Michael Cooper

[Justice, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the issue is not whether the Minister of Justice contravened the Conflict of Interest Act. No one is suggesting that. The fact is, the Minister of Justice is bound by a higher standard than the Conflict of Interest Act. The fact that the minister is obeying the law, not breaking it, should be a given for a minister of justice.

The issue is the fact that the minister has contravened, in black and white terms, the Prime Minister's own ethics code. The Prime Minister's ethics code in black and white terms expressly states that a minister shall not solicit funds from department stakeholders or lobbyists. The minister clearly did that when she attended the pay-to-play fundraiser at Torys LLP, and therefore, compromised her independence and breached the Prime Minister's ethics code.

With respect to judges, with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I found it alarming, but also telling, that he would say that the minister has just started a process. It is seven months in. It is time for the Minister of Justice to stop talking and start appointing.

[Justice, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on April 13, I asked the Minister of Justice a question related to the fact that, on the one hand, she has found a lot of time to attend pay-to-play fundraisers on behalf of the Liberal Party, but has not seen fit to find the time to fulfill a core responsibility as Minister of Justice; namely, to appoint desperately needed judges.

The Minister of Justice has a duty not only to at all times be independent but to also at all times be seen to be independent. The Minister of Justice compromised the perception of her independence by attending a fundraiser at a law firm with extensive dealings with the federal government on legal matters which were targeted to a select group of lawyers and lobbyists, and which was advertised as an opportunity for attendees to engage with the minister on matters that pertain directly to the minister's responsibilities. Pay-to-play is what the fundraiser was all about. One pays money to the Liberal Party in return for access to the Minister of Justice.

It even gets worse because a senior partner at the law firm that hosted the pay-to-play fundraiser, namely Torys LLP, happens to be a registered lobbyist who until the eve of the fundraiser was registered to lobby, guess who, the Minister of Justice.

The Minister of Justice not only compromised the perception of her independence in attending the pay-to-play fundraiser but also violated the Prime Minister's ethics code by which the minister and all ministers of the government are bound.

While the Minister of Justice found plenty of time to attend a pay-to-play fundraiser and found plenty of time to compromise her independence as the Minister of Justice, after seven months in office the Minister of Justice has not seen fit and has not found the time to appoint a single judge. There are some 46 to 50 judicial vacancies and the minister has not found the time to appoint a single judge.

The minister is creating a crisis because of her own inaction. Serious criminal cases are being thrown out of court because of delays due to the backlog that this minister has created.

To recap my question of April 13, when will the Minister of Justice stop attending pay-to-play fundraisers, return the pay-to-play cash, and begin appointing desperately needed judges?

[Consular Affairs, June 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 299 days since the Azer children were abducted by their father. We now know that the children are in Iran. How much longer do these children need to be in harm's way? When will the government demand that Iran safely return these four Canadian children?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the Liberals ran around Canada saying they were committed to a small business tax reduction and then quite simply broke their promise, just like so many other promises they have broken since the election. Every single day seems to bring about another new Liberal broken promise from the election.

This is going to cost small businesses. The finance department estimates it is going to cost small businesses some $2.2 billion over the next four years. I should remind hon. members that small businesses constitute 40% of Canada's GDP and represent 98% of companies in Canada. Those are precisely the job creators that need support. Instead, at this time, the government is penalizing them with tax increases.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has nothing to apologize for when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Indeed, when the Conservative Party formed government in 2006, it set out to pay back the largest amount of debt in Canadian history. It was the sum of $38 billion in the repayment of the national debt.

There was, of course, the recession of 2008-09 and my hon. friend is correct, there were deficits run at that time, but they were short-term deficits based upon short-term stimulus spending that allowed the Canadian economy to recover at a faster rate with stronger growth than any country in the G7.

We then returned the budget not only to balance in 2015, but in fact there was a surplus. That is what has been confirmed by the PBO and it has also been confirmed by the Department of Finance. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, but again, we certainly have nothing to apologize for on this side of the House when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister went all across Canada talking about change. Over the last seven months, as evidenced by budget 2016, Canadians have received change but unfortunately it is not the change that was promised and it certainly is not change for the better.

During the election the Liberals made a commitment to run a $10-billion deficit, which they characterized as modest. They promised that by 2019-20, the budget would be returned to balance. Barely after the ballots were counted, the finance minister was trotted out and he admitted that they would not be able to bring in just a $10-billion deficit, that it would be many billions of dollars more. Boy did it ever turn out to be billions and billions of dollars more, $30 billion, more than three times what the Liberals committed to.

What about that commitment to balance the budget by 2019-20? Much like the Liberal promise to run a $10-billion deficit in 2016-17, that promise was another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. Now the government admits that in 2019 instead of a balanced budget, it is going to deliver a $17.9-billion deficit. No wonder, because over the next four years the Liberal government plans to borrow an unprecedented $113 billion, that is $113 billion that Canadians do not have.

Taking a step back one might ask why it is that the Liberals, during the election campaign, promised to take the $1-billion surplus that they inherited from our Conservative government and turn that into a $10-billion deficit. The answer is that the Liberals said there needed to be some short-term spending in some critical areas such as infrastructure.

What do the Liberals have to show for not a $10-billion deficit but a $30-billion deficit in infrastructure? Budget 2016 would provide no new funds for roads, bridges, railways, ports, and highways. Aside from some new funding for public transit, all of the new infrastructure spending in budget 2016 is dedicated to ill-defined green and social infrastructure.

More significantly, much of the $30-billion deficit is not attributable to increased spending on public transit or even spending in green and social infrastructure. Rather, much of this $30-billion deficit is attributable to a 7.6% increase in discretionary spending that would do absolutely nothing to create jobs and growth but would do plenty to saddle Canadians with more debt.

Much of the spending in budget 2016-17 is permanent and ongoing rather than temporary and cyclical. As a result, budget 2016 would set Canada on a path to long-term structural deficits.

While there was no plan in the budget to create jobs, growth, and prosperity, there is a plan in the budget to tax job creators, particularly small businesses that constitute the backbone of the Canadian economy. The government wants to eliminate and is going to eliminate a hiring tax credit and the student tax credit. What about the reduction of the small business tax rate to 9% that the previous Conservative government introduced and that the Liberals during the election campaign said that they would implement? Another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken, because now the government has announced that it is reversing the small business tax cut.

Then what about that middle-class tax cut that the Liberals touted with such enthusiasm during the election campaign, the revenue-neutral middle-class tax cut? Well it turns out the revenue neutral part of it is just another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. It turns out it is not revenue neutral at all. That is just the beginning because what we begin to find out is that the Liberal middle-class tax cut is actually a Liberal middle-class tax cut fraud. Why is that? Because average middle-class Canadians, if they are lucky, would receive $1 a day under the Liberal middle-class tax cut. What do they lose as a result? The talk about eliminating the textbook tax credit, the sports tax credit, the arts tax credit, income-splitting for families, and on and on, is part of the Liberal middle-class tax cut shell game that is making more Canadians worse off than better off.

The Prime Minister talked about change, the government has brought about change, unfortunately, it is not change for the better. Regretfully, it is change for the worse and it is why budget 2016 and Bill C-15 must be defeated.

[Physician-Assisted Dying, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with one more sitting day after today before the stay on the declaration of constitutional invalidity expires, it is now clear that the government cannot meet the June 6 deadline to pass Bill C-14. The Minister of Justice has rightly warned of a legal vacuum absent the legislation, and yet the minister could do something to stop that legal vacuum from arising, namely by applying to the Supreme Court for a short-term extension of the stay to allow time for Parliament to pass legislation. However, the minister has done nothing. She has been all talk and no action. As a result, on June 7, there will be no certainty for patients, no certainty for physicians, and no protections for the vulnerable.

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question about the deadline of June 6.

Right now, it looks like the earliest that the legislation will get to the Senate is mid-week during the week that we return. The expiration of the stay on the declaration of constitutional invalidity expires on the following Monday. It looks like it is now virtually impossible to meet the June 6 deadline.

In the face of that fact, would the hon. member agree that the Minister of Justice should apply to the Supreme Court to ask for a further extension, not a six-month extension, not a four-month extension, perhaps a one month or six-week extension, so that we can get legislation passed without there being a void in which there would be an absence of certainty and an absence of protections for vulnerable Canadians?

[Life Means Life Act, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to support Bill C-229, introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill.

Bill C-229 recognizes that there are some crimes that are so serious and heinous that the only appropriate sentence is life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.

It is a truism that anyone who is convicted of murder has committed a deplorable act worthy of severe sanction. At the same time, it is also a truism that not all murderers are equal, yet under the Criminal Code all persons convicted of first degree murder are treated equally.

Proportionality is an important principle in sentencing, yet under the Criminal Code no allowance is made for proportionality when it comes to those convicted of first degree murder. If we take someone who plans, deliberates to commit, and commits a murder, that would be the classic case of first degree murder. That person, under the Criminal Code, would face a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years behind bars. Then if we take someone who not only plans and deliberates to commit a murder but in the course of committing that murder commits other serious crimes, such as crimes of domination, under the Criminal Code that individual would be subject to the same sentence notwithstanding the presence of aggravating factors.

In order to maintain public confidence in our justice system, it is important that the punishment fit the crime. Bill C-229 seeks to enhance public confidence in our justice system by rationally providing a more severe sentence for the most serious of crimes, including the most serious of first degree murders.

There are some who say that, quite frankly, Bill C-229 is not charter-compliant. While I acknowledge that there are arguments in favour of that position, I would submit that, in looking at the case law, Bill C-229 is very likely charter-compliant. While there is not sufficient time in the relatively short time that I have to speak to this bill with respect to the case law, I would note the Luxton case of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In that case, Luxton, who was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years, appealed and challenged his sentence. He challenged his sentence on the basis of section 7 of the charter, which deals with life, liberty, and the security of the person, and section 9 of the charter, which deals with arbitrary detention, and section 12 of the charter, which deals with cruel and unusual punishment. In a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, Luxton's sentence was upheld. Not only was it upheld, but the Supreme Court pronounced that it is within the prerogative of Parliament to treat the most serious of offences with the appropriate degree of severity in order to maintain a rational sentencing regime. That is precisely what Bill C-229 provides by rationally providing a harsher sentence for the most serious of murderers and other criminals.

I should also note that, in the Luxton decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the Criminal Code provides sensitivity to each individual offender. Bill C-229 also provides sensitivity to each individual offender inasmuch as it provides that anyone who is convicted and sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole does have an opportunity to apply for executive parole after 35 years.

There may be certain cases where, even in the most serious of crimes, parole is appropriate, but only after an extended period of incarceration, and rationally a longer period of time, having regard for the particularly serious nature of the offence that the individual would have been convicted of.

What Bill C-229 does is that it ends this circus of mandatory parole reviews every two years for the most serious of first degree murderers.

Right now, if an individual is convicted of a first degree murder and thrown in jail for life without eligibility for parole for 25 years, after 25 years, they may apply for parole. If their parole application is turned down, every two years there is a mandatory parole eligibility review. Bill C-229 puts an end to that. It puts an end to families having to go every two years to these hearings where the horrors of the crimes inflicted upon their loved ones are relived, no matter how unrepentant the killer may be, and no matter how unsuitable for release the killer may be.

There are those who say that Bill C-229 is just too tough. I say, tell that to the victims' families. Tell that to Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son was brutally murdered by Clifford Olson. Ms. Rosenfeldt supported Bill C-53. She supports life means life, and in so doing she has said, after almost 40 years, the impact that the crimes by Olson has had on her and the Rosenfeldt family never go away. They live with that family every single day.

Indeed, the sentence that Olson imposed on the Rosenfeldt family, as Rosenfeldt said, is tantamount to a life sentence. I say, then, so too should the sentence for the killer be a life sentence. Very clearly, in some cases, life must really mean life.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of words to describe the Prime Minister's conduct yesterday. It certainly was unparliamentary. It was unprofessional. It was unbecoming of a Prime Minister. However, let us not lose sight of what actually took place.

What took place yesterday was an assault, a criminal assault. The Prime Minister walked over, there was clear mens rea, and he grabbed and dragged the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

I was wondering if the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn might be able to comment on the fact that what took place yesterday in the House by the first minister, the Prime Minister of Canada, was an assault.