SoVote

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/2/24 6:03:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince Albert for bringing this forward. I know that he is very sincere, having worked in Parliament with him for a number of years on this issue. I will get into some reasons a little later on as to why I do not think this bill is the response that is needed, but I want to start off by talking about British Columbia and the British Columbia difference. We have been talking a lot about car thefts. Why is it that in British Columbia there has been an opposite result from what we are seeing in other parts of the country? I would like to thank the integrated crime prevention services for their work, the New Westminster Police, the Burnaby RCMP and a wide variety of law enforcement from across the Lower Mainland and British Columbia who worked very carefully with the B.C. NDP government to ensure the rapid increase we have seen in so many parts of the country is not reflected in B.C. Gangs have attempted to come to British Columbia and have been pushed back and arrested. That is fundamentally important. The bait car program, the fact that we have integrated law enforcement on this issue and the anti-gang strategy that the British Columbia government has been a very strong proponent of have all made a difference. We need to make sure that we continue to act to ensure that we are not subjected to the same rise in auto thefts in British Columbia that we have seen elsewhere in the country. I want to come back to the rest of the country. Particularly in provinces with a Conservative government, we have seen a rapid increase in the number of auto thefts. This is very unfortunate. Having bait car programs and integrated law enforcement can help make a difference, but the federal government has a responsibility. Where I think the federal government can play a role is in providing supports so that the provinces do the right thing, as British Columbia has done. I think we will see the new Manitoba NDP government take similar types of action to help bring down the crime rate. The reality is that we need to ensure we have an anti-gang strategy, and that includes ensuring that money laundering is not present. As members know, the NDP has long been an advocate of a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry that ensures criminals cannot hide behind numbered companies. This is something I brought forward under the Harper government and was rejected by the Conservatives at the time. The Liberals have moved very slowly on this, but it is absolutely essential. Law enforcement knows about this and so do so many Canadians. Having a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry would ensure that people cannot hide behind numbered companies. An anti-gang strategy and ensuring criminals cannot launder money are absolutely fundamentally important. Canada is known as the snow-washing capital of the world because there have been successive Conservative and Liberal governments that have not taken action on this. An NDP government would make sure that we no longer have criminals hiding behind numbered companies. I also want to talk about the importance of having the auto industry and auto manufacturers take action to ensure there are new measures to improve security features in automobiles. This made a big difference about 10 years ago. There was an evolution in technology 12 years ago, and we started to see the high rates of auto theft come down. There needs to be a similar requirement that auto manufacturers improve security features. That would make a fundamental difference. We also need to ensure that we are funding programs that prevent youth from reoffending. This is where the funding cuts to Canadian crime prevention centres, including the B.C. crime prevention centre, are so regrettable. This happened under the Harper government. The Liberal government did not restore that funding. It is critical to have crime prevention programs in place to ensure that we can crack down on crime before it occurs. Part of that is funding programs for youth at risk to ensure that they are not subject to the kind of recruitment that, sadly, we are seeing in eastern Canada right now and on the Prairies. There was a very regrettable decision by the Harper government to slash CBSA officials. We lost over 1,200 positions. This was over a dozen years ago and we are still bearing the consequences of this. When we talk to people in port authorities across the country, this is something that continues to be a problem. We do not have border enforcement in place, because of the cuts that occurred under the Conservatives and have been continued by the Liberals, to ensure that, if an automobile is stolen, it cannot be exported. This is a fundamental issue that has to be dealt with by the current government; it cannot be ignored. We need all these measures that I am talking about: comprehensive crime prevention, an anti-gang strategy, and ensuring that criminals can no longer hide behind numbered companies and money launder through a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. We need to ensure that CBSA is staffed up so that the border agents who work so hard on our behalf have the resources to do the job they are supposed to do and that successive federal governments have not let them do because of chronic underfunding. We need to force auto manufacturers to actually put security measures into place. Often, we are talking about an automobile that costs $50,000 or $60,000 that is protected by a relatively cheap security system of a couple hundred bucks. This is not an appropriate way of ensuring that we can bring down the level of auto theft. All of these measures are really important. I wanted to come back to the member for Prince Albert and his bill. Again, I do not, in any way, question his sincerity; it is quite the contrary. I know he is somebody who upholds the principle of effective representation. However, he has presented a bill that really does one thing: It re-establishes mandatory minimums. The reality is that, as we have seen and when speaking with Crown prosecutors we get this sense, if what we are trying to do is to have a comprehensive strategy to crack down on criminal gangs, then we need to make sure we get the gang leaders. The way to ensure that is to be able to talk to the lower levels in the criminal organizations. The way to ensure that co-operation is not through mandatory minimums. There is nothing to deal with. The mandatory minimums mean that the hands of prosecutors and law enforcement are tied in terms of getting the co-operation that is so vital to getting to the leadership of these gangs. That is what we need to see right across the country, and mandatory minimums stop that. It is actually counterproductive in terms of how we can crack down on the auto theft that, outside of British Columbia, is becoming epidemic. We will not be supporting the bill at second reading, though I thank the member for bringing this forward. I believe this is an important debate. The NDP believes in the kind of comprehensive strategy that we have seen work in British Columbia. Though auto theft is still high, it is lower than in the rest of the country. That is because of the comprehensive approach of integrated law enforcement, ensuring an anti-gang strategy, ensuring that we are moving to crack down on money laundering and ensuring that we are staffing up CBSA officials, so we can stop the exports of stolen automobiles at the border points that we are simply under-resourcing right now. We need to ensure that automobile manufactures have a responsibility to improve the security features of the vehicles we spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy. These are all actions that can make a huge difference in bringing down the auto theft rates, which are far too high in the rest of Canada. We need to bring them down to what we are seeing in B.C. All these measures taken together have had a noticeable impact and have stopped it. We will continue to work hard to make sure that they are maintained to stop the chronic rise in auto theft we are seeing in the rest of the country.

1426 words

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

May/2/24 6:14:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Prince Albert for what is a fantastic and timely bill, one that is focused on the real issue of auto theft and on the criminals who are conducting auto theft throughout our country. I listened to the Liberal and NDP speeches very intently, hoping to hear some measure of common sense. If it were not such a serious issue, it would be laughable. They seem to suggest that everything is good the way it is and that they have the answer—

95 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 6:14:56 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/2/24 6:15:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a falsehood, and the member should withdraw it.

12 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 6:15:12 p.m.
Watch

I did not hear what was said there, so I will ask the hon. member for Fundy Royal to rephrase that last one. I am not quite sure what was said. The hon. member for Fundy Royal has the floor.

40 words

Hon. Rob Moore

May/2/24 6:15:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I guess the truth hurts. The hon. member who just protested was proclaiming that he has all the answers and that, in British Columbia, auto theft is not an issue. Did colleagues know that in Victoria, British Columbia, an individual was arrested for auto theft? He was let out on April 21. On April 22, he was arrested for auto theft and let out again. Then, on April 23, he was arrested for breaking into a house in Victoria to steal an automobile. In three days, he had three arrests and was out on bail. The facts run contrary to the suggestion that the Liberals and the NDP have all the answers. There has been a 216% increase in charges in Toronto from 2015, when the Liberals took government, to today. There have been increases of 190% in Moncton, New Brunswick; 122% in Ottawa; and 105% in Montreal. Toronto has seen a 300% increase in vehicles stolen. In the last few years, the automobile that is used to transport the Minister of Justice of this country has been stolen not once or twice, but three times. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness has had his vehicle stolen. The minister for the CRA had their vehicle stolen, and it is still not recovered. For colleagues to suggest that everything is okay and that we do not need a bill such as the one that the member for Prince Albert has proposed is completely wrong. Canadians are listening. They understand that auto theft is an issue across the country, in every province, whether one lives in an urban centre or a rural community. As well, crime is an issue. Since the Liberal government took power in 2015, just nine years ago, violent crime is up 39%; homicides are up 43%, for the highest rate in 30 years; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%; assaults with a weapon are up 61%; sexual assaults are up 71%; and sex crimes against children are up 126%. I already gave some of the statistics on the subject matter of this bill, which is auto theft. We are not going to turn to the failed policies of the NDP and the Liberals for the answers. We need common sense, and this is a common-sense piece of legislation. Let us talk about what it would do. The members opposite falsely claimed that it introduces a new mandatory minimum penalty. It does not. There is a six-month mandatory penalty in the Criminal Code for the third offence of stealing an automobile. Most Canadians would agree with this: It would increase the mandatory penalty to three years if someone is arrested, charged, convicted and then commits an offence again; they are arrested, charged and convicted, with the full benefit of the charter, and then there is a third offence. The police tell us the number of Canadians stealing vehicles is not large. Quite the contrary, a small number of criminals are stealing a lot of vehicles. If those individuals are taken off the street, then they will no longer do so. That is why the police in Victoria laid blame for the out-of-control incident that happened there and said it is the fault of the Liberal government; it is the fault of Bill C-75, legislation that allows for catch-and-release. I mentioned this incident earlier, where an individual was arrested three times in three days for stealing automobiles. The police do their job. They investigate; they catch the criminal. They have done a fantastic job, but the Liberal justice system has been letting those people back out onto the streets. That is no way to keep Canadians safe or to have a justice system. We had a victim of crime at our justice committee who said that, in Canada, we do not have a justice system anymore; we have a legal system. That is how Canadians are feeling and why they are looking for answers. That is why the member for Prince Albert has put forward this tremendous piece of legislation. As I mentioned, on a third offence, an individual would receive a mandatory penalty of jail time for stealing a motor vehicle. It would remove the eligibility for house arrest if someone is convicted of a motor vehicle theft by way of indictment. That would be a more serious case of motor vehicle theft. Who in the world would think it is a good idea that, when a serious criminal steals automobiles, is caught by the police, and is charged and convicted in our system, a judge should be able to sentence them to serve their sentence in their own home in the community where they stole the vehicle? No one would think that is fair. However, that is a direct result of the Liberals' bill, Bill C-5, which allows for house arrest for such issues as arson, theft over $5,000, motor vehicle theft and sexual assault. These are all serious offences that people should get serious jail time for. The member for Prince Albert has rightly said that is wrong. If one is a serious auto thief, one should serve time not in the comfort of one's own home and one's own community, not where one could revictimize members of the community, but in jail. Finally, as has been mentioned, organized crime is increasingly active in motor vehicle theft in Canada. We hear the cases where individuals' vehicles are stolen and show up in the Middle East, across the ocean. That is organized crime. This legislation would create an aggravating factor in sentencing if the offence of motor vehicle theft is committed for the benefit of organized crime. We all increasingly have examples of the victimization from motor vehicle theft. In fact, two out of five Canadians have either had their vehicle stolen or know somebody who has had their vehicle stolen. As a matter of fact, every member of Parliament knows at least one person who has had their vehicle stolen. We know the Minister of Justice has had his stolen three times. There is absolutely no doubt that this is an epidemic in Canada. In my home province of New Brunswick, there was a situation where someone stole a motor vehicle. The police did their job and arrested him. He was brought before a judge in Saint John, and because of the Liberal legislation, Bill C-75, the judge had to let him out. How was he going to get back home? Of course, he stole a motor vehicle in Saint John and drove it home. These are the kinds of things happening across the country, and only one party seems to be serious about doing something about it. We hear a lot of victim blaming. We hear that people should pay more money and have more expensive theft deterrents. We even hear from police that we should probably keep our keys right at the entrance of our home rather than inside so we do not end up in a conflict with car thieves in our home. That is not a Canada any of us wants. We want a Canada where people are safe and the Canada where people used to leave their doors unlocked. We are a long way from that now. We need a Canada where we take crime seriously, where we have a true justice system and where Canadians do not go to bed wondering if their car is going to be in the driveway in the morning. I commend the member for Prince Albert on a fantastic private member's bill, and I am happy to support it.

1283 words

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

May/2/24 6:24:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for those who were around an hour ago, I was trying to draw a comparison about who the leader of the Conservative Party was listening to. I do not want them to get overly sensitive this time around, but I am going to try this. Prime ministers have what they call legal advisers, who are there to provide advice. Stephen Harper had a legal adviser, and his name was Ben Perrin. I am sure many members of the Conservative Party recall Ben Perrin. After all, he was the legal adviser. I want to tell the House what the legal adviser to Stephen Harper had to say. According to Ben Perrin, “MMPs are a grave policy failure”, meaning they do not work. He also called them “cheap politics.” That is what he had to say about the type of legislation that is being proposed. Can members imagine the Conservatives playing cheap politics on the issue of crime? I can. Actually, they are developing their crime bumper stickers now. They have been doing it for the last few months. Ben Perrin further said that the leader of the Conservative Party's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” This is not me or the Liberals saying this; this is the former legal adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It raises the question of who the Conservative Party is actually listening to today, but in an attempt to keep more order in the chamber, I will not tell members who it is. Suffice it to say, there is a far right element. Let me try to enlighten some members. It was not that long ago, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, that we actually had record-high numbers of automobile thefts in the province of Manitoba. It was a very serious issue. I was actually an MLA at the time. I had raised the issue, and we found that, on a per capita basis, no province even came close to Manitoba in terms of automobile thefts. In fact, we could double the number of automobiles that were being stolen in the province of Manitoba and, on a per capita basis, we still had more than any other jurisdiction. We found that the best way to resolve the issue was to work with the different stakeholders. That meant the province at the time brought in MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance, and it worked with the federal government; we were very successful at dramatically decreasing automobile thefts. We are talking about thousands of vehicles. I put it in that fashion because I ask myself what the government is doing. We are not waiting for provinces; we are actually taking a very proactive approach, in terms of having a summit, taking a look at all the different stakeholders and hearing what they have to say. We will find that there have been actions by the government to deal with this very important issue. There were pre-budget initiatives, and even things within the budget, that support law enforcement agencies, non-profits and the provincial governments, in terms of trying to deal with this issue. We have to take a look at it. It is not necessarily from an individual, per se; even though it is an individual in the vehicle, it is often crime gang-related. That was the case in Winnipeg. We found out that it was like a gang initiation. They had to steal a certain number of vehicles, and we had serious issues with gang problems at the time. That was helping drive up the automobile theft in the province of Manitoba. It was relatively unique. In Ontario, the number of stolen vehicles being exported through ports is a very serious concern. We are actually investing in Canada border control. I contrast that with what the previous government did, which was to make cuts in that area. I know some people might question that, but that is the reality, and we know that. We have been hearing that for years now. At the end of the day, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars allocated through this particular budget, the very same budget that the Conservatives are committed to voting against. On the one hand, the Conservatives would bring in a policy that the former prime minister's legal adviser said would not work, and on the other hand, they are voting against budgetary measures to support reducing the number of automobiles being stolen. I appreciate the fact that there are stakeholders out there who also need to step up, including the automobile industry. Given modern-day technology, there is a lot more that can be done to incorporate anti-theft protection into the make-up of the vehicle itself.

802 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 6:30:06 p.m.
Watch

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

30 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/2/24 6:30:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I will let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River, an incredible representative for the many people in the CAF who live in her riding. We are here today to debate the motion that we unanimously passed at the Standing Committee on National Defence about the incredibly out-of-touch decision to raise rents for on-base housing in the midst of a recruitment and retention crisis. As the New Democratic Party's spokesperson for National Defence, I have been fighting every day to support the women and men in the Canadian Forces and their families, as they face—

117 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 6:31:18 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

15 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/2/24 6:31:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the understanding of the parties that the Bloc would be starting the discussion.

19 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 6:31:34 p.m.
Watch

On our list, which was in consultation with the whips' offices, it is the NDP that is starting. Let me just confirm.

22 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

May/2/24 6:32:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that you will find that you have already recognized the member for London—Fanshawe; she has begun her speech and is 40 seconds in. I would urge you to allow her to continue the speech and ensure that the next speaking order is addressed to the other parties.

58 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 6:32:54 p.m.
Watch

I have conferred with the Table. The Table tells me that the email was sent at 6:30 p.m. By that time we had started, before we got it. It was a little late arriving. I have already acknowledged the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, so the sequence is to still continue with her. Then maybe there can be some further consultations regarding who is next on the list, but normally there are two speakers from one party before we go to the next party. Therefore there could be some negotiations among the parties that will come after the New Democrats speak. I am going to have to recognize the hon. member once again, and hopefully the Table can come up with a solution for us. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

135 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

May/2/24 6:33:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this does not have any say in how excited the members in the House will be to actually hear what I have to say. I will continue. As the NDP's spokesperson for National Defence, I have been trying to fight every day to support the women and the men—

56 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 6:34:06 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order once again.

17 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/2/24 6:34:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if you confer with the Table, I think you will learn that in discussions this morning with the Table, it was agreed that the first Bloc spot would be given to the Conservative Party, where the time would then be split. I hate to keep coming back to this, but certainly it is the understanding that was reached and agreed to this morning.

65 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 6:34:30 p.m.
Watch

Let me just confer once again. This is what we run into when we work on lists provided by whips' offices. The whips' offices sent us the note only at the last possible minute. This is something that was talked about during the day, but of course was not completed, from what I understand. I am going to continue with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

67 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

May/2/24 6:35:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hope that is the last interruption. I am working hard to support and fight for the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces and their families as they face the rising cost of living and the Department of National Defence, which is not meeting the urgency that this moment requires. I look forward to discussing our ideas on how we could support CAF members and their families, but first I want to put today's debate into context. Since I first took on the role in 2021, I have greatly appreciated the maturity and seriousness that all my colleagues bring to the Standing Committee on National Defence. Members from all parties do understand that we are there not just to criticize the government of the day. As parliamentarians in general and as members of the defence committee, we have a sacred obligation to the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we must prioritize supporting them over our partisan interests. At the committee, we look at a lot of big generational questions, questions that are not siloed to the government of the day and questions that do not always make the evening news. Successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, have failed to grapple with defence procurement reform, with Arctic security and sovereignty, with recruitment and retention, with meeting our international commitments on peacekeeping, with combatting sexual misconduct in the military and with the supply of military housing. These are big questions that cannot be tackled in a day, and that is why the defence committee's work is so important. We can work together across party lines to study these big, generational questions and to propose solutions for government, which is why I find it so disappointing that I have to tell the House today that the committee is not immune to the tricks that have come to dominate Parliament as of late. Particularly since the change in the leadership of the official opposition, I have seen the committee stray from our sacred obligation in favour of obstructive tactics and rage-farming clips. That brings me to the debate today. At a time when Canadians are being forced to decide between filling their prescriptions or buying groceries, the NDP was able to fight for a national pharmacare program. Parliament was due to debate the bill, but the Conservatives used procedural tricks and tactics to delay the important legislation from coming forward by moving the concurrence motion before us. Let me be clear: I want Parliament to study military housing and to find the solutions that CAF members and their families need. That is why I worked with all parties to ensure that the Standing Committee on National Defence undertook a study on the lack of housing availability on or near bases, and the challenges facing military families when they are required to relocate. The motion was moved for debate while the committee was meeting to hear from officials on the very subject. We should have all been at committee to work on finding real solutions for this really big question, but there was a deliberate choice to weaponize the military housing crisis as a procedural tool against pharmacare and, I would say, against Parliament. When it comes to supporting military members and their families, we need to put the partisan games aside. I want to share an example of how this could be done. In December, the Nova Scotia Legislature heard testimony that military personnel in that province were living precariously and some may be homeless. Canadians were shocked by this, and as parliamentarians, we knew we had a responsibility to investigate the matter further. I tried to coordinate a joint letter from all opposition parties to the Minister of Housing, asking him to engage in a whole-of-government approach to tackle the housing crisis. I wanted to take the partisanship and games out of this tragic situation, and instead focus on finding answers to this really big question. I am deeply grateful to my Bloc colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, for sending the joint letter to the minister with me. The Bloc and I were able to set aside partisan differences that we may have on other things and collaborate on this important issue. I am disappointed to say that the Conservative Party could not do the same. Regardless, I am happy to share some of our ideas on military housing. I have heard about the horrific state of Canadian Forces real property portfolio. The buildings on bases, whether it is military housing, child care buildings or mess halls, are falling apart. According to the government's response to an Order Paper question that I put forward, there are 51,586 open work orders for repairs across the country. There are bases where buildings are being demolished without any plans to replace them, and there are countless incidents of military members being exposed to hazards from old buildings. A major part of the problem is the mess of maintenance and service contract procurement by the Canadian Armed Forces. According to a 2018 report by the assistant deputy minister of review services, the real property operations group is completely unequipped to make a value-for-money analysis on maintenance and service contracts. It is not equipped to measure the success of individual contracts in order to inform future business with contractors. I have heard of constant examples of base contracts being handed out to contractors with no oversight, only to have more damage be done by poor craftsmanship, which is then fixed by department public servants. In effect, we are paying for many repairs twice, once to the contractor and then again through the salaries of the department staff brought in to fix the mess and do the work properly. When I hear from CAF members, one of the largest concerns we hear is the mess of properties on base. Building housing and base properties was a large part of the defence policy update published last month. Billions of dollars were earmarked to be spent on military housing and property maintenance, but I have two concerns that I want to raise about that plan. First, of the $295 million promised for building military housing, we will see only $7 million earmarked for the next five years. When I asked the minister about this, he stated that the previously existing funding for housing is enough to carry them for those five years. However, we know that the current status quo approach is not enough. There is a shortfall of 7,000 housing units, but in the last two years, fewer than 40 new units have been built. Second, I am concerned that we will not be able to tackle the military housing crisis without fixing the overreliance on contractors on bases. The department knew its approach to contracts was a problem, so it ended up hiring Deloitte on a major contract to audit its real property portfolio. However, as a New Democrat, and after all the discussions we had in the chamber last year on the growing reliance on big consultants, I am incredibly skeptical that this major contract was made with the best intentions. The government should be seeking recommendations for solutions from public servants, not from for-profit consultants. The audit by Deloitte proposed solutions to work more closely with the private sector, and I fear that the government listened based on its new vision for military housing. It has proposed leasing DND properties to develop P3 housing near bases. Instead of cutting down on the problematic contractors in military housing, we will be fronting the cash for private, for-profit developers to become the landlords for CAF members. The Department had the option to partner with not-for-profits to deliver housing or for that build to be public, to be federally run, and I hope that at committee we can continue to push that forward in terms of that solution. In closing, there are so many more aspects of military housing that we have not been able to discuss in this concurrence debate, which is exactly why I worked to get the issue studied at committee, where we can work collectively and productively towards the production of a report to present to the House. I am proud of a lot of the work that we have been able to accomplish at committee to date, and I invite all committee members to stay committed to our obligation to CAF members and not be distracted by the political gamesmanship.

1427 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

May/2/24 6:43:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the member who just spoke has a scintilla of conviction in what she just said about the lack of funding for the military, why is she going to be voting in favour of the budget and propping up the government that has nothing but disdain for our troops?

51 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 307