Debates of May 23rd, 2024

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the answer of the specific question right away, but I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize the valuable role that caregivers provide to our communities in every region of the country. They do incredible work. Because of the fine work they do, people's lives are that much better, and in many ways they get to continue to live in communities, maybe where they have grown up from childhood, and communities in which, maybe because of some sort of a devastating accident, they find themselves in need of having a caregiver.

I wanted to acknowledge at the very beginning how important caregivers are to our communities and to our society and thank them from a personal perspective. I know the feelings I have toward caregivers and the fine work that they do is shared among all members of Parliament. I can definitely speak on behalf of the Liberal caucus because I know that to be true.

I think of what the government has done specifically. The Canada caregiver credit is a non-refundable tax credit for those who have expenses linked to taking care of a disabled or impaired family member. As one example, this tax credit is intended to compensate caregivers for non-discretionary, out-of-pocket expenses incurred while offering care. It applies both for physical and mental impairment and extends to spouses and their families, children or parents. This allows families that are burdened with taking care of an impaired loved one to expense up to $8,000 on their tax return. There are things that we do that are very direct, and I would suggest that this is direct.

There are also things that take place that are indirect but also very supportive. For example, in the budget, for the first time ever, we have a nationwide disability program, which would see literally hundreds of millions of dollars invested in an area. Many of the recipients who would be receiving this are individuals who are receiving care also. We will see that by providing this sort of additional support. I think it might be the single largest expenditure in a budget line for new programming. It is a significant amount of money.

We are looking at ways in which we can support caregivers, whether directly through deductions or indirectly through ways we can enhance opportunities for or the independence of individuals who have disabilities, and each complements the other.

This is not a government that says we are just going to take a look at one aspect of how we can support caregivers. I think that there are different ways we can not only acknowledge, but support, caregivers and individuals who are recipients of caregivers' actions.

I see that as a positive step forward. It is important that the national government continues to work with other authorities, in particular our provinces, which also provide independent living types of programs and enhanced care programs.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that at least the member is starting to have a conversation about it and use words around “fine work”. I understand that by “fine work”, he means the 28 years it took for the government to actually have a child care program.

I benefited from a child care program starting in 1995 in Quebec, and many of my colleagues outside of Quebec had to wait 28 years. It was “fine work”, for over 28 years, done by all the women out there who looked after the kids so that many of the MPs in the House could become parliamentary secretaries, ministers and so on.

The fine words are not going to pay the bills, so I would say again that the Liberal government promised this refundable caregiver tax credit. That is a no-brainer. As far as I am concerned, that should be immediate, but I remind the Liberals that they have also promised a pension benefit to personal support workers, such as those at SEIU, who are still waiting to be able to retire.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member has acknowledged the deduction issue, but she also, at the beginning of her speech, made reference to child care, and 28 years is a long time. However, we would have had something in place back in, I think, 2004-06, with Paul Martin's proposal for child care, which Ken Dryden did a phenomenal job on. I was very disappointed, as it was there and all in place. Unfortunately, we could not get the support of the New Democrats at that time, and as a result, we ended up losing government. That plan was, sadly, flushed.

Having said that, under this minority government, and after a shuffling of the New Democratic members of Parliament, we were able to bring in a child care program that will ensure $10-a-day day care. The member is right in that it is very much modelled after what had taken place in Quebec. The Province of Quebec did it right, and because of that, we have a program that is very similar to the Province of Quebec's program. As a result, we have a national child care program.

Ethics

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a straightforward question that the Minister of Employment refuses to answer. How much has the minister been paid by Navis Group since the minister was appointed to cabinet?

The minister's dealings with Navis Group raise serious ethical questions, including whether the minister broke the law by contravening the Conflict of Interest Act.

Navis Group is owned by the minister's business partner. The minister was receiving, and continues to receive, payments from Navis Group. As the minister was receiving these payments, Navis Group was lobbying the minister's own department and managed to secure $110 million in federal contracts for its client. This has all the markings of self-dealing, conflict of interest and corruption.

When the Minister of Employment appeared at committee on the estimates, I asked him about his shady arrangement with Navis Group. The minister effectively said that there was nothing to see here, and that it was all above board. The minister claimed it had been approved by the Ethics Commissioner.

However, the minister's statement at committee was patently false. It was patently false because, in fact, the minister actively concealed from the Ethics Commissioner his connection to Navis Group. More specifically, the minister's disclosure to the Ethics Commissioner conveniently hid behind a numbered company without disclosing that the numbered company was Navis Group. A statement from the Office of the Ethics Commissioner confirms that the Ethics Commissioner was unaware of the minister's connection with Navis Group. Therefore, the Ethics Commissioner was unaware that the company that was paying the minister was simultaneously lobbying the minister's department and successfully securing $110 million in grants for its client.

What we have is a shady deal, a shady arrangement, that the minister actively concealed from the Ethics Commissioner. When the minister got caught, he attempted to misdirect by peddling the falsehood that it had been approved by the Ethics Commissioner, raising additional questions about the minister's fitness for office. Since this scandal broke, the minister has not had the guts to stand in the House once and answer questions. Instead, the minister has been shielded by other ministers in the government who have dodged and deflected on the minister's behalf.

On behalf of Canadian taxpayers, who have footed the $110 million bill to Navis Group, how much did the minister pocket from Navis Group? I just need a number.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear and precise on this at the start. The minister has always followed the strict ethics rules that apply to him as an elected official. Canada has one of the strictest ethics regimes in the world for elected officials, and that is exactly what Canadians expect. The minister has always conducted himself in an ethical manner that follows the spirit and letter of those rules. The minister has already addressed this matter. On that particular point, I am going to reflect on what I have witnessed from the official opposition, virtually from day one.

When I say day one, I am talking about the election that was in late 2015. Since our Prime Minister became Prime Minister, the Conservative Party of Canada's focus has been purely on character assassination, whether of the Prime Minister or other ministers, and it has been consistent on that. It did not matter what the circumstances were. The Conservatives will look under every rock and then throw out the word “scandal”, and all sorts of negative words, to try to create something. Often they will create something out of absolutely nothing.

The Conservatives like to get the headline that will say “scandal”. If they get a scandal headline, I think they possibly get a gold star in the Conservative back room. There are some members, and I would classify my friend as one of them, who are like a pit bull with a bone. They just do not want to let go until they get five gold stars. That is the type of attitude that I often see. The Conservatives are more focused on that character assassination than on what is actually affecting Canadians.

What have we seen over the last eight or nine years as a government? We have seen a government that has been focused on things such as enhancing Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We have seen a government that has recognized the importance of the generational gap and the need to have that higher sense of fairness. We have seen budget legislation. We have seen other forms of legislation there to support Canadians and have their backs during the pandemic or during difficult times. When there are issues such as inflation and affordability, we have seen a series of measures. We see that because, no matter what the Conservatives try to throw at the government with character assassinations, we continue to be focused on what is important to Canadians.

I can assure members that, going forward, over the next 18 months or, hopefully, beyond, we will see a government that will continue to focus on the interests of Canadians. We will be there to support Canadians in very real and tangible ways. I suspect that we will still continue to see the members of the Conservative Party look under every rock to see what they can find, so they can throw around the word “scandal” as much as they can in the hope that they will be able to get that headline.

If there is anything that tries to make this chamber look dysfunctional, anything that calls characters into question, whether it is justified or not, we can count on the Conservatives to stand and raise issues. That is fine. They are the official opposition, and they can do that. However, I will advise them that, as the Conservatives continue to do that, we will continue to work and be there for Canadians in a very real way.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary claimed that the minister addressed the matter. The minister has done no such thing. Indeed, the minister has refused to stand in the House to answer a single question, and when I asked him a question at committee, he misdirected by falsely claiming that it had been cleared by the Ethics Commissioner when the arrangement clearly had not been.

Here are the facts: The minister was being paid by a firm owned by his business partner that was lobbying his own department, and it secured $110 million in federal grants for its client. That smacks of a conflict of interest. Is the parliamentary secretary comfortable to stand in the House to tell Canadians that this is the low ethical bar set by the government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to say whenever we hear a Conservative say, “Here are the facts,” we should beware. When we think of the pandemic and the billions of dollars that were spent on the pandemic, we will hear the Conservatives say there was a Liberal who owned a particular company and received some sort of grant. They will say it is a huge scandal. However, we will find that for some Liberal entrepreneurs, but also for some Conservative entrepreneurs. I suspect there might even have been some separatist entrepreneurs and New Democrat entrepreneurs.

When we have contracts and procurements and other things that are in place, and when we have an ethics commissioner, I take their efforts a whole lot more sincerely than those of the Conservative opposition, because with everything they see, they try to say things are broken and things are scandalous. That has been non-stop since 2015.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into a committee of the whole for the consideration of all votes under Department of Justice in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Justice in the main estimates, Mr. Greg Fergus in the chair)

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The House is now in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Justice in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

Today's debate is a general one on all votes under Department of Justice. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time. This time may be used for both debate and for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least five minutes for questions to the minister. When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be used for speeches and how much time will be used for questions and answers.

Also, pursuant to order made earlier today, members who wish to share their time with one or more members shall indicate this to the Chair, and the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's response should approximately reflect the time taken by the question, since this time will count toward the time allocated to the member.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the time provided for the debate tonight may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all of the established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to participate this evening in this important debate. I want to state at the outset that I will be splitting my time for the last five minutes with the member for Thornhill.

I am going to start off with an easy question for the minister, just to get things started.

What year did the Liberal Party form its majority government?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party formed majority government in 2015.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, 2015 is important, because you are going to hear the number 2015 quite a bit.

I will note, minister, that when you were first appointed, one of the things you said in your new role was that for Canadians it was empirically unlikely that Canada was becoming less safe. I would say Canadians would say that is not true. I would say Statistics Canada would say that is not true.

There has been a shift in the crime rate since 2015 that we are going to talk about this evening. On the serious Criminal Code offence of homicide, have those rates gone up or down since the Liberals formed government in 2015?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Members should address their questions through the Chair.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments from the member for Fundy Royal, what I would say and have said previously in this chamber is that upon my initial appointment, I had not yet received briefings with respect to crime statistics. Since that time, in late August and early September, I received statistical briefings on violent crime statistics, and they have, indeed, gone up in Canada.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is tremendously unfortunate that before even being briefed, the minister was telling Canadians that it was all in their heads that we were experiencing a crisis in our justice system, but it is not all in Canadians' heads. The statistics tell us that violent crime has gone up tremendously. In fact, the rate of homicide has gone up 43% since 2015, the highest it has been in 30 years.

What about gang-related homicides? Have those gone up or down since 2015?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again I appreciate the first question and the tone, but not the tone of the last two questions.

I never used the term about things being fictitious, etc. I asked for empirical evidence. I have been given the empirical evidence, and that empirical evidence demonstrates that violent crime has gone up.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, what the minister said was that his role was to tell Canadians that it was empirically unlikely that Canada is becoming less safe. In fact, violent crime is up 39%.

Now that he has been briefed, could the minister tell us how much, according to Statistics Canada, gang-related homicides have gone up since 2015, only nine years ago?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I can indicate to Canadians is that my job as Minister of Justice is to work to keep Canadians safe in their communities and in their homes. I understand that violent crime has gone up. That is why I am taking measures to, indeed, do exactly that. Some of the measures that I have taken include changes to the bail system and proposing different penalties and tougher penalties for things like automobile theft.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, just the opposite is true. Every step the government has taken in the last nine years has made the situation worse.

Can the minister tell Canadians tonight how much violent gun crime, according to Statistics Canada, has gone up since 2015?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Fundy Royal has decided to raise issues that relate to gun crimes, because I can indicate to Canadians watching this evening that we take gun violence very seriously. That is why we have taken steps with initiatives such as an assault rifle ban and a national ban and freeze on the sale of handguns. That was done in legislation in Bill C-21, which the member voted against.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if it was not so serious, it would be laughable.

The minister is talking about steps his government has taken, but I will answer the question. Violent gun crime is up 101% since 2015 alone, when the Liberals took office. We are hearing from the minister about what he is doing, but, unfortunately, the statistics tell us that everything they are doing, every step of the way, has been to make Canadians less safe.

Speaking of which, does the minister have the rate of police-reported sexual assault since 2015?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the member opposite that when he and his party vote against initiatives that keep Canadians safe, I think Canadians question the sincerity of questions like the one he just put to me.

Bill C-21, which I mentioned, talks about a national freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns. He voted against that. It also increased penalties for firearms trafficking. He voted against that. It also created new offences to help stop ghost guns. He voted against that.

If there was sincerity on the part of the member opposite with respect to tackling the pressing issue of gun violence, I would presume the voting pattern would have been the opposite.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question. Sexual assaults are up 71% since 2015, when the Liberals took government, nine years ago. It is beyond ironic that the minister questions why Conservatives on this side would not support their agenda. Of course we do not support their agenda. We want to make Canada a safe place, where kids can play in playgrounds and parents can send their kids to school and not be worried about them. Canada is a less safe place under the government, and the minister, in his answers tonight, has shown no indication whatsoever that he is prepared to reverse course.

On April 21, an individual in Victoria stole a vehicle. He was arrested by the Victoria police, taken before court and let out on bail. On April 22, the same individual stole another vehicle. The police did their job, so let us not blame the police. They arrested him, he was brought before a judge and he was let out on bail. On April 23, three days in a row, this individual was arrested for a third time for breaking into a house to steal a motor vehicle.

Does the minister know where the Victoria police laid the blame for this outrageous development, that someone in Canada could be arrested three times on successive days and be let out on bail each time?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of points in there, and I will respond to all of them.

The first point would be that in respect of Canadians' safety, what I would put to him is that Bill C-21, which he voted against, also dealt with intimate partner violence and things like red flag laws. Those have now become law, no thanks to him and his party and their voting pattern. The red flag laws actually allow the police to intercept firearms from the home of someone who is deemed to be a threat to their partner or to other individuals. That is called keeping Canadians safe, so I reject outright the premise of his earlier question.

With respect to bail, he will be aware that bail is a determination that is made by actors in our justice system, including justices of the peace. We have taken steps to strengthen the bail system to keep Canadians safe. On that piece, I will credit the member. He did vote in favour of Bill C-48, which deals with serious violent repeat offenders, on whom there is now a reverse onus for procuring bail. That is a step in the right direction in keeping Canadians safe.