SoVote

Feb/6/24 12:49:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the member already knows where I stand on cutting police budgets. I disagree with any effort taken by a municipal government that will somehow limit or curtail the ability of the police forces to do their job. This is a serious problem, and we do not deny it is a serious problem, but serious problems require serious solutions, not slogans. The Leader of the Opposition held a press conference in front of the Port of Montreal and said that he would impose mandatory minimum sentences. There already is a mandatory minimum sentence. I have sat in rooms with people from the law enforcement community. I have met at other times with automakers and other levels of government. Each of them point fingers in other directions. This needs to be a collaborative effort where everybody gets together in one room and asks what each can do. That is going to happen on Thursday.

156 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/6/24 12:50:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9 Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that auto theft is a scourge and needs to be addressed. I would like my colleague to comment on the rhetoric, the reasoning behind today's Conservative motion. They claim that the explosion in auto theft is because of the Liberal government. They say it is because of Bill C‑5, even though that bill did not receive royal assent until late 2022. They also say it is because sentences are too lenient, but these sentences, which were added to the Criminal Code in 2010, were the result of Bill S‑9. That bill was introduced by the Conservative Party, the government at the time. If the penalties are too lenient, the Conservative Party only has itself to blame. I wonder what exactly my colleague is proposing. We know there will be a national summit this Thursday. There was talk of giving more resources to the Canada Border Services Agency and giving existing police forces the means they need to take action. In his opinion, what more should the government be doing to counter this scourge?

185 words

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/6/24 12:51:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the reason behind the motion is simple: It is politics. The Leader of the Opposition read something in the paper and thought, “Oh, here's something I can talk about and score a few political points”. Let us be honest. However, what more can be done is why we are convening this meeting on Thursday. As I said earlier, it has to be a collaborative effort by all parties involved. Auto manufacturers have to be at the table, and they have to be able to say, “This is what we can do to make our cars more safe and protect them against auto theft.” We need law enforcement communities. My friend from Lake Simcoe said that they should stand up and tell us what they can do and what resources they need. The federal government needs to step up and correct some of the problems created by the previous Conservative government, including enhancing the level of resources that are available to CBSA. It is a group effort that has to be done with everybody at the table.

183 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Feb/6/24 12:52:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the issue of gang crime is serious, but we see that the Conservatives have voted against CBSA. Under Stephen Harper, all the tough-on-crime bills they brought proved unconstitutional. They had more recalls than the Ford Pinto, which shows that this is not a party that is serious about dealing with crime. It was all about stunts, it was all about fundraising and it was all about giving their no-name members on the back bench a reason to get up and holler and shout. Once again, what we see with these Conservatives is that they are doing it from the front bench, not the back bench, but it is the same old shenanigans.

117 words

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/6/24 12:53:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that there is no such thing as a no-name member in this House. However, anybody who stands in this House or outside this House and accuses any other member of being soft on crime is being disingenuous and it is disrespectful to the people who live in this country, because everybody in this House, regardless of political stripe, believes in law and order.

70 words

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 12:53:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised earlier, I withdraw my comments and apologize.

15 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:54:00 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. minister for his comments. We will consider the issue closed.

14 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 12:54:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by providing a thought in regards to the seriousness of the issue. I would like to think—

24 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:54:21 p.m.
Watch

I believe we have a point of order from the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

16 words

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

Feb/6/24 12:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is not about the current speaker, but I wanted to catch it early so that I did not cut him off and I hope he will be given the chance to begin anew. I missed the debate earlier, but I have been in this chamber before when the question of T-shirt wearing was raised and I want to press that again. I understand that you said there was an agreement that had been struck that if a member came in here wearing a T-shirt under a jacket, it is permissible. I have not heard of this before, and I would ask you to report back to this chamber when in fact that agreement was made or perhaps you can do it now. I find that a breach of the chamber's rules.

137 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:54:59 p.m.
Watch

I will read this again, because this has happened on a number of occasions. I think I erred this last time when I allowed the hon. minister to speak. We either are going to allow T-shirts or not allow T-shirts. I would say that they are not allowed, and so I am going to make a bit of a ruling on the fly here. There is no rule for women's attire, except we might say that the Standing Orders do not prescribe a dress code for members participating in debate. However, Speakers have ruled that all members desiring to be recognized to speak at any point during the proceedings of the House must be wearing contemporary business attire. The added point to that is when people speak to S.O. 31s especially and want to wear their team's shirts, that has been permissible on a number of occasions in this chamber. I just want folks to be more judicious in their attire in the House. Falling short of prescribing what that attire should be, slogans on T-shirts should not be acceptable in the House of Commons.

191 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Feb/6/24 12:56:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I appreciate that and I appreciate the intervention by my Conservative colleague. I just want to be clear, because we have rules. A male who is not wearing tie should not be recognized. We have had rules where, let us say there was a hockey tournament and a team wins, members wear their jersey. However, we do not have a rule where someone, just because they are supporting a team or an issue, gets to come in and wear it. We have a very narrow window. I just want to make sure that those are terms under which someone could wear something that is not business attire. It is in that specific instance that perhaps Regina has won or, God help us, the Toronto Argonauts finally win, on that day we give them that one moment. Other than that, we have to have respect for the Chamber.

154 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:57:04 p.m.
Watch

Maybe it would be permissible or a good idea for PROC to look at attire in the House, just to make sure that we are all being judicious in following the rules as set forth within our Standing Orders. I will let the parliamentary secretary restart after the hon. member stands on a question of privilege. The hon. House leader for the official opposition.

64 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Feb/6/24 12:57:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about a very serious matter: the misleading comments of the Prime Minister concerning the invitation of Yaroslav Hunka, a former soldier of the Waffen-SS military unit in World War II, to attend events with the President of Ukraine during his recent visit to Canada. As we all recall, last September this chamber was the epicentre of a grave international embarrassment for Canada when this individual, a former SS soldier, was recognized and given a standing ovation during President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's address to our Parliament. This gave Vladimir Putin a major propaganda coup and caused significant pain for Jewish Canadians and all victims persecuted in World War II. The government, and the Prime Minister in particular, were at great pains to distance themselves from any connection to this individual, claiming that they had absolutely nothing to do with his invitation and subsequent recognition. Lo and behold, Global Affairs Canada recently released, through access to information, a copy of an email sent to Yaroslav Hunka inviting him to a reception with President Zelenskyy, which was reported on yesterday afternoon by The Globe and Mail and, subsequently, other media outlets. Here is the kicker: It was the Prime Minister's invitation. On Monday, September 19, 2023, some four days before the President's address to Parliament, an email account called "RSVP Official Events/Événements officiels RSVP" sent an email with the subject line, “INVITATION FROM THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA — SEPTEMBER 22, 2023”. The body of the email begins, “Dear Yaroslav Hunka, The Right Honourable...Prime Minister of Canada, is pleased to invite you to a special event.” As members may recall, until the visit was formally announced a few days later, there was a lot of coded language being used, like in the case of this "special event", but the point remains, that the Prime Minister invited this former SS soldier to attend an event honouring the President of Ukraine. Of course, members will recall that the Prime Minister and his government were under sustained questioning in the House in the week following the visit about just how such a colossal mistake, with international reverberations, could take place. There were questions like those asked by the Leader of the Opposition on the first occasion the Prime Minister appeared in the House after the scandalous events, such as, “did the Prime Minister's national security, intelligence or diplomatic officials vet the names of the people the Prime Minister allowed within mere feet of President Zelenskyy?”; and “the Prime Minister has just said that he allowed the president of a war-torn country, who is perhaps the biggest target of false propaganda and potential assassinations, to be surrounded by hundreds of people who had not been vetted for their security background, the potential risks they present or, in this case, the massive diplomatic disasters they could have brought to the event. Is the Prime Minister really saying he did absolutely nothing to protect the Ukrainian president from all those many risks?” Repeatedly, we were assured that the blame lay exclusively at the then-Speaker's feet, as if the address to Parliament was the only opportunity for this former SS soldier to come near President Zelenskyy. For example, the Prime Minister told the House on September 27, 2023, “The Leader of the Opposition knows that not one parliamentarian was aware”, and, later, “no parliamentarian knew the name or the identity of the person he welcomed to this House and recognized”. Now we know, that this is just not so. The Prime Minister invited this individual, by name, to an event with President Zelenskyy. The Prime Minister also said that day, “the Speaker of this House of Commons invited an individual without apparently doing that Google search, but it is not up to the government of the day to oversee or to have a veto power over those who the Speaker or, indeed, members of official parties choose to invite into this House.” Who does the Prime Minister blame for not doing “that Google search” for his own personal invitation? Before the Liberals jump up and claim that these are two separate events, two separate guest lists and whatnot, let me quote an interview the former Speaker, the honourable member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, gave to CTV Northern Ontario two weeks ago, explaining the central role the Prime Minister's Office plays in guest invitations for major international events held on Parliament Hill, like President Zelenskyy's wartime address, stating, “normally it goes to the Prime Minister's Office and they go through it with a fine-tooth comb” and then the invitation goes out from protocol. “So who invited him? That's up for grabs....” Besides the fact that there was no sign of a comb, fine-tooth or otherwise, to be found, yesterday afternoon's revelations add new context to the last words in that quotation: "who invited him? That's up for grabs". According to news reports at the time, it is understood that this individual's son approached the then Speaker's constituency office about securing an invitation to the Ottawa address. Knowing on the Monday of the week of the visit that there was a personal invitation from the Prime Minister to attend the Toronto event, it is not hard to picture this invitation becoming part of the discussion in the North Bay constituency office. One can put themselves in the shoes of the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming. One is told about the individual's connection to Ukraine and is shown an invitation in the Prime Minister's name, the name of the leader of the party whose label one is elected under. Is one really going to sit there and think they better second-guess the judgment of the PMO, the PCO and the diplomatic protocol office? I sincerely doubt it. As the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming said, “So who invited him? That's up for grabs”. That statement makes a whole lot more sense in light of yesterday's Globe report. I would respectfully submit it is now obvious that the Prime Minister invited Yaroslav Hunka to meet the President of Ukraine, and the then Speaker took it on good faith and, in turn, authorized his own invitation. At the very least, it shows us that the protocol office itself, in the Prime Minister's Office, had the name of this individual on its guest list. Whatever happened between the Speaker's office and the Prime Minister's Office in terms of the invitation, we now know that this individual, this former SS member, was already on the protocol list. He was already on the list of people to be invited. On September 27, the Prime Minister told the House, “we apologized today on behalf of all parliamentarians. For the past few days, we have been saying how sorry we are about the mistake made by the Speaker of the House of Commons.” The only mistake, Mr. Speaker, was that your predecessor put blind trust in the fact that an invitation was issued by the Prime Minister. I am aware the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has agreed to conduct some form of a study on the matter; although, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not seem to consider the matter important given that no hearings have yet to take place some five months later. However, these revelations and the obvious concern that the Prime Minister appears to have misled the House are of a whole new dimension, one which engages the privileges of the House and rises, in my respectful submission, to a contempt of Parliament. Page 85 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes that cases of privilege have involved “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House or one of its committees by a Minister or by a Member”. It is a well-established principle that to make out a prima facie case of privilege in relation to a claim of misleading the House, three elements must be established. Firstly, it must be proven that the statement was misleading. Knowing what we know now from the Global Affairs Canada access to information release, we can see it was misleading. There is no doubt that members of Parliament, of all opposition parties, were trying to find out exactly what interaction, what role, was under the purview of the PMO or the Prime Minister for inviting this individual. There were multiple questions coming from many different angles, and the government always gave the same explanation that it had absolutely no knowledge of this individual's background and that it had nothing to do with his invitation. We now know, through this access to information release, that is false and, therefore, misleading. Secondly, it must be established that the member making the statement knew it to be misleading. The invitation that was released is in the name of the Prime Minister. To claim he had no knowledge of this individual is now absurd. Thirdly, the misleading statement must have been offered with the intention to mislead the House. The House was engulfed in a massive international scandal, one which saw our own Speaker resign, falling on his sword for the Prime Minister, so there is little doubt that the Prime Minister was eager to deflect his own role and responsibility and to lay the blame elsewhere. Of course, before the Prime Minister might stand up and assert that he was blindsided by his own officials' denials, let me quote Bosc and Gagnon at page 116: Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and, thus, a prima facie breach of privilege. For example, on December 6, 1978, in finding that a prima facie contempt of the House existed, Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official, by deliberately misleading a Minister, had impeded the Member in the performance of his duties and consequently obstructed the House itself. No matter how one cuts it, the House was misled. Its privileges were breached, and action should be taken immediately. Should the Speaker agree with me that the Prime Minister's words amount to a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

1750 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 1:07:40 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for the information. We will take that under advisement and come back to the House as soon as is practical.

27 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 1:07:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I started by acknowledging that crimes of the nature we have been talking about today affect all our communities. As much as we banter back and forth, I would not want to take anything away from the impact it has on victims. I wanted to amplify that point because I truly believe that all of us have a right to feel safe and comfortable in the communities where we live. As the justice critic, when I served in the Manitoba legislature, as well as during a number of years here in Ottawa, I have always recognized the importance of the issue of safety and crime. As legislators, we need to do what we can to keep our communities safe. Quite frankly, I am very proud of initiatives the Liberal government has taken over the last number of years to do just that: to keep the communities we live in safe. That does not mean the issues are resolved. I am not saying that at all. I think we have work to do. We will continue to look at ways to make our communities healthier and safer. Looking at today's opposition day motion, I see that it is very much a politically motivated issue brought forward by the Conservative Party. The message it is trying to give Canadians is that it is collectively tough on crime. I want to deal with that, because that is not the reality we have seen. Specifically, we are talking about automobile theft. The discussions, thus far, from the Conservative benches have been focused on Canada's border control, car theft and how vehicles are exported outside of Canada. It is interesting that one member who stood up actually criticized the government. That really stuck with me. The member said something to the effect that we need to support and to provide more money to the CBSA, Canada's border control agency. It is amazing that while the Conservatives were in government, they actually cut Canada's border control agents. At one time, we had close to 15,000 border controls. I have the actual number of full-time equivalents: 14,833. They were cut to 13,774 full-time equivalents. Those were well over 1,000 jobs cut by the former government and the former prime minister. The current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the cabinet of that former prime minister. That was a substantial cut, and now they are saying we need to have more. That was one comment. The Conservatives talk about it being in the motion. We talk about increasing sentences from six months to three years. That six months is in regard to someone getting caught stealing a car on a third occasion. The current law states that it is a minimum of six months. The Conservatives say that it is not tough enough and that they believe it should be three years. Again, who do members think put in the six months? It was Stephen Harper. Are Conservatives saying today that Stephen Harper messed up on that policy directive, and that Stephen Harper messed up on the cutbacks on the border controls? What the member did not reference, but I will, are the hundreds of millions of dollars cut also by Stephen Harper. Is the Conservative Party now saying that, too, was a mistake? Let us keep in mind that it is easy for the Conservatives to concede that Stephen Harper made a mess of things and made problems a lot worse with cutbacks, and that might have contributed to the increases we are seeing. I would remind Conservatives that they might want to throw Stephen Harper under the bus, but their current leader was a minister in Stephen Harper's government, and they need to be reminded of that. Let us think about it. This issue has been taking place for quite a while. The so-called “tough on crime” Leader of the Conservative Party, tougher than Stephen Harper was on crime, is tougher than when he was in cabinet. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first time, last week, where we actually have the Leader of the Conservative Party giving it attention. Why is that? We announced that we are going to have a summit on the auto theft issue. The Liberal government has been working on it for a while now, unlike the Conservatives; it was not even on their radar screen until we announced the summit. Then, the Conservatives started saying that it would fit in nicely with their “tough on crime” bumper stickers, so they brought up the issue. Did they not study it? Did they not realize they are likely part of the problem? I was the justice critic in the Province of Manitoba, and this is a quote from a StatsCan report dealing with car theft in Manitoba then, which states: However, the province's 2007 rate remained the highest in the country...for the 11th straight year and was 24% higher than a decade ago. In 2007, Stephen Harper was prime minister, and it continued to be a problem for years after that. If we look at it 10 years prior, there was not a Conservative government. The point is that this issue takes more than one level of government to address it. That is the reason we have the minister responsible for public safety saying that we are going to have a summit. The Conservatives are howling, “just a summit”. They just discovered the issue, and we already said we are going to have a summit. We are bringing experts in. There is going to be dialogue, and things are going to be brought to the table. We are not only taking budgetary measures in the amount of tens of millions to look into how we can get at organized crime and organized gangs but also looking at legislative measures and possibly regulations that could be changed. We want to take a holistic approach in dealing with this issue. Unlike the Conservatives, who like to talk tough on crime, we believe that actions speak louder than words. We will continue to work with different stakeholders and to get the level of expertise to the table so that we will be in a better position to work with provinces and law enforcement agencies. As a national government, we would be in a position to see if we could do something legislatively or could do something through regulations, and perhaps there are other pockets where we could invest more to support this issue. That is ultimately what the Liberal government is doing. We are taking a progressive, holistic approach to make sure that the issue is dealt with, unlike Stephen Harper and the born-again Conservative right wing.

1139 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Feb/6/24 1:18:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really think the member for Winnipeg North will have lots of time to practise his Stephen Harper lines when he is in opposition. We should not be fooled by the member's speech; the facts are what they are. Car theft is up 300%. Over 4,200 vehicles have been stolen in York Region. Canadians will not be fooled either. The NDP-Liberal government has spent 40% more on the federal public service for worse outcomes. If he went out and spoke with Canadians, he would tell them that their outcomes are worse. Mr. Speaker, is your life 40% better in terms of outcomes than it was? Could the member comment on the spending for worse results for Canadians?

122 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/6/24 1:19:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, because of time restrictions, I was not able to continue to give my explanation about the Manitoba case. I can tell the member opposite that, at this point in time, Manitoba had the highest number of cars being stolen in any given year, more than the province of Ontario. I am not talking about per capita but the raw number of cars being stolen. Ultimately, what had the most positive impact was when law enforcement, the Province of Manitoba and Ottawa, to a certain degree, came together and tried to deal with the issue. At least today, Ottawa is recognizing that we need to bring people together in order to deal with this issue. Organized crime is more than just automobile theft. We recognize the importance of the issue. We are doing something, as opposed to the Conservatives, who heard we were having a summit and then decided it was an important issue.

155 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Feb/6/24 1:20:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives come forward today saying that one car stolen should equal a year in jail. That is not a policy. That is straight out of the books from a Texas governor, who failed in their policies in Texas. We know the Conservatives cut 1,100 jobs at the Canada Border Services Agency, in terms of officers on the front line. According to Mark Weber, the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, “We estimate that we need between 2,000 and 3,000 additional officers on the front line.” He also cited that, with the amount of money they spent on the ArriveCAN app, the scandal taking place right now, they could have hired 500 border agents. When is the government going to step it up when it comes to hiring officers at the border? Will it listen to the NDP proposal to require auto manufacturers to improve security features in the cars they sell? A memo we put forward today was shot down by the Conservatives, but this seems to be a common-sense solution to help stop car theft.

186 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/6/24 1:21:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The member referred to the well over 1,000 cuts in terms of Canada border control service officers. Not only have we, as a government, restored every one of those cuts, but we can add on another 800. As a government, we have provided supports from a budget perspective; we continue to look at ways to enhance and try to improve the system, whether through the budgetary measures that we just cited or legislative measures, in terms of working with provinces on the bail reform legislation we ultimately passed. The Government of Canada is committed to making our communities healthier and safer. We are taking the measures that are necessary and are prepared to work with other levels of government and stakeholders to do just that.

131 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 276