Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not know how to say “succinct” in French.
House of Commons Hansard #22 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-2.
House of Commons Hansard #22 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-2.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act First reading of Bill C-219. The bill, titled the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act, strengthens Canada's sanctions regime, amends acts to combat transnational repression, and revokes broadcasting licences from sanctioned regimes and those committing genocide. 600 words.
Charitable Organizations Members present petitions opposing finance committee recommendations to revoke charitable status for pro-life organizations and remove "advancement of religion" as a charitable purpose, citing concerns about free speech and religious freedom. 500 words.
Strong Borders Act Second reading of Bill C-2. The bill aims to strengthen border security, combat organized crime, fentanyl trafficking, and auto theft, and protect the immigration system. It proposes expanding law enforcement powers, including accessing private information and inspecting mail, and limiting cash transactions. Liberals defend these measures as necessary and Charter-compliant. Conservatives and NDP/Green members criticize the bill as government overreach, an attack on civil liberties, and for lacking essential bail reform. The Bloc cautiously supports it, emphasizing the need for more border staff and fair asylum seeker distribution. 56200 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not know how to say “succinct” in French.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, my ability to be succinct is my best quality.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Next, I would like to table a petition in support of Bill S-210. The petitioners say that was the number of the bill in the last Parliament, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. It is now Bill S-209 in this Parliament.
The petitioners note that sexually explicit material, including demeaning and violent material, can be easily accessed on the Internet by young persons. A significant portion of that material is made available on the Internet for commercial purposes and is not protected by age verification. Parliament recognizes the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit materials online for young persons. Further, the petitioners note that online age verification technology is increasingly sophisticated and can now effectively ascertain the age of users without any breach of privacy.
The petitioners, therefore, want to see reasonable age verification requirements that protect privacy so that young children are no longer able to access sexual material online. That is why they are calling on the House to support what is, in this Parliament, Bill S-209, which was Bill S-210 in the previous Parliament.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling deals with the issue of euthanasia or medical assistance in dying. Petitioners are concerned, in particular, about what has come to be known as track 2 euthanasia and how this has led to significant problems for Canadians living with disabilities. In fact, these expansions have been vocally opposed by every single major organization representing Canadians with disabilities.
The petitioners note that allowing medical assistance in dying for those with disabilities or chronic illnesses who are not dying devalues their lives, tacitly endorsing the notion that life with disability is optional and, by extension, disposable. They warn about the risks of having an ableist health care system, where the lives of those with disabilities are not seen as worth living.
The petitioners call on the House to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months away.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Next, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition, and I am not sure who prepared it, in which petitioners say that Canada made us all a promise: that anyone from anywhere could do anything. They say that after 10 years of the Liberal government, the promise of Canada has been broken. There have been a lot of broken promises: to balance the budget, to reduce taxes, to make more affordable housing, etc. The petitioners say that hard-working young, 35-year-old Canadians are now living in their parents' basements. This never happened before. It is the response to a situation where housing costs have doubled.
Petitioners note, further, that gun violence is up 120%, and that the government has gone after hunters instead of criminals and gun smugglers.
The petitioners say that it is time to bring home powerful paycheques and that, for this to happen, people need a roof over their heads. Currently, Canada has fewer homes per capita than any other country in the G7. The petitioners say we need to incentivize municipalities to speed up building permits, cut building taxes, free up land for building—
Government PrioritiesPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I would note for the hon. member that there are 30 seconds left in the petition segment of Routine Proceedings.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this petition, but I will wrap up in the time that is available.
The petitioners note that we need a rule where one dollar of savings is found for every new dollar of government spending. This is how parents, seniors and small businesses balance their budgets, and they would expect the same common sense from their leaders.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand, Mr. Speaker.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I know members were disappointed that I had to wrap up during the previous rubric, so they can hear another 10 minutes.
It is great to be back in the new Parliament. Parliament has not been the most active this year. We had prorogation then an election, and the government briefly came back for a spring session. Our position as Conservatives was that we should be prepared to work at least at the committee level over the summer, but Liberals loved not working and wanted to further extend that through the summer. Hopefully we will actually be able to get down to the nation's business in an effective way in the current Parliament.
Conservatives are eager to get to work. We are calling for action on the critical challenges that are confronting Canadians, which is why before Parliament even came back, our leader sent a letter to the Prime Minister, articulating four critical priorities for the current Parliament, things that we need to tackle. These are crises that were in many ways caused by policies of the Liberal government and that we hope to see change and reversal on.
We will certainly be doing everything we can to push for results in these areas. We will oppose the things that are wrong about the government's agenda. We will support legislation and policy change that reverse the failures of the last 10 years that have brought us to this point.
In particular, the four priorities we articulated were addressing, first, the Liberal job loss crisis, the catastrophic levels of unemployment, particularly affecting young people, which result from Liberal policy failures. Confronting that will be a critical priority for us in the current Parliament.
Second is addressing the cost of living crisis. There are so many Canadians who are struggling to afford homes and to afford basic essentials. The Prime Minister has said that he would be judged by the price of groceries, yet we continue to see escalation in costs at the grocery store, for those people buying homes, in transportation and in so many other areas.
There is the job loss crisis and the cost of living crisis. There is the immigration crisis, the failure of the government to align our immigration system with the economic interests of this country. This has led to all kinds of problems. I think there is a lot of concern from Canadians on that issue as well.
Fourth, speaking to the particulars of the bill before us, there are particulars I do not think are addressed fully by the bill, and it incorporates some other problems and distractions. However, the fourth issue we are tackling in the current Parliament in particular is the crime crisis. On the crime issue, it is more difficult for the Liberals to muddy the waters by blaming other factors.
When it comes to economic issues, they often say that there are all these other things going on around the world that are causing them. In many cases, we can demonstrate how that is not true in fact. It is hard to blame events outside the country for the fact that we are building fewer homes in Canada than we did in the past. It is hard to blame events outside the country for the fact that unemployment has actually been steadily going up for the last three years. We are reaching catastrophic levels, especially for youth unemployment, but this is a trend that has been escalating ever since we came out of the COVID period.
It is hard for the government, even on economic issues, to perpetuate the continuing charade of blaming external events, but in particular as it relates to crime. I would encourage people to look at the data, in particular for violent crime. We can see, if plotting on a graph the years and rates of violent crime in this country, that violent crime was going down, and then something happened in 2015.
A new government, a Liberal government, came in in 2015. We are now in the fourth term of that government. It had a different approach with respect to criminal justice. Violent crime rates were going down, and then violent crime rates started going up. Crime rates started going up in particular in response to policy changes that the government made around bail, sentencing and, I think, some changes in the way it approached the issue of crime more broadly.
There was a downward trend and then an upward trend. What we need to see is the reversal of those bad Liberal policies and the return to an approach that we took when crime was actually going down. I know we have put forward various constructive announcements and proposals around reversing the Liberal crime trajectory.
There is a bill before us today, Bill C-2, that purports to be about these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, the Liberals are sort of stepping on their own agenda in lots of ways, because they are weaving in, into some provisions that are supportable, some provisions that we are concerned about and I think that many Canadians are concerned about as well. The Liberals do this a lot; they want to have a nice-sounding announcement about a bill, but they do not actually do the things they say they are going to do, and they weave in other aspects of a different agenda.
Let me highlight some of the things that are in the bill that I think make a lot of Canadians wonder, “Why is that there, and what is the government trying to do with this here?” The bill includes a provision that would limit the use of cash. A lot of us probably use cash a lot less than our grandparents did, because of changes in technology, but on the other hand, cash use does remain a legitimate and vital part of our economy. I think it is something that tends to be relied on more by seniors and by people in rural areas. There are situations where the use of cash is more practical.
We have talked a bit, in the context of the unemployment problems, about what our first jobs were and about the importance of a first job. One of my first jobs was working at, believe it or not, the travelling fair. I worked at the Calgary Stampede and the Edmonton Fair.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I was not a roadie; I was a carny. I think that is the technical term, to correct the member for Abbotsford—South Langley.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I even went to the Red River Ex a few times and had a lot of fun there. The point is, if someone is running a small business, say a carnival game, they are going to have a lot of people paying individually in cash, and that is going to add up to a lot of cash by the end of the day. With the government putting constraints around the use of cash, we can note the impact it may have on small businesses, on different kinds of retail businesses, the challenges it may create and its impact on seniors, on rural communities and these sorts of things. Therefore we have concerns about the changes the government would be making with regard to the use of cash.
More fundamentally, the Liberals are obstructing and stepping on their own agenda by weaving into the bill provisions that make a lot of Canadians wonder why they are there. There are some additional concerns the bill raises around civil liberties. The Liberals have woven in provisions that involve, for instance, the abilities to open mail without oversight and to compel Internet companies to hand over private information. There are additional provisions around warrantless searches.
The Liberal government does not have a great track record when it comes to protecting Canadians' data. It does not have a great track record when it comes to understanding and respecting the privacy, the rights or the civil liberties of Canadians. However, a government that has done so badly in these areas is asking for more powers in the area of opening mail without oversight and compelling the transfer of private information, and also in the area of warrantless searches. These and the issues around cash that I raised address other concerns about what the government is really driving at with the bill.
What we really need to see is fundamental reforms to our criminal justice system that get us back to a time when crime was going down. Crime was going down before the Liberals took office; it has gone up since they took office. We need to ask why that has happened, and we need a reversal of approach.
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Madam Speaker, I am very confused as to what the member opposite was trying to convey, because it sounds like, in theory, for the last four years I have been here, he has been talking about having a bill like the one that is before us. What exactly is he suggesting we can work on in committee to move it forward collaboratively? Canadian voters want us to have a bill for borders, as well as to work in co-operation with the whole House to make sure we can pass good and sensible bills.
What exactly is the member trying to shift and change in the bill? He spent four years talking about it. Now we have a bill, and he is complaining. What is he complaining about?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I am happy to repeat what I just said. We have concerns about the provisions in the bill around use of cash and the limiting of that. We have concerns about the restrictions on civil liberties. We have actually been asking for changes to sentencing, to parole and to bail. Those changes are not in the bill. The changes we have said are critically needed when it comes to criminal justice are not in the bill.
The Liberals have instead put forward a bill that has some supportable provisions but that weaves in some areas, some concepts, that are clearly of concern. I am sorry if it was necessary to repeat that, but hopefully it is clear to the member now the provisions we are talking about that are issues, like use of cash, as well as restrictions on civil liberties.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Madam Speaker, welcome back to the House.
I listened to my colleague talk about Bill C‑2, but there is an elephant in the room when it comes to this bill. People are reluctant to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why we in the Bloc Québécois are inclined to be in favour of this bill.
The number of asylum seekers at the border is skyrocketing. While much of this explosion in asylum claims is attributable to international events, some of it is due to irregular crossings. We believe that treating these people properly is important, but so is ensuring a fair distribution of asylum seekers across the country.
We know that, unfortunately, Quebec is still receiving the greatest share. In fact, Quebec takes in nearly 50% of the asylum seekers who come to Canada. Figures for the other provinces indicate that they are not doing their part. Not long ago, an ad in Le Journal de Montréal condemned this situation, and I was surprised to see that it caused something of a scandal. After all, the real scandal is that the other provinces are not pulling their weight.
Why must Quebec bear such a heavy burden? What are my colleague's thoughts on the unequal distribution of asylum seekers? Why are the other provinces not taking in more of them?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I think it is important to discuss the issues plaguing the asylum seeker system.
We need to recognize that the overall immigration system been broken by the Liberals. Asylum seekers now have to wait a long time for their applications to be assessed. The solution is to implement an efficient system where asylum claims are assessed very quickly and fairly. It would be good for both Canada and asylum seekers to have clarity on each case and to put an end to the wait for a decision.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
I just want to reflect on a question my colleague from the Liberals just asked about the fact that Conservatives have been asking for this type of thing for four years. The reality is, in my view, that Conservatives have been asking for changes to bail, changes to sentencing, changes to how we deal with fentanyl and changes to how we deal with firearms.
Is there anything here the member can point to as to why it took so long and what is really missing here?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague is the shadow minister for our party on this issue and is doing excellent work advocating for public safety.
There are some weird things, unrelated to the objective, woven into the bill, but also many of the things we have been asking for that are needed are missing. The government should take its cue from what we have put forward, like bail reform legislation and other proposals that would actually confront the problems in an effective way.
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be back in the House representing the good people of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. After a long summer away, I confess that I have mixed feelings about that. I am happy to be back, but at the same time, this is the 22nd day this year that we are sitting in the House. I think that Canadians would have expected us to work through the summer rather than be home. Even though it is always a pleasure to engage with our constituents, we are elected to do a job for Canadians. It would have been so much better had we been here in the House, or at least in committees, working through the summer. The Liberals, of course, felt otherwise.
While I enjoyed my time in my riding this summer, I was disheartened to constantly hear from so many people in our community that they feel unsafe. After 10 years of the very tired Liberal government, people do not feel comfortable walking to school. They are unsafe taking public transit. They do not feel safe in their own homes. This is due to a wave of violent crime that has swept through communities throughout our country, particularly in urban areas, such as the one I represent in Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
Due to the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies, repeat offenders continue to be released back into communities, where they can terrorize the communities again and perpetrate even more crimes, which are in many cases crimes similar to, or the same as, the ones they had been arrested for. Since the Liberals took office, soft-on-crime policies have caused crime rates to skyrocket. Violent crime is up 50%. Homicides are up 28%. Extortion is up a staggering 350%. Auto thefts are up 46%. Human trafficking is up 84%. Worst of all, total sexual violations against children are up 119%.
We cannot forget that behind each of these statistics are real people who have suffered and who are continuing to suffer, who are frightened and who continue to be frightened. Two people, including an 11-year-old girl, lost their lives, killed, as a result of an arson, a deliberate arson, in the place they should have felt safest, their own home. This was in my community, where I live, in Richmond Hill.
A man in Vaughan, as we heard yesterday in the House, from my very learned and exceptional colleague from King—Vaughan, was killed during a home invasion. A criminal walked in. This thug put a gun to his daughter's head. Naturally, a father would react. Upon his reaction to protect his little girl, he was shot dead in front of his family, leaving the children to grow up without their father.
In Niagara, and this is very sickening, Daniel Senecal was charged with breaking and entering, aggravated assault and sexual interference of a three-year-old girl. The child suffered serious injuries and had to be rushed to an out-of-region hospital for advanced care. Senecal also requested to be transferred to a women's prison.
The justice minister tweeted, just a few weeks ago, “This isn’t the Wild West.” My constituents have told me that they feel it is far worse than the Wild West. It certainly feels like it is because these criminals are free to reoffend at will. They get caught one day, and police services across the country are telling us that they are frustrated because they are then released the next day. The minister, like the Liberal government, is once again out of touch with the everyday struggles facing my constituents and, indeed, all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Bill C-2 fails to bring bail reform that would end catch-and-release policies. It fails to implement mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers, who kill thousands. In fact, more people have died from opioid and fentanyl overdoses in this country than were killed in the Second World War, which is a staggering statistic. The bill fails to bring in new mandatory prison time for gangsters who commit crimes with guns and wreak havoc on our streets, which are rampant and everywhere. It would fail to eliminate house arrest for some of the most serious offences, allowing those who brutalize our communities to serve their sentences from the comfort of their own homes. I am deeply concerned that this bill does not go far enough to fight crime and bring safety back to our communities.
The bill would allow for new powers, such as opening mail, without oversight, based just on suspicion. It would compel Internet companies to hand over private information, allow for warrantless searches and eliminate the use of cash. That does not make sense. Cash has been legal tender in Canada since the inception of cash in this country. As we heard from the previous speaker, many communities, such as people in the north, seniors and so forth, do not have a credit card system. Some of them do not have Internet to transact their business online. Cash is very important. This bill would limit the use of cash.
The bill raises serious concerns about privacy, surveillance and civil liberties. I would argue, as would many Canadians, that judicial and parliamentary oversight are fundamental principles of our democracy. They need to be there. We cannot give arbitrary powers without having the proper oversight to ensure that there is fairness in the system. The bill would expand lawful access powers, allowing police, security agencies and others to demand information from various service providers, including hotels, banks, doctors and more, to release private information without judicial authorization. That is a direct infringement on the privacy of Canadians.
The bill has a low threshold to compel providers to provide subscriber information, account details and, in many instances, the time-stamp, location of service and other information that is normally considered private. Bill C-2 would give the minister and/or cabinet new powers to act unilaterally, without parliamentary or judicial oversight, based just on suspicion. Nebulous criteria and vagueness leave room for interpretation. They leave room for arbitrary decisions and possible discriminatory decision-making.
We have checks and balances in our democracy. This bill would take away a lot of those checks and balances. Conservatives have always fought for practical policies that would secure our borders and bring back safety to our communities while upholding Canadian rights.
It is not surprising that this tired Liberal government is bringing in a bill called the strong borders act. What is surprising is that the Liberals have been in power for 10 years and they have now decided, 10 years later, that we should have stronger borders and to put it in a bill. We would think that this would have been a priority from day one, but now, somehow, they want us to believe that the sweeping powers in this new bill are going to fix the problem and that we should listen to them because they know what needs to be done. In fact, a lot of the things in the bill that are supportable are things that we, as Conservatives, have been talking about in the House every day over the past 10 years, to ears on the other side of the House that have not been listening, in the tired Liberal government.
Conservatives support adding thousands of border agents, extending CBSA powers along the entire border, and installing border surveillance towers. We also support installing high-powered scanners at land crossings and shipping ports to spot drugs, guns and stolen cars. Most importantly, we will always support the hard-working men and women on the front lines. They are doing their very best with the limited resources they are given. They play a critical role in keeping Canadians safe by working to stop the flow of drugs and guns into our country, and for that, we should sincerely be very gracious and thankful.
Conservatives also support the government tracking departures, so government officials would know which deportees are in Canada illegally. Over the last 10 years, the Liberal government has broken our once proud immigration system and turned it into something very hollow. Thousands of immigrants entering into an already overburdened system has resulted in the worsening of housing, jobs and so forth.
As I wind down, though I have lots more I could say, I will say this: Only Conservatives will protect Canadians' freedoms and fight for a tough-on-crime approach, so they can live in their homes, feel safe, walk in their communities, take their children to school, go to a theatre and enjoy a peaceful, safe life.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, there are some contradictions within the member's statements. On the one hand, he wants the government to take action on fentanyl, yet a drug dealer can put fentanyl into a normal envelope and bring it to Canada Post. This legislation would then allow, through a warrant, for that envelope to be opened. I would think that is a positive thing and that the member would support something of that nature, given that he wants more action done on the issue of fentanyl.
The good news is that the member spent the first part of his speech talking about the issue of bail. The Prime Minister has made a commitment, a platform commitment during the election, which is the most democratic aspect that takes place between our sittings. We made a commitment to bring in bail reform. The good news is that we are going to see that bail reform this fall. I wonder if he would be inclined to support that in a co-operative way, as the Conservative voters want more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons.