So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 278 - Feb/8/24

Feb/8/24 3:00:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, an auto summit is not what Canadians are calling for. They are calling for action. Auto theft is up 300% in Toronto and 120% in New Brunswick. These are the Liberals' own numbers since they took office. Only Conservatives will do what is necessary to stop the crime with a proven approach of jail, not bail, for repeat offenders; ending house arrest for auto theft; and bringing in mandatory penalties for repeat offenders. The numbers are in. The facts do not lie. Why will the minister not stand up and admit that the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda is a failure that needs to change?

107 words

Context: House Hansard - 277 - Feb/7/24

Feb/8/24 2:58:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has spent the last week arguing with Conservatives and telling Canadians that strengthening penalties for auto theft will not work. We all know that the Prime Minister has a habit of throwing his justice ministers under the bus. Earlier today, the Prime Minister finally admitted that stronger penalties are required to tackle the auto theft crisis that he created. They cannot both be right. Will the minister finally admit that he was wrong and Conservatives were right and commit to repealing Liberal soft-on-crime policies such as house arrest for car thieves?

98 words

Context: House Hansard - 277 - Feb/7/24

Feb/7/24 6:04:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the arrogance and incompetence of the members opposite on this issue is truly alarming and frightening. Are they not aware that 30 legal experts wrote a letter to the former justice minister and cabinet saying, “Parliament is not forced by the courts to legalize MAID”. What does the hon. member make of this argument, from the minister who spoke earlier, that somehow, in her words, the debate is over?

73 words

Maid

Context: House Hansard - 270 - Jan/29/24

Feb/7/24 5:27:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the arrogance of the government knows no bounds. In its brief, based on a “review of evidence, the Board of Directors of the Society of Canadian Psychiatry believes the process leading to the planned 2024 MAID for mental illness expansion was flawed, insufficiently responsive to evidence-based cautions and resulted in a lack of safeguards.” It is calling on this expansion not to be paused for three years but to “be paused indefinitely, without qualification and presupposition that [any] implementation can safely be introduced at any arbitrary pre-determined date”. It urges that it not be “driven...by ideological advocates”. Why are the minister and the government continuing to press on when the experts have spoken? We should not be moving forward in this dangerous direction. It should be paused indefinitely.

139 words

Context: House Hansard - 247 - Nov/6/23

Jan/29/24 2:06:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost to Canadians' freedom. In a landmark victory for the freedoms of all Canadians, the federal court has just confirmed what most Canadians already knew, that the use of the Emergencies Act in 2022 was illegal and unconstitutional. Two years ago, the Prime Minister decided to violate the charter rights of Canadians to deal with a political crisis of his own making. The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act directly violated Canadians' most essential rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The federal court found that in the illegal use of the act, reasons were not provided for the decision to declare a public order emergency, and that it did not satisfy the requirements of the Emergencies Act. A Conservative government led by the Leader of the Opposition will ensure that the Emergencies Act can never again be used to silence political opposition. Conservatives will always defend the rights—

162 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 245 - Nov/2/23

Nov/6/23 4:57:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Due to multiple technical issues, I was unable to vote in the vote that took place after question period. I would like to seek unanimous consent to have my vote counted as yea.

42 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 245 - Nov/2/23

Nov/2/23 3:08:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the out-of-touch NDP-Liberal government does not even know what a rural community is. In a totally transparent effort to save seats in Atlantic Canada, Liberals will be giving a rural rebate to downtown residents of the city of Fredericton, but not to someone who commutes 100 kilometres a day for work from the actual rural community of St. Martins, which has a population of under 300. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Liberals quadruple the tax on Atlantic Canadians, or will they vote with us to axe the tax on all forms of home heating?

107 words

Context: House Hansard - 239 - Oct/25/23

Nov/2/23 1:52:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Forest Lawn. The motion we are debating today is, “That, given that the government has announced a 'temporary, three-year pause' to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” What could be more fair? This is a reasonable, common-sense and fair-minded motion that addresses the concerns that we are all hearing from our constituents as the cost of living continues to rise under the government. I will repeat the motion, which says, “That, given that the government has announced a 'temporary, three-year pause' to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” The motion is simply asking for fairness for all Canadians, regardless of the region or the way they choose to heat their homes. All of us in this House and all Canadians, especially Atlantic Canadians, are acutely aware of what happened with the Prime Minister. He brought in a carbon tax that hurts working people, single mothers and families that are trying to make ends meet. It hurts people who get up early in the morning and drive to work in their vehicles. It hurts parents who take their kids to a hockey game. It hurts families that are trying to put food on the table. It hurts senior citizens on fixed incomes who are trying to heat their homes. All members have heard from their constituents about the damage that is being done by the carbon tax. The Conservative leader was about to hold an axe-the-tax rally in Atlantic Canada, in the province of Nova Scotia. I have been to rallies before where many people are very concerned about the carbon tax and are very enthusiastic about the Conservative Party's plan to axe the carbon tax, to make life more affordable, to give Canadians back a little more of the money that they work so hard to earn. The Prime Minister and his Atlantic members of Parliament have been steadfast in voting in favour of the carbon tax every single time. It is funny that when it was the constituents of Atlantic Liberal members who were suffering losses, those members did not stand up to the Prime Minister. Their constituents called them, and we know these calls are coming in. Their constituents said that they do not know how they will pay their heating bills or put gas in their cars, that they have to choose whether to buy groceries for their kids or heat their homes. We know that is happening. It is happening in Atlantic Canada. It is happening throughout Canada. The Liberal members of Parliament in Atlantic Canada and the Prime Minister, when the tables were turned, and the numbers were not looking so good, realized that their jobs were on the line. Forget their constituents, when those members saw this could cost them something, it got their attention. The very day the Conservative leader was in Nova Scotia for an axe-the-tax rally, the Liberals crassly announced this completely transparent proposal to freeze the carbon tax on home heating oil only. In my province of New Brunswick, 90% of homes are not heated with home heating oil. This does not apply to those people. We are hearing other Liberal members throughout the country asking about their constituents and what is going to happen to them in the next election. Every Atlantic Canadian knows that the Prime Minister and Liberal members have voted to make their lives tougher. Every one of us knows mortgage payments have gone up, that the cost of groceries has gone up, that the cost of fuel has gone up, that people are being taxed every step of the way. Conservatives can see right through this panicked reaction. If it were not so sad, it would be laughable. There is this increase the government has given to rural areas. Let us talk about rural New Brunswick. If someone is a tenured professor or a provincial bureaucrat living downtown in the city of Fredericton, the capital city of New Brunswick, they get the rural top-up. If someone lives in my riding in the village of St. Martins, with a population under 300, they could have a 100-kilometre round trip commute to work in Saint John. It is truly a rural community. Elgin, New Brunswick, has a population under 200. It is an over 100-kilometre commute to the city of Moncton for work. It is truly a rural community. They do not get the rural top-up. That is how twisted the Liberal proposal is and how little the Liberals understand the needs of New Brunswickers and the needs of rural Canadians. As he watches his support drop to new lows, the Prime Minister is now trying to rebrand himself, very transparently, as a hero for Atlantic Canadians living in rural communities. This is a frantic attempt to slow down the support for our axing the tax movement. The Prime Minister announced a slight increase to the rural rebate but is applying it to urban centres. People living with the high cost of fuel, the high cost of groceries and the high cost of heating their homes are getting no relief whatsoever. That is why it is heartening to see from coast to coast to coast different provinces standing up and saying that now is the time to axe the carbon tax, that now is the time to help people. Everyone recognizes this. Everyone recognizes it, except for the Prime Minister and his Liberal caucus. I know this drives Liberals crazy, but how often have we all seen the Prime Minister get into his motorcade and jet off to some other country to preach about his virtue—

1003 words

Oct/25/23 5:31:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-12

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about Bill S-12. As was said, when we were in government, we brought in changes to have a mandatory listing of all convicted sex offenders put in the registry. We had to respond to a Supreme Court decision, and the government's response has been tepid. One of the amendments that Conservatives put forward at committee would be to require the mandatory listing of all convicted child sex offenders. There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision that would have prevented that step from happening. The Liberal and NDP coalition voted against the common sense amendment that would have listed all convicted child sex offenders. Can the member tell me what message she feels that sends to Canadians?

129 words

All Topics

Oct/4/23 4:25:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-12

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to the justice committee. When we are seized with Bill C-21, we will look at those amendments, as I do share a concern around some of them. It is one thing to say that we want Canadians to be safe. It is another thing to put in place the legislative measures to make sure that happens. I am committed to working with all parliamentarians, including the hon. member, to pass legislation that allows us to protect our streets, protect our communities and protect victims.

92 words

Oct/4/23 4:23:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-12

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was a needed response to a Supreme Court decision, but I feel it could have gone further. It could have been tighter. There are a number of offences now that will not meet the threshold for inclusion in the registry, and there will be people who should have been included who will not be with the passage of this legislation. Absolutely what happened with the issue around Bernardo's transfer is a travesty. It should have never happened. A witness came to us in our study on the government's obligation to victims of crime, and she said that in Canada we no longer have a justice system. We have a legal system, but not a justice system. I remember her words because I think of what happened with Bill C-75 to change our bail laws to create a revolving door that puts criminals back out on the streets. I think of the fact that Bill C-5 removed mandatory penalties for serious crimes against individuals. I also think of instances like the transfer that was put in place for Paul Bernardo. The government, by changing legislation, made that transfer inevitable. That is laid completely at the feet of the government. When it changed the law to put in a requirement that minimal holdings be implemented for each prisoner, it made that inevitable. Absolutely we have a lot of work that needs to be done to protect our communities and to protect victims.

248 words

All Topics

Oct/4/23 4:21:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-12

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the work of My Voice, My Choice and its appearance at our justice committee. As Conservatives, we initiated a study on the federal government's obligation to victims of crime. One of the many issues we heard around publication bans was about victims having the right to have their voice heard and taking back their agency, especially in the context of publication bans. It was a unanimous finding of the committee that the government had been falling short on its obligation to victims of crime. We support measures that give a voice back to victims of crime. It is important that their voices be heard, and we support that every step of the way.

120 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 217 - Jun/20/23

Oct/4/23 4:10:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-12

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove. The last eight years have not been kind to Canadians, since the Liberal government took power, when it comes to safe streets, safe communities and crime. One only needs to look at the recent StatsCan release to see the drastic increase in crime in this country since 2015. The numbers are absolutely staggering. Total violent crimes are up 39%; homicides are up 43%, up for the fourth year in a row; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%, up for the eighth year in a row; aggravated assaults are up 24%; assaults with a weapon are up 61%; sexual assaults are up 71%; and sex crimes against children are up 126%. That is the context when we look at Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. That is the context by which we, as parliamentarians, addressing the fear in our communities around crime, around keeping Canadians safe, around protecting victims, look at Bill S-12. Bill S-12 is due to be passed at all stages by October 28. This is a deadline that was put in place by the Supreme Court, when it gave the government 365 days to get this done, in response to a Supreme Court decision. Yet, here we are, with just 24 days left, to make sure that the national sex offender registry continues to be a critical resource for police to investigate and to prevent crime. The last time the Liberal government had a court-imposed deadline to respond to decisions, around medical assistance in dying, we ended up, tragically, with a bill that would expand medical assistance in dying to Canadians living with mental illness. The government waited too long and rushed through legislation. That is, again, what is happening here. I am going to focus my speech on amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act as opposed to changes in the publication bans that were brought forward by our Conservative-led justice committee study on the federal government's obligation to victims of crime. What is the sex offender registry? Conservatives will always stand up for victims and victims' rights. That leads me to these amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The act was established in 2004 to help Canadian police authorities investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information on sex offenders. To help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature, the sex offender registry contains information such as the address and telephone numbers of offenders, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of victims, and their relationship to the offender. At the time, enrolment on the registry was up to the discretion of a judge. That discretion led to significant problems. The public safety committee review of the implementation of the sex offender registry in 2009 found glaring issues. The committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to register their information. This was happening for a number of reasons. An official from the Department of Public Safety told the committee at the time that with the pressure of time or workload, Crown attorneys would forget to ask for the order. The committee was also told that the order application rate varies widely by province and by territory. One witness stated that the absence of an automatic inclusion on the registry for all offenders convicted of sexual crimes has led to the inconsistent application of the law across the country. The committee recommended to the government that the automatic registration of sex offenders would fix these holes in the legislation. In order to be effective, the national registry must be enforced consistently across the country. I was proud to be part of the Conservative government that passed the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, introduced in 2010. That legislation passed with the support of all parties. The bill broadened the purpose of the sex offender registry by adding the purpose of helping police prevent crimes of a sexual nature in addition to enabling them to investigate those crimes. We made sensible changes to strengthen the sex offender registry. For instance, we made registration automatic for convicted sex offenders. Our legislation also added the obligation to report any person ordered to serve an intermittent or conditional sentence. This is even more important today than it was then, because Liberal Bill C-5 now allows conditional sentences for crimes like sexual assault and Liberal Bill C-75 now allows bail to become more easily obtained by individuals charged with serious offences. Conservatives also brought in the requirement of registered sex offenders to report the name of their employer or the person who engages them on a volunteer basis or retains them, and the type of work they do. Police should be aware if a sex offender is spending any amount of time with or in proximity to potential victims. We made these sensible amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to protect victims and to prevent crime. On October 28, 2022, a split decision, five to four, of the Supreme Court found that the mandatory and lifetime registration on the sex offender registry was unconstitutional. The Liberals have simply accepted this decision. We have urged them to respond as forcefully as possible, and Bill S-12 does fall short of that. I want to read from the dissenting judgment. It was a very strong dissent, in which it says: ...the exercise of discretion was the very problem that prompted Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide for automatic registration of sex offenders under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act... The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence. That heightened risk is, by some counts, eight times the likelihood of someone with a prior conviction to reoffend. That is why incorporating and improving as many offenders as possible in the sex offender registry is so very important. We have seen how this has played out before. When it was left simply to the judges to decide who needs to register with the registry, nearly 50% of offenders were never required to register. This is before we brought in mandatory registration. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We can expect that individuals who certainly should be listed in the registry, even after the passage of Bill S-12, would be left out. We have to take every step to protect Canadians, to protect victims and to ensure that sex offenders are not given the opportunity to revictimize our communities. After eight years of the Liberal government, the rate of violent crime is up 39%, police-reported sexual assaults are up 71% and sex crimes against children are up 126%. Canadians deserve so much better than this. I can think of no greater obligation for us as members of Parliament to enact laws that protect our communities and protect the safety of the most vulnerable. With legislation like Bill C-75 that has made bail so easy to get, legislation like Bill C-5 that has allowed for house arrest for sex offenders, Conservatives do not trust the government to take the necessary steps to protect Canadians. It has proven an inability to do that. It is important that we pass Bill S-12, it is important that we respond to the Supreme Court decision and it is important that we go as far as possible to protect the most vulnerable. We look forward to the quick passage of this legislation. It is unfortunate that the government took so long to bring us to this point, but it is also important that we act expeditiously to protect Canadians.

1356 words

All Topics

Jun/20/23 7:25:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are studying Bill C-18, and it speaks about freedom, censorship and power imbalance. I notice the member for Lethbridge and the fantastic shadow minister for Canadian Heritage has been getting up to ask questions over and over, and ironically, the Speaker is censoring her on a very important debate that she has much to contribute to. I urge the Speaker to reconsider her ruling and stop censoring the member immediately.

81 words

All Topics

Jun/15/23 10:27:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the hon. member to read the recent Supreme Court decision on the sex offender registry, where judges themselves were calling out other judges on the misuse of the discretion for adding serious sex offenders to the sex offender registry. Many of our judges do a fantastic job, but we in Parliament are elected to do a job as well. It is time the government took defending the rights of victims seriously. We must take every action we can to make Canada as safe as it can be for victims, their families and our communities.

99 words

Jun/15/23 10:25:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that sometimes situations arise where we have to step up to the demands that Canadians have. I think it is appropriate on a day like today when we are here as parliamentarians, when Canadians are waking up to the news about the situation of Paul Bernardo having been moved to a medium-security prison and the fact that it happened because of the actions of the government. I think Canadians are entitled to hear the word “victims” in the chamber. I fear that if it were not our party speaking about these issues, they would be swept under the rug and would not be spoken of. Which party raises the issues of victims more than any other? It is our party. Honestly, on a day like today, I cannot make any apology for raising this issue and debating this issue. It is that important.

150 words

Jun/15/23 10:23:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is the hon. member for real? Does he not ever get outside of the chamber and see what is happening in the real world? In the real world, where most of us live and where our constituents live, people are concerned about the fact that the government has allowed one of the most notorious sex offenders and murderers in Canada's history to be moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison. Canadians are outraged. They want answers. The more we peel back this onion, the more it stinks, and the more we realize how irresponsibly the government has acted. We realize it is their actions that have led to this consequence. Their inactions have led to this consequence. We make no apologies for standing up every day on behalf of victims of crime.

139 words

Context: House Hansard - 200 - May/18/23

Jun/15/23 10:12:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, be concurred in. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant. The seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights speaks to improving the response to victims of crime. I can honestly say, and I think all Canadians agree, if we believe what we are seeing in the news, that the response of the government to victims of crime has been woefully inadequate. I can go further. When we talk about victims of crime, we are also talking about the victims' families, and that came through loud and clear in our report. Once again, even today we are talking about the impact on victims of crime and their families of the government's soft-on-crime revolving door justice system. I will speak to some of the measures in our report. One of the things we heard loud and clear was the need to address the unfair situation of sentence discounts for multiple murders. What that means is that in Canada, someone who is convicted of first-degree murder receives a life sentence but is eligible for parole in only 25 years. What this has led to is a ludicrous situation. For example, in Moncton, New Brunswick, an individual killed three of our Mounties, three police officers, just trying to do their job, and that individual would have received a 25-year parole ineligibility, the same as if they had killed one person. We have seen situations of mass murder in this country where someone kills three, five or six people, and they would receive the exact same parole ineligibility as if they had killed one person. We believe, on this side of the House, that every life should count, every victim should be counted and every victim's family should be respected. That is why when we were in government, we brought in legislation for ending sentence discounts for multiple murders. This meant that an individual who committed multiple murders would receive multiple consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. It is why the individual who killed the three Mounties in Moncton received a 75-year parole ineligibility. Other mass murderers in Canada sentenced since that legislation have received similar sentences. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down that provision. We all know that a charter dialogue takes place between the legislature, Parliament and the Supreme Court, and it is absolutely scandalous that the government has not responded to that Supreme Court decision. We have called on it for over a year to respond to this decision, to make it right and to listen to victims' families. When we were studying the response to victims of crime, that came up more often than not. One of our great witnesses was Sharlene Bosma. Many members will remember that name, as it was her husband who was killed by a mass murderer, someone who murdered at least three individuals. What Sharlene said left a lasting impact on me as well as on many members, certainly on this side of the House. She said that through the whole process of attending hearings every day, attending court and working to ensure a conviction of this individual who took the life of her husband, the one solace she took when he was sentenced is that her daughter would never have to attend parole hearings and face this monster. However, with one decision from the Supreme Court, that has been ripped away. Now this individual will be eligible for parole in what is left of his 25 years, and Sharlene Bosma, her daughter and other victims' families will have to face unnecessary parole eligibility hearings. Once again, the government throws up its hands. Even in today's headlines it is reported that one of the worst killers in Canada, one of the most notorious, the Scarborough rapist, Paul Bernardo, has been moved, to the horror of the victims' families and all Canadians, from a maximum-security prison, where he should have spent the rest of his life, to a medium-security prison. We see, on the other, side feigned outrage. We see crocodile tears. We hear “How could this happen? We're going to look into this”, but now we are finding out every day that the Minister of Public Safety knew. Now we are finding out that the Prime Minister knew. Why did it happen in the first place? Part of the reason it happened is the government's own legislation. When the government brought in Bill C-83, which amended section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it meant that, when considering transfers from one institution to another, the litmus test brought in by the government is that offenders have to be held in the least restrictive environment. When the Liberals passed that legislation, and when they refused to act when they found out about this transfer, they made this an inevitability. This is on the Liberal government. I also want to address bail in this country. This came up again and again in our victims study. There are victims who are unnecessarily victimized. They are victims because our justice system has failed to protect them from repeat violent offenders. Just last week, we had a witness at justice committee, and what she said left an impression on me. She said that we do not have a justice system; we have a legal system, but many victims do not see justice in our system. Canadians fail to see justice when this government, through Bill C-75, put in a principle of restraint when it comes to bail. It has led to the outrageous situation of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, individuals who have been caught for firearms offences and are out on bail, committing another firearms offence. This is happening in Toronto, and the Toronto police helpfully provided us with the statistics. While out on bail for a firearms offence, offenders commit another firearms offence and get bail again. This is outrageous. The Liberals will say, “This is too bad. It is unfortunate that gun crime is taking place”, but it is taking place as a direct result of both their actions and their inaction, their failure to respond to a revolving-door justice system. I can tell members that Canadians are fed up with it. There is only one party that is committed to ending the revolving door, committed to ensuring that victims voices are heard, committed to appealing the measures in Bill C-75 that have led to this revolving door, committed to ending the outrageous situation in which individuals who commit gun crime are given no more than a slap on the wrist, and committed to ensuring that individuals who commit arson and burn down someone's home are not eligible to serve their sentence with a conditional sentence. What is a conditional sentence? It is house arrest. Under our Criminal Code, somebody could burn down a house and serve their so-called sentence playing video games from the comfort of their own home. When we were in government, we brought in legislation to change that, to end the revolving door, to have consequences for criminal actions and to protect the most vulnerable. We made sure that sex offenders were listed on the sex offender registry. We made sure that sex offenders served their sentence in prison and not in the community where they offended. However, under the current government, with both actions and failure to take action, we have a situation where communities are more and more in danger. Members do not have to take my word for it; this information is publicly available. Violent crime is up 32% in this country. Gang-related homicides are up almost 100% in this country. The approach of the revolving door, of allowing repeat offenders to continue to offend, is not working, and a Conservative government, led by Pierre Poilievre, will address—

1347 words