SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/24/22 11:39:30 a.m.
Watch

I just want to indicate that the hon. member is actually bringing a point of order on something that the hon. member may have said, but I do not know if that was done in the House. If it was done in the House, then I would remind members that they are not to do any of those types of recordings while in the House. On the same point of order, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

77 words

Mr. Matthew Green

Nov/24/22 11:40:10 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, this is not something I do regularly, but I rise to support the hon. member from the Conservative caucus. I am watching the live stream here. It is pretty clear it is being re-streamed from CPAC. I commend him on his innovation. I had wondered if he was doing it from his phone and whether the livestream would be going up his nose, catching his chin or something of that nature, but that is not the case. It is well streamed, and I support the member for using technology to bring his residents into the chamber.

99 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/24/22 11:40:45 a.m.
Watch

On that point, if the livestream from whatever platform he is using, like ParlVU, is public, the hon. member is free to do that as long as he is not filming in the House. If the member is virtual, he is not able to livestream what is happening virtually. Does the hon. member for Edmonton Manning have anything to add to that point of order?

65 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Nov/24/22 11:41:31 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I want to point out one thing. This bill is not a controversial bill by any stretch. We are all in agreement about the importance of putting this bill back—

33 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/24/22 11:41:48 a.m.
Watch

That has nothing to do with the point of order. Can the hon. member get to the point of order?

20 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Nov/24/22 11:41:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, the government members should be more receptive to what we are saying on this side and—

19 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/24/22 11:42:00 a.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

14 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 11:42:04 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to highlight that I find it really ironic that the so-called progressives in this place would be opposed, with the exception of the member from the NDP. I am certainly endeavouring to make this place more accessible to the people, using something like social media to ensure that could be the case. I find it very interesting that the members from the Liberal Party seem to be concerned that Canadians would know what is going on in this place. I will do everything I can to expose the Liberal management of government, whether it is its legislative agenda or whatever the case. I happen to know a constituent who works with victims of crime a lot, and her name is Michelle Hauser. She just commented on this video, saying nobody feels safe. That encompasses much of the concern that many of my constituents are facing when it comes to the status of justice here in Canada. Law enforcement response times in rural communities are not only measured in hours but sometimes in days, and I am not talking about a minor infraction, that somebody jaywalked across a gravel road. I am talking about major crimes, robberies, assaults, things like that. Access to justice is fundamental to a modern, functioning democracy, and we see that being taken away. The Liberals delayed for more than a year the appointment of the victims ombudsman. I am pleased there was an appointment made as it was absolutely necessary, but we see the soft-on-crime approach, where the public safety minister is more worried about bringing tanks to the streets of our capital city to shut down protesters the Liberals disagree with than ensuring that regular Canadians have access to the fundamental principles of justice, which I would hope every member of this place supports. We see the necessity of law enforcement having the tools required to gather the evidence, to make sure there is time within our court system, so people can have their day in court, both for those accused of crimes and also to ensure victims have everything required so they can see justice done. If justice is not done, that erodes the confidence Canadians need to have, not just in the legal system proper but in every facet of government. If Canadians cannot feel safe in their own homes, that fundamentally erodes one of the very basic principles of what makes western democracy. I speak with law enforcement often, whether it is the Mounties in my constituency who drive up and down the many thousands of kilometres in my riding or the Camrose Police Service, which does great work, and many of the officers do fantastic service to the community. Some have come to me confidentially and said it is overwhelming for them. They will, in some cases, spend late nights burning the midnight oil after a long day of patrol or gathering information on investigations, and all of these sorts of things, yet when the case goes before a judge, it is simply tossed. Imagine how somebody in law enforcement would feel after spending days putting together a case, only to have it tossed out and the criminal back on the streets victimizing again. These are very serious things. I cannot emphasize that enough. The revolving door of the justice system is a real concern. It is one thing for the system to ensure that those who are brought within it, having been accused of a crime, are not unnecessarily held up or anything like that. However, when those who have multiple arrest warrants are arrested again for something that may be unrelated or in another jurisdiction, and then all of a sudden they are back out on the streets again, we are talking about access to justice. For the many victims, the consequence is that their victimizers are once again out on the streets. A comment from Lynn says, “No one should be above the law.” I agree. No one should. That is a message the Prime Minister should take seriously. No one should be above the law, not one person, whether it is each and every one of the 338 of us in this place, or every single Canadian. The rule of law is at the very foundation of who we are as a democratic society. To see an erosion of that is absolutely devastating. A question is asked by Shawna about how we address parole issues. It is a huge concern. We occasionally hear the stories that grab a headline about some horrific crime that has been committed and that criminal who has been found guilty of that crime. Then there is a public outpouring that keeps that person behind bars, yet we see continually from the government a pursuit of an agenda that would lessen the ability to keep some of those serious criminals behind bars. That is relevant because it is victims who ultimately suffer. We need to figure out a path forward so that serious sexual predators in the country face the consequences of their crimes. That is essential for the safety of our society in general. Although it did not happen in my constituency, there is a very clear example. A young woman and her baby were killed. Her partner is from my constituency, so it hits really close to home. They were living next door to a sexual predator. They were murdered. It was a failure of the justice system. Access to justice is fundamental and key. We are seeing it is being increasingly denied to Canadians. I take that point about losing faith in the RCMP institution. There has been political interference in the largest mass shooting in Canadian history. The commissioner of the RCMP was facing political pressure from a minister to further the Liberals' political agenda. We talk about access to justice. When we have the top brass of Canada's national law enforcement organization facing political pressure—

1001 words

All Topics

Mr. Chris Bittle

Nov/24/22 11:50:03 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the hon. member is reading comments off Facebook, but we should be focused on the bill, which is Bill S-4. It does not deal with the RCMP, or the brass or whatever his constituents are thinking. It is nice he is responding to that, but he needs to be relevant and he needs to speak to the bill before us.

72 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/24/22 11:50:24 a.m.
Watch

I have been listening as well and I want to remind the hon. member that he should be speaking to the bill itself. I would remind him of that. The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

35 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Nov/24/22 11:50:41 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I notice that some of the members across the way are repeatedly interrupting my hon. colleague's speech. I want to remind them that there is an all-party agreement to have this debate collapse, but if they continue with the interruptions, that is going to have to be revisited—

58 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/24/22 11:51:03 a.m.
Watch

This is not really a point of order. I think if the hon. member has an issue with that, he should take it to his House leader and his whip. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

34 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Nov/24/22 11:51:16 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, on the same point, it is a little disappointing that the Conservative critic is suggesting that we do not following the Standing Orders and if the Conservatives are permitted not to follow the Standing Orders, the debate should collapse, but in the absence of—

47 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/24/22 11:51:31 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

I would remind members that points of order have to be used judiciously as well. I ruled on the point of order that the hon. member for Fundy Royal put forward. I want to remind members that they are to ensure that they are speaking about the bill that is before the House. I understand that there is some latitude, but the hon. member is actually going over that as well. I want to remind the hon. member to stick to the debate on Bill S-4.

87 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 11:52:13 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to that. When it comes to the administration of justice within my constituency, the RCMP members, the hard-working men and women who wear the Serge, are the ones facing the consequences of Liberal mismanagement. The reason it has such a close correlation to Bill S-4 before the House is because it is fundamentally associated with access to justice. I talk about many of these things, and made it very clear in Facebook Live, and I have been happy to endeavour to expand Canadians' access to this place, as is fundamental. Democracy is not simply about election day, but each and every day in between. It certainly has been an interesting experiment. I found it interesting, but very disappointing, that members specifically of the Liberal Party would hate any attempt to be progressive in the ability of Canadians to access our democracy. The rule of law is fundamental to a modern functioning democracy, and we are seeing an erosion of that. We need to prioritize access to justice in every way possible. In some ways that has to do with ensuring there are video conference options and that administrative details can be sorted out so there are no unnecessary delays. Our Criminal Code was written by Prime Minister John Sparrow back in the 1800s, although it has been updated significantly since then over the course of our country's history. We need to ensure it is updated to ultimately ensure that Canadians have access to justice, that victims are protected and that those who commit crimes face the time that is due them.

271 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Nov/24/22 11:54:26 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I was watching on Facebook, and I guess I understand why the hon. member was dog whistling to the convoy crowd. There were a number of comments on there, which he does not seem to be correcting, including that the Prime Minister should be arrested, so on and so forth. It is disappointing to see the hon. member play to the lowest common denominator. However, I did ask a question in that forum, and I would like to give him an opportunity to answer. He and his colleagues talk about U.S.-style laws. In the United States, especially in the southern United States, could he give us an example of the types of laws he wants, laws that have actually made those communities safer?

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 11:55:13 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how that member seems to suggest that the opinions of many Canadian do not matter. However, I will specifically address the question. This is the reality. That member and many members of the Liberal Party are attempting to paint Conservatives as somehow being something that very clearly we are not, We are standing up for and with victims of serious crime. In fact, a bill brought forward by a Conservative MP from the Maritimes in the last Parliament was passed to ensure there would be a strategy to address recidivism. Those members are trying to compare what we are doing in standing up for victims to Trump. The biggest comparison to Trump in this place is the Prime Minister, who has more ethical violations than he can count. The Conservatives have and will continue to stand up for victims. That is what Canadians expect in this place.

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/24/22 11:56:22 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot on his speech and on taking the initiative to stream it live on his Facebook page. I had a look, and I thought that was a good idea. I also found it interesting that other House of Commons colleagues commented on my colleague's Facebook page. Anyway, he talked about how he thinks sentences should be tougher, especially for more serious crimes. I visited the Drummond Institution in my region, a medium-security penitentiary that is proud of its successful approaches to supporting inmates' rehabilitation, even when they have committed violent crimes. Personally, what I think we should be looking at is the parole system, which may have too many gaps and shortcomings. I would really like to know what data my colleague and his fellow Conservatives are using to support their assertion that a tougher stance on criminal penalties is more effective than the current approach, which is based on reintegration.

163 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/24/22 11:57:33 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, although it feeds into the false premise that somehow we are asking for stiffer penalties. It is the Minister of Justice who often suggests they should raise the maximum penalty that is allowable for serious crimes. However, I have yet to hear the Minister of Justice acknowledge the number of times the maximum penalty is brought forward on any offence. I am proud to represent many correctional officers in my constituency. There is an institution in Drumheller. In fact, I speak often with members of Correctional Services Canada who are incredibly frustrated about some of the ways that, even in prisons, the rights of serious criminals are prioritized over the rights of the well-being of correctional officers.

124 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Nov/24/22 11:58:35 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Alberta did not speak an awful lot about the bill at hand. There was not an awful lot there on Bill S-4, so I certainly hope later on today, as I do my speech, I am afforded the same leniency to expand upon thoughts. One thing he did talk about was the attack on an RCMP officer, and I think everyone in the House finds it incredibly appalling to hear that. From my perspective as an Albertan, I remember last year when the RCMP officers in Coutts were threatened with illegal guns and with crime. I wonder why the member has such a different perspective on what should have been done in that situation. Why the Emergencies Act should not have been enacted? Why we should not have done everything we could to protect those RCMP officers? Why the different perspective for what should be done to protect RCMP officers in his community?

159 words

All Topics