Damien Kurek

[Criminal Code, April 13th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my friend would not want to deliberately mislead the House. Many of the changes being made to this bill are not Harper changes. They date back to—

[Criminal Code, April 13th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is no. I do not agree with the decriminalization of drugs. However, it is a misconception that this bill would somehow fix the problem of individuals who would be charged with simple possession. That is not what this bill addresses. It addresses the serious offences of those who are trafficking, smuggling and involved in the gang activity that leads to these victims on our streets. We have to have a plan to address opioid addiction in this country.

[Criminal Code, April 13th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I agree. Certainly the pandemic has taken a lot of airtime regarding health issues, but at the same time there has been an epidemic of opioid deaths. In fact, in British Columbia, and I will be forgiven for not having the most recent stats, there were more opioid deaths than there were COVID deaths, at least a number of months ago. I think it is absolutely tragic that we are not taking this seriously.

Part of the reason I am opposed to this bill in particular is that the government seems intent on lessening penalties for those who would be responsible, not the victims who are experiencing mental health challenges and a series of other factors that would lead to addiction, but the people who are bringing these drugs, getting them onto our streets and smuggling them into our country, and the gang activity associated with that. It is troubling that this issue is not taken more seriously.

Then, on the other side, I was proud of the Conservative private member's bill to deal with recidivism, and further significant Conservative pressure to deal with mental health challenges to ensure that we are addressing the full context here. Certainly victims, including victims of opioid addictions, need to be stood up for, and this bill fails miserably at that.

[Criminal Code, April 13th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, there we have it. It is the spin of somehow suggesting that Conservatives are simply wanting to target or prescript offences and whatnot. The reality could not be farther from the truth. Conservatives do believe that serious crime deserves serious time, and the vast majority of Canadians suggest the same. I find it very ironic that the Liberals want to paint this as all being the evil Harper era that brought in all of these things, when it was actually Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They are repealing some laws that date back to the Prime Minister's own father.

To acknowledge the member, a proper balance has to be found. In practice, right now, in the public prosecution service and the discretion of law enforcement there is a great deal of flexibility, but when it comes to serious crimes, there have to be serious penalties for that in this country. Victims deserve it.

[Criminal Code, April 13th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand once again in this House and participate in an important debate. I plan to address two major themes in my speech. The first has to do with the fact that it seems the members opposite are simply not aware of what is contained in this bill. This bill actually reduces some of the penalties for serious firearms offences. I will get into the specifics of that here in a moment. The second is the larger topic of conversation surrounding being soft on crime and the very troubling trends that we see, not only with this bill, but with some of the larger context of how the government is failing victims.

First, on firearms, I find it absolutely tragic that we are debating firearms in this place in a way that completely ignores the facts. The members opposite will talk about how it is important to ban assault rifles and these military-style weapons, when very few members opposite understand the reality of what they are talking about. The reality is truly a trifecta of misinformation and political rhetoric torqued to the highest extent possible to appeal to a narrow band of political interests that is simply not based on reality.

I have a few examples. The Conservative member for Markham—Unionville brought forward Bill C-238, a bill that was meant to bring many people together to combat a real issue, and that is violent gun crime. However, the Liberals voted against it. How tragic is it that the Liberals, who claim to be targeting law-abiding firearms owners, would absolutely dismiss an attempt by parliamentarians to address some of those issues? It is absolutely shameful.

Second, we see the context of aspects of this debate with last year's order in council banning 1,500 firearms. It was absurd logic. In fact, when I participated in the member of Parliament's briefing for that OIC, the officials who were brought in did not even understand the very basis of the firearms they said they were banning. How absurd is it that we have such a disconnect between the consequences of what I would suggest is a massive overreach of the executive branch, targeting something, and then they torque it up with their rhetoric about how they are somehow taking action on crime? It is shameful, the record of the government.

The members opposite suggest that this somehow does not have relevance to the debate today, which is absurd and again more of their torqued political rhetoric, at a time when they seem to be bent on calling an election in the midst of a pandemic. I would note, as a bit of an aside, that there is a Supreme Court challenge in Newfoundland that has been launched today by an opposition party because of an election there that many would suggest, and certainly this lawsuit suggests, does not have the confidence of the people. It was a Liberal majority, yet the Prime Minister and the government seem bent on stealing power at any cost.

The third aspect of this bill is that it takes the serious criminal offences. Specifically, as I mentioned in the first part of my speech, I want to talk about the firearms side of things. The fact is that they are lessening penalties on serious firearms offences.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-21, literally banning toy guns. They said that was fake news, yet the reality, as we have learned, is that bad legislation creates bad outcomes and does not do what they say they are trying to accomplish. In the same week, they introduced Bill C-22, only a few days later. On Tuesday, they introduced a bill to punish law-abiding Canadians for simply living their lives, in many cases using something that is a tool in many parts of our country.

I come from a rural constituency, where a firearm is a tool like many others. It can be used as a weapon, but so can a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a van, yet that torqued-up rhetoric based on a blind ideology has labelled so many thousands or millions of Canadians to be somehow criminals.

The same week, only a couple of days later, on a Thursday, the Liberals introduced Bill C-22, eliminating penalties for serious firearms offences. It is absurd that this is what they think they can get away with. Certainly, my constituents see through that absurdity. I hear from Canadians across the country, including the constituents of quite a few members opposite, who are saying they are starting to see through the facade, the political spin that the government is trying to bring on this and how absolutely shameful it is in that regard.

That brings me to the second part of my speech, which addresses some of the other aspects of this bill and the very troubling trend that I would suggest it is setting.

Bill C-22 eliminates a number of those firearms offences and the mandatory prison times, such as robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to harm, and weapons trafficking. Those are the problems, not the law-abiding firearms owners.

The Liberals are also proposing in this bill that criminals could serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including sexual assault, in the midst of the conversation around sexual assault in the military. I listened to the testimony on the Bastarache report regarding sexual assault in the RCMP and the revelation of how terribly pervasive that is within our society, yet the Liberals, who talk tough, with their woke feminist Prime Minister, are truly being soft and punishing victims at a time when victims deserve an advocate.

There is also trafficking in persons for material benefit and kidnapping. At a time when we are trying to bring awareness to human trafficking, the fact that the Liberals are punishing victims is absolutely absurd and shameful.

There is a series of other offences where the sentences are being reduced. The trends that are being set are very troubling, such as the soft-on-crime approach and ignoring victims. Meanwhile, we have seen, especially in my large constituency in rural east-central Alberta, a massive growth in rural crime and serious offences that have really affected the way of life of my constituents, the ability of Canadians to feel safe in their homes, and so many aspects of the way in which we live.

The Liberals are going to suggest that somehow we, the evil Conservatives, want to punish people for not breaking the law, which is just Liberal spin. It is unfortunate that it has devolved to the point it has, because it is taking away from the seriousness of this debate. It is quite simple. Conservatives are focused on ensuring that Canada's drug laws target individuals who prey on Canadians struggling with addictions through the trafficking and sale of drugs to the victims of what is an opioid pandemic, which is what those drug dealers and gangs deserve. The member for Lakeland, who spoke prior to me, articulated very well the challenges we face regarding drug use in this country. This is not about punishing a victim; it is about ensuring that those who are responsible for those abuses, the gangs, the drug dealers and whatnot, are punished.

The Conservatives have talked about mental health. We believe there needs to be a clear plan on ensuring there is restorative justice and a plan that addresses and helps victims. That is the clear difference here. We have the hug-a-thug mentality from the Liberals on the other side, and we have the Conservatives, who want to stand up for victims. Bill C-22 is incredibly troubling in the context of the bigger picture and the blatant hypocrisy that exists on the firearms debate.

I would conclude by saying that I cannot in good conscience support this. My constituents have overwhelmingly told me that this is a bad bill. I certainly will not be supporting it going forward.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, March 12th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I can hear my friend from the NDP laughing at this. I would remind him that we can actually produce net-zero oil in Alberta. I hope that he will join me in celebrating that incredible technological accomplishment.

The Liberals want bigger, more generous social programs without ensuring a sustainable and secure way to deliver those programs not just today, but also financing them into the future and ensuring that there is sustainability and security going forward. It is a tragic irony to see that this bill fails to address the specifics of what would be a laudable goal, on which it simply fails to deliver.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, March 12th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, it is once again an honour to be able to rise in this place and enter into debate. Today, we are discussing the private member's bill, Bill C-231.

To provide context to this bill, it is basically proposing a number of amendments that, quite frankly, I would suggest have a laudable objective of ensuring that dollars from the fund that pays the Canada Pension Plan are not being spent in a way that contributes to the commission of human, labour or environmental rights violations; contributes to the production of arms, ammunition, implements of munitions of war prohibited under international law; or benefits individuals or acts of corruption under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. The bill we are debating suggests a laudable goal. It is unfortunate that the bill itself would not provide the ability to accomplish those things.

I will stop there and explain a bit for those who are watching how the CPP, Canada's pension plan, works. Canadians employed across the country pay into the Canada Pension Plan fund. That fund, a number of decades ago, was made non-political through the establishment of the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, the CPPIB. That board is there to ensure something very important, which is that the dollars paid by Canadians into the Canada pension plan are invested independently of the hands of politicians that would try to use those dollars for possibly activist or corrupt causes.

That separation is important to ensure that, ultimately, taxpayers and employees who pay into the CPP with their Canadian dollars can trust this fund. I appreciate that the previous member mentioned that the fund currently stands at a value of approximately $556 billion. That is more than half a trillion dollars, not of the government's money, but of the hard-working women and men from across the country who have contributed to that fund.

Every Canadian expects that government and all its facets, including organizations such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, will conduct itself in an ethical and virtuous way. We hear often today about causes such as ESG, or environmental, social and governance, investing in ESG causes. This is to ensure that dollars are invested in a way that does not negatively impact the environment or people in developing countries, and that it does not benefit corruption. That is a fair discussion to have.

However, the problem with this bill is that it more or less says what we want to accomplish but, and there is a big “but” here, it does not provide a framework to ensure that. Specifically, I have heard often from members of all other political parties in this House about how there are so many significant challenges regarding investments or actions related to the energy industry.

I will unpack that for members here today. There are many that would suggest that a dollar invested into anything related to energy is a dollar too much. The problem with this bill is that it would empower politicians to determine whether investments could be made in something like Canadian energy.

The devastating consequences that would have on our economy cannot be understated. Further, it would have devastating consequences in our world. Canada is a world leader on exactly what I talked about earlier, ESG, environmental, social and governance, causes. Canada is already a world leader on that, and we are always striving to do better as well. This bill would empower a bureaucrat or politician to make a determination as to what should or should not be invested in based on the political whims of a cabinet minister.

I appreciate the fact that the Liberals seem to not be in support of this bill. That is good, because it is troubling when I hear Liberal cabinet ministers talk about our needing to use things like the CPP to build our green future. I can assure members that if the Liberal government had its way, Alberta would be shut down. It is tragic that these activist pursuits are being conflated with the actual good practices that protect something Canadians need to depend on. Empowering activists' ability in regard to investments that are one of the most important and sustainable parts of Canada's social infrastructure would be tragic for the future of Canada. It would basically turn a half-a-trillion-dollar fund into a weapon for activist causes. That simply cannot stand.

My hon. colleague from Carleton dug into some of the impacts that could result from this type of legislation, specifically the broader definition of what is described in this bill as unethical business practices. When the CPPIB was asked about that, it said very clearly that using such a broad definition would mean that it could not invest in some of the top companies in our nation. The consequences of that would be dramatic. I shudder to think about the fact this weaponization of half a trillion dollars, not of government money, not of an activist cause's money, would put at risk the futures of seniors, present and future, who depend on this money. Further, if we look at how some of these causes have been implemented throughout history and the rhetoric that has resulted, it is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians.

The left talks about wanting bigger, more generous social programs, and it is fair to have those debates, especially at a time when Canadians have demanded much from their government, but the Conservatives have been very outspoken on ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of those programs. We could go on at length about our criticisms of how the Liberals have mismanaged much of the spending over the last year or so, but what I find ironic is that the left will talk about these laudable initiatives, which is fair, as few Canadians would disagree with the fact we want ethical investments and to ensure environmental sustainability, but that when it comes down to the very foundation of accomplishing what is being talked about, it would result in instability. That is no more present than the fact that in my home province of Alberta we are a leader in the world when it comes to the environment.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 12th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for hard work on this file. I find it interesting. The Conservatives have been calling for fixes to Bill C-24 for quite some time. The Liberals have been calling us obstructionists, yet they are the ones filibustering at committee.

Could my hon. colleague and friend address some of those hypocritical statements that the government has been alleging over the last number of weeks?

[Natural Resources, March 12th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, Enbridge's Line 5 is critical national infrastructure, but like the entire Canadian resource sector, it faces phasing out because of the Liberals' energy policy. The minister has said, “We are fighting for Line 5”. However, Canadians are asking if the Liberals actually back this pipeline or if it is simply another hollow and hypocritical promise like their failed silence on Keystone XL. Maybe they only care about fighting when it affects regions of the country where they actually get a few votes.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 10th, 2021]

With regard to access to information requests filed since January 1, 2018, broken down by government institutions and by year: a) how many requests included requests for (i) text messages, (ii) audio recording or files, (iii) video recordings or files, including recordings of Zoom calls or similar, (iv) all records, including (i), (ii) and (iii); b) how many requests fulfilled have included records containing (i) text messages, (ii) audio recording or files, (iii) video recordings or files, including recordings of Zoom calls or similar; and (c) what is each government institution’s policy regarding the recordkeeping requirements and release through the ATIP process of (i) text messages, (ii) audio recordings or files, (iii) video recordings or files?