the report take priority over a very serious issue that the leader of the Conservative Party has been going out of his way to avoid.

The leader of the Conservative Party says he wants accountability; however, that accountability applies only to every other political entity and definitely not to the leader of the Conservative Party. Members would know full well that the public safety committee is attempting to deal with the issue of foreign interference, raising two countries in particular: India and Russia. The Conservative Party, under the instruction of the leader of the Conservative Party, is doing what it can to prevent that debate from taking place.

Conservatives do not want the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to be dealing with the issue of foreign interference. It is a very serious issue; we think of an individual Canadian having been murdered in Canada, extortion taking place in communities in Canada and political interference taking place in Canada, including in the leadership of the Conservative Party. In the leadership that the leader of the Conservative Party won, there are serious allegations of foreign interference.

There are all sorts of very serious issues in which the Conservative Party does not want accountability. This is highlighted in the leader of the Conservative Party. He is the only leader of the House of Commons today who continues to refuse to get the security clearance necessary in order to protect not his party quite frankly, even that would be good, but the interests of Canadians. He is putting his interests ahead of the interests of Canadians when it comes to foreign interference.

The question is why. What is the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular the leader of the Conservative Party, so scared of? What is the background of the leader of the Conservative Party? Is there something there that Canadians need to know? Is the reason he has chosen not to get the security clearance that he knows he is not going to be able to get the clearance? The reason the Conservative Party is trying to give to fool Canadians is absolutely bogus; there is no merit to it whatsoever.

Today, we now have a motion to amend, to make the public safety committee a priority, to stop the debate on the issue. They do not want us to be talking about international foreign interference. What is driving the leader of the Conservative Party to refuse to get that security clearance?

I should say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington.

I can tell members that it is very upsetting to see the way the Conservative Party, over the last number of weeks, has conducted itself. People should not be surprised because Stephen Harper was the individual who was found to be in contempt of Parliament, and the leader of the Conservative Party was his parliamentary secretary. We know that Stephen Harper was his mentor in many ways. Today, we see the leader of the Conservative Party instructing the Conservative Party, the official opposition, to not only filibuster the House but also prevent a very important debate from taking place at the public safety committee.

Recently there was a story that was published on CBC. I would like to quote from it because it is important for Canadians to understand the degree to which the leader of the Conservative Party loves to have control. It says:

After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party] as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.

The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada “the freest country in the world” maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members.

That is the type of control we are seeing today. Here is one of the comments in the article from a Conservative: “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself ... The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.”

This should be mandatory reading for all Canadians who want to understand the type of leader the leader of the Conservative Party is. He talks about freedom, but we have the example of how he has punished Conservative MPs in tangible ways for advocating for things, such as housing, in their own communities. MPs in the Conservative Party do not bring issues to the leader. It is the other way around. The leader of the Conservative Party has it backward.

The purpose of an MP is not to communicate messages from their leader. It is the opposite. We are supposed to be taking the pulse of our communities and bringing it to the attention of our leader. This story, which was updated on November 20, is worth the read because it gives us a sense of who the leader of the Conservative Party really is.

He needs to stop the filibuster. He needs to have more accountability for what is taking place. I would challenge the leader of the Conservative Party to have a debate on this issue in detail and not just have the slogans and the bumper stickers, which he is exceptionally well known for. Rather, let us get into the substance.

Let us see the leader of the Conservative Party get the security clearance, and if he is not going to get the security clearance, he should tell Canadians why. What is in his background that he is hiding from Canadians? That is what it is. He needs to come clean with Canadians, stop playing this political game of personal self-interest and start dealing with the interests of Canadians. He needs to allow the House and the committees to do the fine work that we know can be done in serving all Canadians.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about MPs who had a history of being Ottawa's voice back in their communities, Ralph Goodale was exactly that. We now have a fine colleague here from Regina—Wascana, who is the voice for the people of Regina—Wascana here in Ottawa. He has done a fantastic job, in stark contrast with Ralph Goodale, who was the Liberal mouthpiece back into Saskatchewan.

When we talk about what Conservatives are going to do, we are going to make sure we have more colleagues like my friend from Regina—Wascana here in this chamber when we are all said and done. That is how it is going to work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we all know that is not true. Members can just read the story I referenced. Here is another quote from it: “Some elected officials feel they come to caucus ‘to be told what to do and what to think’”. If Conservative MPs do not say the slogans, they are in trouble. They are obligated within their caucus.

There are members of the caucus staff who monitor the things MPs do. If they talk to me nicely outside of the chamber, they can get in trouble. The Conservative leader says not to talk to MPs unless they are in their own political party. This is the mentality of a tight ship and a bubble of one. Stephen Harper had a tight bubble, but this is a bubble of one.

I encourage members to read the article. There is a lot of merit to it. It is what Conservatives are saying about their own leader.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a bit off topic this morning. He addressed other topics related to public safety. However, I would like to circle back to this morning's topic, which we have discussed at length, and that is the increase in crime, in particular against women.

This morning, a lot of my questions relate to that, because the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying the epidemic of violence against women. We are talking about collaboration. The Bloc Québécois proposed splitting Bill C-5 so we could take a bit more time to properly study crimes against women, given that the bill had a few problems.

When it came time to collaborate on the issue of women's safety, why did the government refuse to split Bill C-5 so that we could study crimes against women more thoroughly to help prevent them?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, whether it was the issue of banning assault-style firearms, other gun control measures or beefing up supports in different areas to support women in all regions of the country, we have been doing that, and we will continue to do so going forward. There is a great deal of compassion and interest about the issues the member raised, and the minister is open to having that dialogue. If there are ideas to improve the legislation, obviously we would be very interested in doing so. Over the last nine years as a government, both in majority and minority, we have clearly demonstrated our willingness to accept good amendments to legislation that would improve it.