Damien Kurek

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, May 8th, 2024]

moved:

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the short title.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition I rise to present today in the House of Commons is from numerous Canadians who, and it is not the first time I have to present a petition like this, share their concern about how the Liberal Party of Canada, in its 2021 platform, promised to deny the charitable status of organizations that have convictions that differ from those of the Liberal Party. In some cases, it may jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that simply do not agree with the Liberal Party on matters of conscience.

Many Canadians depend on, and benefit from, the charitable work done by these organizations, and certainly, these Canadians are very concerned about the imposition of a values test similar to that used to eliminate so many organizations from the Canada summer jobs program, as we saw a number of years ago.

Therefore, a host of Canadians call upon the House of Commons to, one, protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test and, two, to affirm the rights of Canadians to freedom of expression.

As always, it is an honour to stand, on behalf of so many Canadians, to present these three petitions here in the House today.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I rise to present in the House was signed by numerous Canadians concerned about freedom of expression in this country. The petitioners recognize that Bill C-257 seeks to add protection against political discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Therefore, these Canadians call upon the House of Commons to, one, support Bill C-257, which would ban discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity, and two, to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions, a very important issue, indeed.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and present three petitions signed by so many Canadians from across this country.

The first petition seeks to support the health and safety of Canadian firearms owners. The petitioners recognize the importance of owning firearms and are concerned about the impacts of hearing loss caused by the damaging noise level of firearms and recognize the need for noise reduction.

The petitioners acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally recognized health and safety device that is criminally prohibited in Canada. Moreover, the majority of G7 countries have recognized the health and safety benefits of sound moderators, allowing them for hunting, for sport shooting and for reducing noise pollution. The petitioners are calling on the government to allow legal firearms owners the option to purchase and to use sound moderators for all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.

It is great to present that petition on behalf of so many Canadians here today.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, May 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting.

He just provided a list. I do not have the time to dispel many of the myths that the member is propagating.

Let me simply say this: Many of the things on that so-called list of accomplishments are things that they compromised on, things that they have not actually accomplished, things that are not being delivered, or things that are billed as one thing.

However, Canadians, including Canadians who reach out to me to ask questions about the specifics of those programs, express extreme disappointment, including of members. Although there are not too many of them, there are a few people in my constituency who have voted NDP in the past. They have expressed to me extreme disappointment with how that member and that party have sold their souls to the Liberals.

Let me say this: When it comes to the toxic drug crisis, there is a very clear sentiment that I hear across this country, and it is that the failed policy that the Liberals and the NDP are pushing upon Canadians is not something that Canadians support. This needs to end, the free drugs and, in many cases, taxpayer-funded drugs.

We need to get people who are suffering from the challenges associated with addiction into the treatment they need so that they can get better, and not simply, as the minister suggested the other day, not dying alone. They should not die at all.

Let us get them into treatment. Let us give them hope because that is the promise of what this country is, not the embarrassment that it has become under the NDP and the Liberal government.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, May 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this would only be from a Liberal and a socialist. Certainly the environment minister openly admitted that he was a socialist. It would only be the left-leaning coalition that we have in this country that would be so scared of doing its job. It is terrified, absolutely terrified, of talking about the issues that matter to Canadians.

In fact, it was December 5, 2016, when the member for Winnipeg North, and I cannot say his name, seconded by Mr. Graham, who is no longer a member of this place, moved to amend a bill by deleting clause 1. They are accusing Conservatives of doing things that this member himself has done on multiple occasions.

That is nothing more than politicking because they are hiding a defund-the-police, anti-police agenda within the ranks of their party. It is shameful, and they should be absolutely disgraced because of the terrible precedent they are setting.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, May 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand and debate the issues that are so important to Canadians.

If I could, I would like to cast light on some of the rampant disinformation and misinformation being propagated by the parliamentary secretary across the way and the House leader from the New Democratic Party. In fact, the member will be very interested to hear that it is a relatively common practice to bring about amendments at report stage. The member himself did so in an example from 2016, which I have in front of me, where he moved a motion that would delete clause 1, which is the short title. His explanation for doing so was not that he was trying to delay and stop legislation; rather, he said that there were important issues that needed to be discussed.

There are a number of examples where the member, the parliamentary secretary, was quick to move amendments that were not necessarily substantive but would ensure that certain issues could be discussed. Some of those issues are very important in the context of the discussions we have in this place.

I say to the NDP members, and specifically the House leader of the NDP, that they are maybe the worst negotiators in the history of coalition agreements; they have accomplished virtually nothing while propping up a government that continues to do things they complain about on a daily basis. I will put that issue aside. However, I will remind them that they have actually moved a number of amendments. In fact, I have an example here from 2018, where the NDP member from Victoria, seconded by a member of the Bloc Québécois, moved a motion that would have deleted a short title.

The indignation shown by other members of this place speaks to how they are so quick to dismiss the very valid concerns that can be brought forward, including, in this case, by members of Canada's law enforcement. I would suggest that what drives the attitude to which they are bringing the debate into the House today is not one of wanting to pass the bill, because here are the facts: The government controls the legislative agenda, yet the bill has twice died on the Order Paper. The government says it is somehow a priority; however, we are now in the third year of the current Parliament, and here it is today.

Government members may want to not talk about it. They may not put a priority on it. However, excuse me if I, along with my Conservative colleagues take the opportunity to do our jobs when we have the opportunity to discuss important issues in a bill that we will be supporting. That is why Canadians sent us here. It is indicative of how truly dysfunctional those two parties are when we hear the absolutely absurd rhetoric being propagated by their senior members.

When it comes to the substance of the bill we are debating today, many Canadians may not understand the specifics around what we are talking about. I think most Canadians would agree, certainly including those I chat with when it comes to some of the issues facing Parliament. However, then there are those who face challenges, those who have a complaint. When there are concerns brought forward, and specifically, when it comes to policing and, in particular, the RCMP, there has to be a process in place to ensure complaints can be talked about, investigated and evaluated with integrity.

My understanding is that, as the study was undertaken at committee, a host of witnesses talked about things that could be made better in the bill. There is agreement among all parties that changes have to be made. This is a shining example, despite the absurd rhetoric from other political parties here today, that there is a desire to see some changes brought forward to ensure there is integrity within our policing system. I would suggest we need to take seriously some of the suggestions that have been brought forward.

Various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and folks from the National Police Federation, have flagged that there will be resource issues. There are some suggestions that if we do not have a truly independent process, there will be some hesitation, whether among those who come forth with civilian complaints or those within the RCMP. We need to make sure that there is true and needed independence. If it is within the command structure, I am sure we can see how there would be some hesitation about how a complaint might be treated if it was brought forward.

Again, I think it is indicative that the other two parties in this place are concerned that we are talking about this, yet they say it is a priority. Here I think we have an example of that. Deep within their ranks, there is this anti-police, anti-law enforcement ideology that is permeating. It is this “defund the police” type of movement. They may not stand for it publicly, although a few of them have. We have heard those things, and Conservatives have been quick to call out the absurdity of that. It is concerning that they say in this place that it is important, yet they are unwilling to actually take action. I would suggest that this is driving the way they talk, which shows such indignation that we would dare talk about this and have additional debate. Therefore, I would suggest there is a deeper cause driving that “defund the police” movement, which needs to be stopped, because in Canada today it is not easy to be a police officer.

I speak with police officers on a regular basis. I compliment them and thank them for their service, because it is not easy when they have so many things working against them, whether it is how they feel demoralized when they put sometimes hundreds of hours of work into an investigation, only for the perpetrator to be let back out on the streets, which is absolutely unacceptable, or whether it is some of the other issues they face as we continue to bring awareness to mental health and trauma-related mental health injuries and how all of those things are brought forward.

In fact, it was an honour to be able to attend the Sam Sharpe dinner with my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. That was specifically in relation to the military and the story of Sam Sharpe, but it talks about the bigger issue of occupational brain injuries and PTSD and how they can have devastating effects. Therefore, morale within police departments across Canada is certainly a huge issue.

There are two specific concerns that I want to bring forward, which are related to this, on how we need to make sure that government is responsive to the concerns.

I would simply suggest this when it comes to the RCMP and every aspect of what that looks like, in terms of being able to support our men and women who wear the red serge or the other police services across our country. This was raised to me. I will not get into specifics, but a local law enforcement member, and he will know who I am talking about, talked about how he served as a police officer in Afghanistan, training national police there. He highlighted to me recently how, even though he suffered occupational stress injuries as a result of that service and was there partnered with the RCMP, because he was not a current serving member of the RCMP at the time, he is not qualified to receive the supports that RCMP members would receive. He has been successful, and he is a community leader today, but he has had to bear the brunt of being able to make sure that he fights for those supports himself. He shared his story with me, and I greatly appreciated hearing about his fight.

I know my time is running very short, but I would simply say this: There is so much work that needs to be done. Whether it is support for our police services, municipal and all the way up to the RCMP, whether it is law and justice reform or whether it is support for our veterans and our military, there is a lot that could be talked about. It is a worthy thing that we are talking about, and it is something that we should continue to talk about. I find it very disappointing that the Liberals and their partners in the NDP would be so quick to dismiss a chance to raise these important issues.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to stand in this place today and present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are raising concerns about the actions taking place in Pakistan.

Specifically, these are Pakistani Canadians who point out there is increasing political unrest that has led to the arrest of opposition parties and challenges free and fair elections in that country. The signatories of this petition are calling upon the government and the House of Commons to ask the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to immediately explore the feasibility of imposing sanctions on the Pakistani military members responsible for these egregious acts.

The signatories also ask the Government of Canada to use its membership on the IMF to require insurance of new and current loans and the extension of existing loans to the Government of Pakistan to be conditional on Pakistan's holding of true, free and fair elections. Finally, the signatories request that these measures be kept in place until freedom can be brought to Pakistan.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, if you confer with the Table, I think you will learn that in discussions this morning with the Table, it was agreed that the first Bloc spot would be given to the Conservative Party, where the time would then be split. I hate to keep coming back to this, but certainly it is the understanding that was reached and agreed to this morning.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the understanding of the parties that the Bloc would be starting the discussion.