Peter Kent

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when we were in government, working responsibly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by regulation, protecting the environment at the same time as being conscious of protecting the economy, Environment Canada scientists and economists did cost-benefit evaluations of every piece of legislation. When we brought in legislation to reduce tailpipe emissions, which was very effective, the benefits were found to outweigh the costs, and we shared that information at committee. When we brought in legislation to phase out any new construction of coal-fired generating stations, we did a cost-benefit estimate and shared those dollar figures with the industry.

Why will the minister not share the cost-benefit studies that we know the department has done with regard to how much the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family?

[Latin American Heritage Month Act, June 6th, 2018]

[Member spoke in Spanish]

[English]

Madam Speaker, this is yet another opportunity to talk about Latin American heritage month and Bill S-218. Let me acknowledge again the support this bill has received from all sides of the House since it arrived here from the Senate.

This legislation essentially recognizes the many significant contributions to Canada's social, economic, cultural, and political fabric made by Canada's dynamic Latin American community. As I have done on every occasion I have spoken to the bill, I would like to again remind colleagues and those watching on CPAC tonight that this legislation, carefully fashioned by our late colleague, the hon. Senator Tobias Enverga, will I am sure stand as a notable element of his political legacy.

In a moment I will speak of my admiration and unrestrained support for the bill, but first I would like to read just a couple of paragraphs from a speech delivered by Senator Enverga when he spoke at second reading in the other place.

He reminded his colleague that he came to Canada from the Philippines and that he was one of many people now in the Senate who were fortunate enough to be welcomed to Parliament, and to be able to contribute to society. Senator Tobias Enverga pointed out that, “Few countries in the world are as open and accepting to people who come from other countries to settle and make a new life for themselves.” He said, “The Canadian policy of multiculturalism is a great success when it comes to allowing for, and celebrating, the various cultural backgrounds and languages we have”, and share.

The Senator referenced other heritage months that moved him to propose one for Canadians of Latin American descent. He talked about the importance of Black History Month, proclaimed in 1995, and about Asian Heritage Month. He anticipated Italian Heritage Month and Portuguese Heritage Month, both passed into law just last year, and this year we celebrated Jewish Heritage Month.

Before I get to the bill he created, the process and legislation before us today, I will provide a little background on this great Canadian.

Tobias “Jun” Enverga was respected by all for his kindness, warm sense of humour, and his unparalleled work ethic. He was a family man, self-described as surrounded by four lovely women, his daughters Reeza, Rocel, and Rystle, and his wife Rosemer. He was a tireless advocate for people with disabilities. Tobias served as a Catholic School Board trustee in Toronto for years and became known in the Toronto region for launching the Philippine Canadian Charitable Foundation and its fantastic annual Pinoy festival and trade show, which, by the way, is next Saturday at the Toronto Convention Centre. Senator Enverga was also co-chair of the Canada-Philippines Interparliamentary Group, and inaugurated the annual Filipino independence day flag raising on Parliament Hill, which I am sure many members of the House will attend on Monday morning.

During his years at the Senate, Senator Enverga was a member of several standing committees. He participated in a variety of important studies on issues ranging from first nations northern housing to maritime search and rescue operations. Also, and this is very important to remember, Senator Enverga was an executive member of the ParlAmericas group. He invested his energy in forging closer ties with parliamentarians from across Latin America, helping them to strengthen democracy and governance in their countries through political dialogue and parliamentary co-operation. It was his work with ParlAmericas that moved him to propose the bill before us today.

As we know all too well, Senator Enverga passed away Thursday, November 16, while on parliamentary business in Colombia. Despite his tragic and untimely passing, Senator Enverga's Latin American heritage month bill lives on. It was passed in the other place a couple of weeks later and sent to us in the House.

Some of my colleagues in the House may remember that Senator Enverga introduced a bill in the 41st Parliament, Bill S-228, to create a Hispanic heritage month, matching such designations by the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto. However, that bill was lost on the Order Paper in the election of 2015.

Senator Enverga, after further consultation with members of the public, reconsidered the reintroduction of that legislation and decided instead to change the focus in this bill to “Latin American”, as a geographic and linguistic community, which adds not only the Lusophone and Francophone communities, but also those of the indigenous peoples of the Latin American region. This was not a snap decision. Senator Enverga pondered long and deeply the issues of self-identification of the diverse Latin American community in Canada. He became convinced that a Latin American heritage month would better enhance our understanding of the complexities involved and believed this act would better respect the spirit of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988.

Latin America is of our hemisphere. The region is generally understood to consist of the entire continent of South America, all of Central America, Mexico, and the islands of the Caribbean whose peoples speak a Romance language or have a Romance language among their various official languages.

For the purposes of this bill, Senator Enverga envisioned the widest possible interpretation so Bill S-218 would cover those who identified as Spanish and Portuguese speakers from South America and Central America, as well as those whose heritage was of the Francophone and Hispanic Caribbean Islands.

Using that broad and inclusive measure, we can see that Canadians of Latin American origin can be found far and wide across our great country from coast to coast to coast. In the absence of absolute census numbers covering that broad, and I think members would agree somewhat imprecise measure, we might estimate a possible demographic well above half a million men, women and children.

What we do know is that the Latin American community is one of the fastest-growing cultural groups in Canada today. Statistics Canada reports that between 1996 and 2001, for example, the number of individuals reporting Latin American origins rose by 32%, at a time when the overall Canadian population grew by only 4%.

With respect to actual numbers, the demographers can only estimate that between 600,000 and 1.2 million Latin Americans, again from the broadest possible measure, live among us. These numbers are particularly interesting, given there was only a small Latin American population in Canada before the 1960s. It was in the sixties and seventies that we recorded the first significant migration of Latin Americans to Canada. Unfortunately, in too many cases, their motivation was to escape social and economic turmoil, dictatorships, conflict, and most recently another wave, fleeing Venezuela's corrupt and repressive regimes under, first, Hugo Chavez, and now the brutal Nicolas Maduro. These Latin Americans represented significant loss to the countries they left, but they have been a boon to Canada.

I could speak to the virtues of supporting Bill S-218, a bill to bring Latin American Heritage Month to Canada, but I must stop there. I move:

That, when the order for consideration of Bill S-218, an Act respecting Latin American Heritage Month is next called, the time provided for the consideration of any remaining stage of the bill be extended, pursuant to Standing Order 98(3), by a period not exceeding five consecutive hours.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2018]

With regard to the event featuring Palestinian Authority Archbishop Atallah Hannah in April 2018, in which the Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Erin Mills provided greetings on behalf of the Prime Minister: (a) did the Prime Minister authorize the greetings; (b) does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree with the statement given at the event on behalf of the Prime Minister; and (c) if the Member was not speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister or was not authorized to provide the greetings, what disciplinary action or corrective measure has the government taken?

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very heartfelt question. I understand the pain and suffering of the family and those close to the victims of this shooting.

Conservatives believe in common sense precautions and background checks, even of those who, in some cases, would own possession acquisition licences.

I am not familiar with the circumstances in this particular case, but I do know that the statistics cited by experts at committee, before the committee was cut short from hearing witnesses, overwhelmingly point towards unregistered firearms owners as the problem in Canada with regard to gun crime, and not those holding legally acquired and respected licences.

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there are any number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the answers and explanations offered not only by the public safety minister, but also by some of those on the backbenches of the Liberal government who are trying to make excuses for what is a regulatory bill that takes clear aim at legal, law-abiding, licenced sport shooters, farmers, and hunters. The provisions and contradictions in the bill, the arguments presented by the minister at any number of news conferences, and reflected in the early termination of witnesses before committee show that the government, in fact, has a very difficult time explaining those contradictions in Bill C-71.

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion that would enable the public safety committee to continue its work and to hear witnesses beyond Ottawa and across Canada.

I am pleased as well to speak to the content of Bill C-71, despite the legislative guillotine that has fallen in committee, blocking any further witnesses after barely four two-hour committee meetings, and in the shadow of the time allocation that will almost inevitably be imposed by the Liberal government. As members know, time allocation was imposed five times in barely three days last week, setting a new and unfortunate record for the Liberal government.

I am pleased I have this opportunity to debate this dishonest legislation. I use the word “dishonest” advisedly in the same way the Liberals attempted to impose their version of electoral reform and then abandoned their own legislation when they could not get their way. It is dishonest in the same way the Liberals promised to run modest budget deficits and then threw all caution and fiscal prudence out the window with runaway and ineffective spending.

Bill C-71 is dishonest in the same way as the Liberals' legislation to impose on Canadians a carbon tax, while downloading the responsibility at the same time on the provinces, imposing a carbon tax on Canadians, while refusing to share with Canadians the actual cost of such taxes.

Bill C-71 is dishonest because the Liberals claim that the legislation the government is ramming through the House, without adequate consideration, is in response to increased criminal gun use. However, the legislation is absolutely void of any provisions to actually combat, control or reduce the illegal guns used by gangs and organized crime.

Bill C-71 would target law-abiding Canadian gun owners who already follow regulations to acquire licences for gun purchases and who use them within the law.

Bill C-71 boils down to the Liberals' imposition, again with the tyranny of their majority, of the recreation of an expensive, bureaucratic, and ineffective gun registry by the back door. The claim by the Minister of Public Safety that this is not a backdoor registry is preposterous, it is farcical. The government says it is a public safety bill, but, as I mentioned earlier, it does not deal with threats to public safety as posed by gangbangers or organized crime or even the increasing wave of rural crime.

This is a regulatory bill, a regressive regulatory bill, aimed at already law-abiding citizens. The public safety minister claims that Bill C-71 only requires firearms retailers to keep records of who buys a gun and with which possession acquisition licence. However, that is not true. I would direct the minister to section 58.1 of Bill C-71 for those details, and the mention of the registrar and the references.

With regard to the new requirement under Bill C-71, that the private transfer of firearms between two legally licensed individuals confront bureaucratic hurdles through a yet not costed firearms call centre, we are told it is not a registry because, at this point, a description of the firearm in question and its serial number will not be required. However, a reference number will be generated and registered, and it would only be a short hop to amend the legislation in future to achieve a 100% registry.

I would like to speak on what the public safety minister claims Bill C-71 would do to combat gun crime and the reality of what it would not do.

There is nothing within Bill C-71 to address the 167% increase in gun violence in downtown Toronto this year. There is nothing to address the 162 shootings up to May 28, just last week, that have occurred in Toronto this year, beyond downtown and across the suburbs of Canada's metropolis. If this trend continues, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it will not, this will be the fourth straight year in Toronto in which the number of shooting victims has increased.

In 2015, Toronto saw 429 shootings. In 2016, there were 581 shootings. In 2017, there were 594 shootings. This year, with 215 people shot to date, the city is on course for another very bad year. There were six shooting homicides in May alone. In fact, these recent numbers will exceed, in fact are approaching double the numbers of Toronto's infamous year of the gun in 2005, when there were 359 shooting victims and 52 died.

Just this morning, a professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa, Irvin Waller, was reported by the Toronto Star newspaper as saying that Canadian cities had not prioritized violence prevention. The same can be said about the Liberal government's Bill C-71, which misses the mark so unacceptably. The problem that the Liberal government cannot seem to recognize is that the problem is gun crime, not legal firearms ownership.

Statistics Canada informs us, in the oft-quoted testimony tonight of Gary Mauser, the professor emeritus at the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University, that licensed gun owners, those holding possession and acquisition licences, pose virtually no threat to public safety. Professor Mauser told the committee that PAL holders had a homicide rate lower, at less than one PAL holder per 100,000 licensed gun owners, than the national homicide rate. The professor reminded the Standing Committee on Public Safety that there was agreement among criminologists that no substantial evidence existed that legislation restricting access to firearms to the general public was effective in reducing criminal violence.

We will recall that the Minister of Public Safety and a passel of acolytes hosted a so-called summit on guns and gangs, at which they claimed the problem of gun crime was domestic. They claimed the problem was no longer the illegal smuggling of weapons of all sorts from the United States. However, turning to the testimony before committee by Professor Mauser, he said that criminals were not getting their firearms from law-abiding Canadians. It was either by stealing them, as the public safety minister suggested was the case these days, or through what the professor called straw purchases. He said that at the height of the long-gun registry, only 9% of firearms involved in homicides were registered. He quoted Statistics Canada again, revealing that only 135 out of 1,485 firearm homicides from 2003 to 2010 involved registered weapons. In other words, barely 3% of the total number of homicides recorded in that period were legally registered firearms.

Professor Mauser said, “All reputable research indicates that gang crime — urban or rural — is driven by smuggled firearms that flow to Canada as part of the illegal drug trade.” He said, again as an academic expert in the field of gun control and firearm law in Canada, “Analyses of guns recovered from criminal activity in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver and the Prairie Provinces show that between two-thirds and 90% of these guns involved in violent crime had been smuggled into Canada.”

I return to my original contention that Bill C-71 is dishonest Liberal legislation, as with so many other pieces of legislation that the government has either abandoned or steam-rolled, or attempted to steam-roll, through Parliament. Bill C-71 would impose a back door gun registry on law-abiding citizens, while doing absolutely nothing to address gang gun crime or organized crime.

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the complaints and criticisms we heard from Canada's Assembly of First Nations and indigenous peoples about the lack of consultation and the fact that many treaties may be violated, as well as the traditional rights to subsistence hunting. Can the member explain why the Liberal government, which prides itself on consultations with the first nations, has allowed so little discussion with the first nations on this bill?

[Democratic Reform, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals allowed Canadians to believe Cambridge Analytica whistle-blower Christopher Wylie, working in the Liberal leader's office in 2009, was terminated because his electoral data manipulation was too invasive. In testimony to the ethics committee today, Mr. Wylie said that was not why his contract ended.

In a 2016 email to the U.K.'s leave movement in the Brexit referendum, Wylie said that the outcome could be influenced with psychographic micro-targeting and that he was working on a similar project for a major Canadian political party.

Who is telling the truth?

[Ways and Means, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries said in an answer in the House that our Conservative government never had a plan to include indigenous partners in the clam harvesting fishery. I would like to table a release made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in early 2015 that shows exactly the opposite.

[Ethics, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister attempts to excuse his interference in the bid process that gifted a clam harvesting quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a shell company because of after-the-fact involvement of minority indigenous partners. However, the rigged process also happened to involve the brother of a sitting Liberal MP, a former Liberal MP, and a cousin of the minister's wife, who is a former federal fisheries official.

Again, will the Prime Minister remove the minister from this file and restart the process?