House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2025, with 58% of the vote.
Government Response to Petitions February 28th, 2024
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-320. The legislation has gone through a very productive process in which it has generated fairly wide support in the House of Commons. It is quite encouraging.
What we have witnessed over the years is a great deal of support for victims of crime. This is something that has been amplified through a number of pieces of legislation that the government has introduced and through legislation that has been introduced by private members. There is nothing wrong with recognizing when a private member brings forward legislation that would have a positive impact and it receiving the support it should.
In this situation, Bill C-320 is a bill that, from what I understand, all sides of the House are getting behind. There is an expectation that it will pass, and ultimately go to the Senate and hopefully pass through the Senate in a timely fashion. It is always encouraging when we see legislation, through the draw system and priorities, that members of Parliament have brought forward as individuals that gets to the point that, in all likelihood, it will achieve passage through the Senate of Canada and ultimately receive royal assent.
When we read the legislation in the form it is today, it is very easy to understand and appreciate why it has garnered the support it has. We all recognize the commitment to supporting victims of crimes and their families, and also their communities, because they too are often the victims of violent crimes, and how we can provide that support. This legislation is one step in ensuring that there is a higher sense of accountability for information.
I believe, as I know my colleagues do, that we need to look at ways that individuals who have caused harm to others are held accountable for their actions. On issues such as release, parole hearings or even conditional releases, there needs to be a sense of recognition, in a very strong and tangible way, that the victims and the family members of those victims are aware when someone has been released or granted parole. As well, details need to be provided on the rationale of the system in allowing that individual to be released.
The issue of protecting our victims or standing up for victims was amplified in one of the budgets we provided, through the victims fund, which was close to $30 million, that was made available to provincial and territorial governments, and non-governmental organizations, to increase awareness and knowledge of victim issues, as well as the legislation and services that are available. That was a couple years back.
Not only have we taken specific actions in certain areas of legislative changes, but we have also put the budgetary resources to support victims. I find it interesting, when we can build that support base, how relatively quickly we can come up with the consent of the House.
The other day I was talking about the former leader of the Conservative Party and her private member's bill regarding the education of judges, if I can put it as simply as that, on the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation. As a result of the wide level of support for the issue, not only was the House able to pass it but, from what I understand, provincial jurisdictions have also taken it into consideration, and I would like to think have actually acted on it.
There are things that take place here in Ottawa that can have a positive impact on the entire system. Here, of course, we are talking about criminal law, so it is somewhat different, but the principles are the same in the sense that the legislation received widespread support and ultimately is going to pass through the House.
Where I find I get a little offside at times with the Conservative Party is when its members try to give the false impression that they want to be tough on crime, such as when they talk about one of their four priorities and give the very simple statement, “We are going to stop crime.” What I refer to as bumper sticker slogans are often accompanied by misinformation to try to give the impression that, for example, the government is weak on the issue of crime.
The speaker before me made reference to a case where an inmate had been transferred. The first thing that came to my mind was when Ralph Goodale, when he was minister of public safety, brought to the attention of the House the issue of Tori Stafford's brutal murder that took place in 2009. When the sentencing came down, the perpetrator ultimately was put into a maximum-security facility and was then transferred in 2014 to a medium-security facility. That happened under a Conservative regime.
However, when something of that nature happens on this side, the Conservatives will say that the Liberals are soft on crime. There seems to be a double standard used by the Conservatives, one standard they will use when they are in opposition, to try to give the false impression of being tough on crime and the government of the day being soft on crime, and then another standard when they are in government. It would be interesting to know how many private members' bills dealing with the issue of crime have been debated, ones originated from the Conservative caucus. A couple of them have passed. How does this compare to the type of government legislation they brought in when they were in the position to do so?
I like to believe that supporting law enforcement agencies is really important in dealing with crime. When the Conservatives say they are going to stop crime, I like to remind my constituents that it was the Conservatives who actually cut $430 million from RCMP funding. That does not help stop crime; however, it feeds into the message, while they are in opposition, that the Conservatives are going to be tough on crime.
I would suggest that we need to see more consistency coming from the member opposite. In terms of Bill C-320, today, we are witnessing how the member has been able to build up a consensus that would benefit the victims of crime. To that end, I will be supporting this particular piece of legislation.
Business of Supply February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:42 p.m. so we can begin private member's hour.
Business of Supply February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules are very specific. A member cannot intentionally mislead the House. The member is intentionally misleading the House, because it is the same company. They are the same two people.
Business of Supply February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, he almost forgot his lines.
It is interesting. He said, “well-connected insider”, referring to GC Strategies. Those well-connected insiders are the very same insiders that the leader of the Conservative Party gave literally millions of dollars to while he was a parliamentary secretary in the Harper government.
Would he not apply the very same principles that he just finished espousing to his own leader today? Did that leader make a mistake back then?
Business of Supply February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, the member did good in terms of the lines, so the programming worked in that sense, I must say.
My question to the member is about something I raised previously with respect to his own leader. The leader of the Conservative Party was the minister ultimately responsible for millions of dollars' worth of grants that went to Coredal Systems Consulting, which is the same company as GC Strategies with just a change in name. The same two individuals are involved in both companies.
Does he believe this should also be considered? Many constituents who we represent are wondering how two individuals get to the point where they were able to do what they did through the procurement process. I think that going back to the origins of the company would be a good thing.
Would he not agree?
Business of Supply February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, the word that comes to mind is “wow”. That is quite the extreme statement coming from the member. So much for facts. I hope he does not believe 90% of the things he said.
The question that comes to mind is this. I wonder whether he would hold the very same standard to his own leader, who was responsible for the issuing of millions of dollars in contracts to Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., the very same people who are with GC Strategies. Would he apply the same principles to the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada that he is applying to others? Maybe he should skip the character assassinations and focus on the issue.
If he is not going to answer that question, maybe he could offer an idea from Conservatives as to how we can improve the procurement process.
Business of Supply February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, they have to recognize the irony. The member just finished calling into question the integrity of GC Strategies; I do not blame him, quite frankly, for doing that. What the member does not necessarily realize is that it is the very same company, just with a name change. The two people he has just criticized are the same people who ran Coredal Systems Consulting. By the way, his leader actually gave millions of dollars in contracts to them. Can he not see a bit of irony there?
Does the member not agree that maybe we should be looking at how one company was able to evolve to the point where we have the problem that we have today? There is no doubt that the member's leader played some role in it.
Business of Supply February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, in debating this, I have tried to break this into two components. One is on the procurement process. The member provided a lot of positive thoughts with respect to that issue. The other one is related to how a company such as GC Strategies has been able to get to the point where it can get those sorts of contracts. I made the suggestion that we look at the origins of the company, which goes back a number of years. It is the same company but it just changed its name.
Is there merit in looking at how an individual company was able to come virtually from nowhere a decade ago to the point where it is today?
Business of Supply February 27th, 2024
Madam Speaker, not one idea was presented with respect to improving procurement. The question I have for the member is this. He posted something on Twitter about this issue, which goes to show just how serious he is. If we click on the link he has provided on Twitter, it then goes to a Conservative fundraising page, which states. “Investigate the ArriveScam boondoggle....Donate.”
Does the member use any public dollars at all in regard to his Twitter account? If there is a scam, it is coming from the Conservative Party.