Kyle Seeback

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, for the parliamentary secretary to have such little knowledge of the justice system makes sense given this bill. That question displays a stunning amount of ignorance. By eliminating mandatory minimums, the judge has discretion to go lower. The judge always had discretion to go higher. A mandatory minimum is not a maximum. The member should look that up.

When we say that this would lead to lower sentences, it is because the floor is gone. Judges would have the discretion to say, if the minimum was five years, that they do not have to give five years and can give three years. That is a lowered sentence, and that is what will happen for weapons traffickers, human traffickers and a whole of host of other offenders. I do not know how the Liberals do not see it.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am in the chamber often and I certainly hear from members on the other side of the House this constant refrain: “We listen to the experts.” When Conservatives talk about vaccine mandates, the Liberals say, “We listen to the experts.” When we ask where those experts are or to produce that expert report, of course, it never gets produced. “We listen to the experts” would be the Liberals' mantra, so let us talk about some experts.

The first thing we should talk about is that gun crimes in Canada have almost tripled over the last decade. We have an epidemic of gun violence. What do some of the experts have to say about the gun violence that is happening in Canada?

At the public safety committee, Toronto's deputy police chief said that 86% of gun crimes come from illegal guns and it is on the increase. He then went on to say, “Our problem in Toronto is handguns from the United States.” There is the expert and the expert's position on what is happening with gun crimes.

What does the government do in response to listening to the experts? It is going to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for weapons trafficking. Yes, that is going to solve the problem of illegal guns coming into the country from the United States. We are going to eliminate a mandatory minimum sentence for gun trafficking. That will solve it.

When we eliminate a mandatory minimum sentence, the judge now has the discretion to give a lower sentence. We can bet dollars to doughnuts that is exactly what is going to happen. The government wraps itself in the shroud of experts and says that it listens to the experts, but where is it listening to the experts here?

If anything, we should be increasing penalties for weapons trafficking. The weapons traffickers are the ones who are directly responsible for the carnage that goes on in our streets, in cities like Toronto. It is getting worse. It is not just the fact of an increased number of guns. The chief also testified it is the increased number of rounds being discharged. Police recovered 2,405 shell casings in 2021. It is up 50% from 2020. Again, what is the response? Let us lower sentences for that.

It is for weapons trafficking and eliminating the mandatory minimum penalty. It is for importing and exporting knowing it is unauthorized. On both sides of the weapons trafficking, people are now getting a reduced sentence. How is that for an incentive to stop doing what someone is doing? I do not think that is going to work.

Where is the conversation about victims? When we stand here and talk about gun crimes, there is always a victim. Victims want to see justice done. There has to be an appearance of justice. When a weapons trafficker is going to get a lower sentence, the victims of crimes from these weapons certainly are not going to think that justice has been done.

We can talk about all kinds of ways to deal with sentencing for indigenous people and for people from racialized communities. Those can be actual factors that judges consider for reduced sentences when sentencing. We can put those in the sentencing guidelines. However, what we do not do is make broad changes to the sentencing for serious offences. Not everyone is going to be from an indigenous community or from a racialized community. This change will apply to everyone. Everyone will then get that reduced sentence.

I sat on the justice committee from 2011 to 2015, when we brought in increased sentences for trafficking in persons. This is a very serious crime, and the damage done to victims is extensive. They came to committee to tell horrifying stories that stick with people for the rest of their lives. This is an extraordinarily serious crime that has long-lasting impacts on victims, so why would the expansion of conditional sentencing be allowed for trafficking in persons?

I just heard the member opposite say that they would have to get a sentence of less than two years. Yes, that is true, but why let the option be there? Why let someone convicted of trafficking in persons have the possibility of getting a conditional sentence? If it has happened once, it has happened too much.

That is why this bill makes no sense. There might be some good aspects to the bill, but I am not here to talk about those. What I am going to talk about is the dangerous precedent being set here.

It is the same thing with sex assault. This is an incredibly serious crime, but there is a conditional sentence including house arrest for sex assault. Yes, someone would have to get sentenced to less than two years, but if they commit a sex assault and get house arrest, what is the victim going to think of the justice system? When we talk about the justice system, we have to think about the integrity of the system within the view of the public. If the public loses faith in the justice system because they see that it does not deliver justice, then we have a very serious problem.

The bill would allow conditional sentences to be brought in for crimes such as sexual assault, trafficking in persons and kidnapping, and that is just three. Imagine the victims of any of those crimes. They have to show up at court to testify. It is not an easy process for victims to testify in court. They often describe it as retraumatizing.

Then they have to do a victim impact statement. I have been in court to listen to victim impact statements. They can be absolutely devastating, because we know that the effect of crime on a victim's life is long term, long lasting and devastating. Then imagine they hear a verdict of house arrest for any of the things I just listed. That is the sentence. A person who committed a sex assault gets a conditional sentence with house arrest.

I think the government may have good intentions with this bill, but it is missing the mark in so many ways. This is going to have serious consequences. In its gun buyback program, it is making certain guns illegal, but that does not work. The Toronto deputy police chief just said at committee that 86% of guns used in the city of Toronto are illegal guns coming from the United States.

I can tell members that gun traffickers can see that the mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking in weapons is gone. Do members not think that will have an effect? Do members not think that is going to say to them that this is now even more advantageous for them? It is financially advantageous, of course, but now they do not have to worry about a mandatory minimum penalty.

These are the kinds of things the government thinks are going to make a difference. Maybe they sound good, but the practical reality of the bill is this. It is not going to reduce crime. It is not going to protect victims. It is going to have victims once again feel like the justice system has done them wrong.

I hope the government will study this bill in great detail and will bring in victims to talk about it. This bill should not proceed.

[Business of Supply, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly it. We can go to a stadium and watch a hockey or basketball game without a mask. These members go to receptions every night in crowded rooms without wearing masks, but they wear their masks in the chamber. Yes, things have moved on. It is time for us to move on with these restrictions, as well.

[Business of Supply, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I struggle to understand what those would be. I think many of them served a purpose and we all acknowledge that, but I do not know what we want to keep in place forever because of the chaos it is causing right now at airports. If we keep these measures in place forever, how are we ever going to get back to normal? That is the issue. Canadians want to get back to normal. They want a plan to get back to normal. If the government is not going to give us a plan, we are going to put forward a motion to get us back to normal.

[Business of Supply, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the member keeps heckling and asking where my science is. We are not the government. We do not have access to the science it has at the Ministry of Health. Why will it not produce it? It probably has not done it, because it really cannot do much.

[Business of Supply, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I cannot go over what we have done differently for the past two and a half years because I have only a few moments, but what I will say we would do differently right now is this. We would have released what the benchmarks are to get back to normal, because Canadians want to get back to normal. We all want to. I would release the science we are relying on to say we cannot open up now. We would say where we are, where we need to be and at what points we would remove certain restrictions.

[Business of Supply, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, again we see an example of what we get with this member in particular and the current government. They do not want to have an honest debate about subjects. When I say give the information, it is because just about every time they get up to speak they talk about how they are following the science, which is why they are going to vote against this motion. It is the crux of their argument as to why they will not support the motion. They say, “We are going to follow the science, so we are not going to remove any restrictions.” However, when we ask them for that science, there is none. It is a shock. They have nothing to actually add to the debate.

[Business of Supply, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

I have had the misfortune of listening to this debate for the past hour and a bit. When I use the term “misfortune”, it is because of the absolute opacity of the government. It refuses to answer even the simplest of questions during debate. Liberal members give speeches where they are obsessed with the member for Carleton, when we are supposed to be discussing the very serious issue of chaos at airports and the restrictions that are in place.

Rather than talk about that, the Liberals are going on long diatribes about independence, other members and leadership matters. I think we have to ask ourselves why. If they cannot talk about the subject matter before us, it is probably because they have almost nothing to say. That is the absolute problem with the government and these members participating in the debate.

Why are we here? Day after day, questions are asked about when the mandates will end, and what circumstances are needed in order to do that. These are not ridiculous partisan attacks, as the members across seem to suggest. I did not know they were so fragile that a direct question would be seen as a terrible partisan attack.

We keep coming back and asking reasonable questions. We brought forward a motion ages ago, just asking what conditions, metrics or benchmarks the country had to hit so restrictions could be removed. This is not asking for them to be removed. It is asking what the benchmarks are and what Canadians could look to. The Liberals would not even vote for that. The government cannot do anything reasonable with respect to things like this.

When we ask questions, we get answers like the one from the Minister of Transport, who said that travellers are out of practice and that is why the airports are backed up. Actually, that is, unfortunately, probably the best answer we have had from a minister or a member of the government with respect to what is going on, because at least it was an answer.

We have questions, real questions, the questions Canadians are asking. I know these members get the same emails from Canadians. They cannot live in some strange Liberal bubble where everyone thinks things are perfect. They must get questions about what is happening at the airports and what are they going to do to fix it. I know I get them. I bet the Speaker is getting them as well.

We put forward a motion like this to say that Canadians have had enough, that they want to see some action. They want something done. We would expect a reasonably serious response. However, for some reason, Canadians are not entitled to that. When we are here, we are the voice of not only our constituents, but also of other Canadians as well. These are the serious questions that are being asked. It is so insulting to them. I do not care about the insults that government members throw at us. We can take it. Over here, we are not so fragile. We can take the insults, but Canadians deserve those answers.

We heard the member for Winnipeg North giving his speech. I had the opportunity to ask him what the advice was, whose advice it was, what was the actual advice is, and if he could table the advice. They were insane, ridiculous questions. How dare I ask the Liberals to share the advice they had with Canadians to show why they would not remove any of the restrictions.

We have heard the terrible stories, which is why we are asking the questions. We heard the member for Prince Albert talk about a terrible experience he witnessed at the airport. I have seen that as well. People who are desperate and missing their flights. People who are having all kinds of trouble. There is not even a semblance of regret from the government about that.

That is fine. If the Liberals do not want to say to Canadians that they are sorry they are going through this, then that is on them. However, Canadians deserve an explanation.

The Liberals must have meetings. They must be talking to experts, because they say, “We follow the experts' advice.” How hard is it? Throw Canadians a bone. They could give us a scrap of information, or maybe put a tenth of the report on the table so that we can see that there actually is a report, but they will not. If they will not do it, we have to ask ourselves why, right?

When a child goes to school and says, “The dog ate my homework”, the teacher asks, “Show me the shredded pieces and then I will believe you.” That is what these guys are doing all the time. They are saying, “The dog ate my homework.” Well, they should show us the scraps, but we cannot even see that. They are not going to give us even that little tidbit.

Canadians are frustrated. There are a lot of Canadians who cannot travel. I do not know if members have heard the stories, but I certainly have in my riding about people who cannot travel and miss all kinds of things. The Liberals might say, “Well, get in a car.” However, an 80-year-old unvaccinated woman from my riding cannot drive 1,800 to 3,000 kilometres to B.C. The Liberals' answer is: “We do not care. We refuse to give any information on when that person is going to be able to travel. We refuse to give any information as to why we are saying that person will not be able to travel. We refuse to give any information as to when that person can travel.”

It is as though we are asking for the most unreasonable, unrealistic things. That is how the Liberals paint the debate. They cannot answer the debate directly. They cannot answer the debate forthrightly. If they really wanted to debate this issue, they would put their advice on the table so that we could all see it and debate it like adults, but they do not want to. They would rather give speeches talking about the former shadow minister for finance. They want to talk about the member for Carleton, because that is so pertinent to the debate. It is so childish and insulting to Canadians who are asking the very serious questions that we are raising in this motion to have members over there treat them with so much disdain and disrespect.

I cannot believe it. Canadians who are unable to travel, unable to visit family and relatives, are watching this debate and listening to the kinds of speeches that these people are putting out, joking and laughing about the member for Carleton. It is beyond shameful. It is embarrassing, and they should be embarrassed for participating that way.

We want things to move forward for Canadians. We want answers. We tried for a motion to ask the Liberals to put the benchmarks out for everyone to see: When we get to this, we will do this, and when we get to that, we will do that. The Liberals voted down the motion, unfortunately, with help from the NDP. We had a wonderful NDP member asking some great questions, but they voted down that motion as well, and I am disappointed about that.

We have to ask ourselves: Why will the Liberals not do any of these things? It is probably because they have not set that plan out, because this is a government that cannot do more than one thing, as we have learned. They sort of stumble from one crisis to another. We choose to joke and say: “You cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.” That is kind of what we have happening here.

Now, we are back to another motion saying, “You would not give us the benchmarks, all the rest of the world has moved forward, they are lifting all these things, so let us get on with it.” Let us get on with it. Let us actually say that this is what we are going to do.

I, of course, will be voting in favour of this motion. I know that the Liberals will not be, but I am hoping other parties will. I am hoping that other members listening today will decide not to talk about the member for Carleton and will actually stand here and debate this issue, because if they do not, it tells us exactly what we need to know about them, which is that they have nothing to offer on this subject.

[Business of Supply, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I think the frustration that stems from most reasonable people in this chamber is about the fact that when a question is asked, what experts are you relying upon? What is the advice that has been given? Share that advice with Canadians. If you have reports or expert advice saying we cannot open this airport or we cannot remove restrictions and here is why, why not share it?

The fact of the matter is that they do not have it, and that is why they will not table it. If you had it, you would table it. Any reasonable person would, but we are not dealing with reasonable people or rationality. Why will they not table this advice now?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am really happy to participate in this debate. It is hard to know where to start with this motion because, to be kind, it makes very little sense.

The first thing we talk about is record profits or profits. The New Democrats talk about this as if it is something terrible or dirty. How dare a company make a profit? The thing they always have difficulty with, as I do not think there are very many business people in that caucus, is that companies sometimes make profits, yes, and in other years they do not. Profit is what enables companies to invest in things like technology and CCUS. The problem is that right now we have a global search for investment, so we have to compete here in Canada with the investment opportunities being offered all around the world, in particular with CCUS.

What is the alternative? This is where the New Democrats and the Liberals are together on everything. They want to shut down all kinds of development in this country so that they can say they balanced and lowered our carbon emissions. However, guess what? The demand for oil is not going anywhere. The demand for other products in the energy industry is not going anywhere either. Guess what happens. These companies go to other parts of the world to supply that demand. How do they do that? They do it in countries where the environmental standards are lower and where they do not have to worry about their carbon emissions, so we end up with greenhouse gases increasing. Why has so much industry moved to China? It is because it uses coal-fired energy, which is terrible for greenhouse gas emissions.

Rather than trying to stop all of these projects here in this country, why do we not look at making Canada an energy superpower with low-carbon emissions? That is what investments in things like CCUS are going to do. Otherwise, oil and gas production, mineral exploration and anything else will go into higher-intensity production per barrel and per kilogram around the world. The last time I checked, we do not have a carbon dome over Canada. We are not protected by exporting carbon emissions to China or other countries around the world.

This ideological approach actually harms the country. We lose investments in businesses and industry, investments that create good-paying jobs and that allow companies to make profits. Here is what the NDP often forgets: Profits lead to taxes and taxes fund the social services we have in this country. Taxes fund everything. Corporations have to be profitable in order for us as a country to have tax revenue to provide the services we have in this country.

Why the New Democrats are so unhappy that there are profits in the oil and gas sector I do not know. The profits and taxes from the oil and gas sector have funded so much across this country, and somehow they pretend they do not. It is terrible. The New Democrats talk about the record oil profits of those terrible companies, but they are paying loads of taxes that provide the social safety net in this country.

It is completely irresponsible to say there should be no CCUS in this country for oil and gas. What would that do? As I have said before, it would dramatically reduce oil and gas in this country. The New Democrats would say that is great; that is what we want to do, except the demand does not go anywhere. Rather, it just shifts to other countries that will not worry about their carbon emissions and may not worry about other environmental standards.

Canada cannot go to the dark ages of investment that this NDP motion is trying to take us to. The motion has to be opposed. The cognitive dissonance the NDP has that somehow stopping all oil and gas production in Canada will solve the problem does not make any sense and does not work. Let us vote against this motion.