Michael Cooper
St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee. The Conservatives would have liked to see additional recommendations with a view toward strengthening the integrity of our elections, including an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to require electors residing abroad to provid…”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since legislation was passed to establish a foreign influence registry. Two years later, the Liberals have missed every deadline to get the registry up and running. On what date will the foreign influence registry finally be fully operational?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome.”
“(2235) I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the…”
“This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that.”
“to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates.”
The complete record
Every one of 343 lines we hold for Michael Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“In being silent, this killer is not only cruel and callous, but, as the member for Parkland said, his actions constitute a crime. It is an ongoing, perpetual crime of retraumatizing the victim's family. The member across the way said that family members take some comfort in the system as it currently stands. I can say with certainty that Bret McCann takes no comfort in the fact that the killer, the murderer, is eligible for parole, that he applied for parole last year and can do so year after year after year for the rest of his life or that the parole board does not have to consider the fact that this cruel, callous murderer, day in and day out, taunts Bret McCann and the entire McCann family by refusing to come clean about their whereabouts. Hence, we have McCann's law. This is right. This is just. It is needed. It is targeted.”
“This is a murderer who took the lives of two innocent, elderly victims. They were on a road trip in the summer of 2010, heading to British Columbia. They stopped near Peers, Alberta. They pulled over and spent some time in a relatively remote area. He took advantage of their vulnerability in that particular place, at that particular time. He robbed them, murdered them and disposed of their bodies. Instead of taking any sense of responsibility, instead of showing any sense of remorse, he has cruelly and callously kept the whereabouts of their remains a secret, denying Lyle and Marie McCann a proper burial, depriving the family of Lyle and Marie McCann some comfort in knowing the whereabouts of their remains, their parents and grandparents, depriving the family of some degree of the closure that comes with knowing.”
“They came to me as their member of Parliament to ask me to advocate for the repeal of so-called zombie laws. In the trial of the murderer, the trial judge, in error, applied an unconstitutional section of the Criminal Code that had been struck down but was nonetheless on the books, a zombie law. We advocated for the repeal of such laws and, to the credit of the government, it brought forward legislation that removed the zombie laws that were on the books at that time. I know that the member for Parkland first met Bret and Mary-Anne at that time, when he was working in my office, which in turn led to where we are today, with the introduction of McCann's law. Why McCann's law? Very simply, it is to remedy an injustice in our justice system that is illustrated by what has happened to the murderer of Lyle and Marie McCann.”
“He introduced this bill when he got to this place in the 42nd Parliament, as well as in the 43rd Parliament, in the 44th Parliament and now in the 45th Parliament. (1415) As members can appreciate, it is difficult to get private members' bills to be debated and voted on, given that the House spends so much of its time on government business. Finally, in the 45th Parliament, McCann's law is here. It is being debated. It will be voted on. I certainly hope it is passed. Most especially, I want to pay tribute to and pay my respects to the McCann family, who have gone through so much over these years, having lost a mother, a father and grandparents at the hands of a cold-blooded murderer. I have gotten to know Bret McCann and his wife, Mary-Ann.”
“I would submit it is airtight when it comes to its compliance with the charter, because it is entirely discretionary. It would not impose, mandate or bind judges in any way; it simply provides that judges have one more tool at their disposal having regard for the particular facts and circumstances and the particular offender, nothing more, nothing less. Then, based upon that determination, parole boards and correctional authorities would also be able to exercise similar discretion. Again, they would be required to take into consideration something that is very material: a refusal on the part of a murderer to disclose the whereabouts of their victims' remains. I want to commend my friend and colleague, the member for Parkland , for his tireless leadership in championing this legislation.”
“If a judge determines it not appropriate to treat it as an aggravating factor, they would simply be required to state their reasons for doing so to provide for some level of transparency and accountability. Second, a judge would have the discretion to order the Parole Board to expressly give consideration to such a refusal in determining the appropriateness and suitability of the release of such murderers. It would also follow that correctional authorities would have the discretion in such cases to deny day parole and temporary absences for such murderers. I was disappointed with the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader when he suggested that somehow this bill is not charter-compliant. This bill could not be any more charter-compliant.”
“He applied last year and he can do so without the Parole Board being required to give any regard to the fact that he refuses to disclose the whereabouts of the remains of Lyle and Marie McCann. In light of that, McCann's law stands for one simple underlying principle: no body, no parole. That is right. That is just. That is fair. It gives judges, parole boards and correctional authorities the discretion, and I want to emphasize the word discretion, to hold murderers who refuse to disclose, and who hide material information about, the whereabouts of their victims' remains accountable under the law. This bill, McCann's law, does so in several ways. First, it gives judges the discretion to treat a refusal to provide this information as an aggravating factor when fashioning a sentence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill C-236 as its seconder. Known as McCann's law, it is in memory of the late Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert. Lyle and Marie were a happily married, retired couple who had their lives cut short when they were brutally murdered in July 2010. For 15 long years, their remains have not been found. For 15 long years, the murderer has kept the whereabouts of their remains a secret. Fortunately, that murderer was charged, tried and convicted and is serving a life sentence, but unfortunately, and frankly outrageously, this murderer is eligible for parole in less than 15 years. He took their lives. He murdered two people and he is already eligible for parole.”
“Mr. Speaker, I asked for a date. There is no date, but rest assured: The government has secured meetings with the U.A.E. next year. What we have is an agreement to talk about a possible agreement sometime in the future. This is more jet-setting, more photo ops and more press releases, with no tangible results for Canadian workers. Is this the best we can get from the so-called master negotiator?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is spinning that he negotiated a great deal with the U.A.E. It is such a great deal that the text is nowhere to be found, no details have been provided, and as far as the so-called investment commitments go, there is no timeline. I have a simple question: On what date can we expect to see the first dollar of investment from the U.A.E.? I would like just a date, please.”
“Mr. Speaker, evidently, the Prime Minister is complicit, because here are the facts: He was chair of the company that is Canada's biggest tax-dodger. Not only that, but he set up investment funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands in which he stands to make millions. The Prime Minister has a responsibility to come clean and come clean today. How much cash does he have stashed in offshore tax havens?”
“Mr. Speaker, top executives at the Prime Minister 's company, Brookfield, are defying an order of the House to testify at committee about his use of offshore tax havens. This is tantamount to contempt of Parliament. Will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and tell his pals at Brookfield to comply with the House order, or is he complicit in the cover-up?”
“Brian's bill is straightforward, it is targeted and it is common sense. If the government has any sense of justice and any regard for the rights of victims, it will vote for it.”
“It is already in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In closing, let me say that this bill would strike the right balance between regard for the very serious gravity of the offence of murder and the public interest. It takes into account the rights and real vulnerabilities of the families and friends of victims who have to go through frequent parole hearings. It would spare the taxpayer from having to foot the bill for frequent, frivolous and hopeless parole applications. It would save scarce resources at the Correctional Service. It would also respect the charter rights of murderers, which we kept being reminded of by the parliamentary secretary and the Bloc member , because at the end of the day, their parole and incarceration status would continue to be reviewed on the fairly frequent basis of roughly every five years.”
“How does that make sense? How is that just? How is that fair? How is it just to put the families and friends of murder victims through frequent parole hearings, year after year? It revictimizes them, retraumatizes them and forces them to prepare victim impact statements when the ink has barely dried from the previous victim impact statement, and to what end? For what purpose? It is for a parole application that is almost certainly going to be rejected because, after all, we are talking about convicted murderers. We are talking about people who have been given an automatic life sentence. All this bill says is that if someone has been convicted of murder, they would get a kick at the can every five years. Parliament has already determined that to be the appropriate time frame for the parole status of a convicted murderer to be reviewed.”
“This bill would provide that someone who is a convicted murderer has their parole considered, but only at the time of the automatic review provided for in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which occurs approximately every five years. Murder is the most serious offence under the Criminal Code. It comes with an automatic life sentence, and for good reason. Let us face reality. If someone is convicted of first-degree murder, for example, and they serve the mandatory incarceration period of 25 years, at year 25, their parole will be considered. If, at that time, the Parole Board determines that the murderer is not releasable, as is often the case, what are the chances that they would be releasable in year 26 or year 27? They are next to nil, yet as it stands, that murderer would be able to apply year after year.”
“However, seeing that the Liberal government is not prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause, I suggested that, at the very least, an amendment be made to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that convicted murders would not be able to apply for parole on a frequent basis, year after year, after they have served the mandatory incarceration period of 25 years for first-degree murder, and between 10 to 25 years for second-degree murder. Hence, there is Brian's law. (1300) I championed this in the last Parliament along with Senator Boisvenu, who, like Mike and Dianne, knows what it feels like to live with having a child murdered. I want to thank Senator Denise Batters and my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach for bringing forward this bill in this Parliament.”
“For Mike and Dianne, it meant that, as of 2022, instead of Brian's murderer being eligible for parole in 30 long years, he could suddenly be eligible for parole in only 15 years, and today, in only 12 years. Mike and Dianne came to me, as their member of Parliament, and asked what could be done. I said to them that there was a very simple path forward, and that would be for the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court's unjust decision.”
“For Mike and Dianne Ilesic, Brian's parents, who were constituents of mine when I represented Northwest Edmonton and whom I have had the opportunity to get to know over the years, told me that the only sense of justice and comfort they felt after their son had been brutally murdered was believing that they would never have to sit through a parole hearing in their lifetime to face Brian's murderer. That sense of justice, that sense of comfort, was shattered in May 2022 when the Supreme Court issued the Bissonnette decision, which struck down that very just and very reasonable law. As a consequence of the Supreme Court's decision, some of Canada's most notorious and worst murderers have seen their sentences significantly slashed.”
“That triple murderer, who attempted to murder a fourth victim, Matthew, was the first murderer to be sentenced under a law passed by the Harper government, which simply gave judges the discretion to apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods for persons convicted of multiple murders to take into account the life of each victim and to, frankly, see that the worst of the worst murderers never see the light of day. Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice Rooke sentenced this triple murderer to 40 years behind bars for taking the lives of three people and attempting to murder a fourth.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-243 , Brian's bill, in honour of the memory of the late Brian Ilesic. On June 12, 2012, Brian, with his colleagues Michelle Shegelski, Eddie Rejano and Matthew Schuman, were working as armoured guards at the University of Alberta's Hub Mall servicing ATM machines. They were, unfortunately, with another co-worker, who, in an act of pure evil, opened fire on them, shooting Brian, Michelle and Eddie multiple times, point-blank in the back of the head as he ran off with $360,000 in cash. Brian, Michelle and Eddie did not survive. Matthew miraculously did survive, but he has sustained life-altering injuries. His life will never be the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, following up on the question posed by the member for Hamilton Mountain , I would note that someone convicted of murder receives an automatic life sentence for good reason. With respect to the statutory review provided for in the bill, it is one that Parliament has already decided upon and is in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There is an automatic review every five years. That is the time Parliament determined to be the appropriate time frame, having regard for the gravity of the offence of murder and the fact that it is an automatic life sentence. Is the member aware that that provision of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act has been struck down by the court? If not, why would the bill—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to come clean about his offshore tax havens. Meanwhile, he lectures young Canadians that they need to sacrifice more. After 10 years of the Liberals, they cannot afford food. They cannot afford rent. They have nothing left to give. When will the Prime Minister park his hypocrisy, come clean and tell us how much cash he has stashed in offshore tax havens?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals speak of a stringent and robust regime, yet the Prime Minister 's company Brookfield registered multiple funds to a bike shop in Bermuda to avoid paying taxes in Canada. The Prime Minister is dodging a simple question so I will ask it again. How much money does he have in offshore tax havens? I want just a number, please.”
“Mr. Speaker, expert testimony reveals that the Prime Minister 's company Brookfield is the biggest tax dodger in Canada, having avoided paying a staggering $6.5 billion in taxes in just five years. As chair of Brookfield, the Prime Minister registered three investment funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands from which he stands to make millions. Again, how much does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars in future bonus pay from three investment funds that he registered in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. I have a simple question. How many other investments does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars in future bonus pay from pre-registered investment funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Canadians deserve to know the extent to which the Prime Minister is abusing offshore tax havens, so I have a simple question: How many other investments does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens? I would just like an answer.”
“These amendments would harmonize the process to end a two-tier immigration process and respect the ruling of the Ontario Superior Court judge, a ruling that the Liberal government should have appealed in the first place.”
“Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals did not do was respect the ruling because, as the member pointed out, the judge provided for a substantial connection test. That is absent from the bill. What the Liberals did do was create a two-tier system for applying for citizenship. One tier is for those who are applying through naturalization, whereby they have to get a language test, go for a background check and spend a certain period of time in Canada within five years. The Liberals, on the other hand, for those who meet the wide criteria that they have set out, would give automatic citizenship to persons who have no meaningful connection to Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my response to the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, I said “process of harmonization”. I meant the process of naturalization. With respect to the question posed by the parliamentary secretary, this is what the Liberals do all the time. They get a lower court decision that they happen to like for ideological reasons. They do not fulfill their responsibility, which is to defend laws passed by Parliament, and appeal the decision. Then they say, “We are in a bind. We have no choice. We have to move ahead with legislation.” It is part of a consistent pattern, and the bottom line is that the government should have appealed the decision. It did not. It brought in a radical badly drafted bill. We have worked to fix it. Let us keep the amendments in the bill, and we can move forward on that basis.”
“Mr. Speaker, the solution would be to keep the Conservative amendments, which were adopted at committee, in the bill. That would harmonize the requirements for applicants for citizenship by way of descent with those of applicants who are applying for citizenship through the process of harmonization.”
“It is about our shared values interwoven through the history of this great country, including a commitment to freedom, democracy, pluralism and human rights, as well as our shared responsibilities, because citizenship is more than a right. With citizenship comes responsibilities. The bill, unamended, would significantly weaken what it means to be a Canadian citizen, and it is not supportable.”
“Among the most significant of amendments adopted at committee was that to establish an actual substantial connection test, as provided for in the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court, which the Liberals ignored, and it would provide for a proper background check. Again, that is common sense. However, the Liberals, subscribing to a postnationalist ideology, have signalled that they intend to strip the bill of these common-sense Conservative amendments, and as a consequence, we would be left with the same bill the Liberals initially put before the House, a bill that would weaken what it means to be a Canadian. Citizenship ought to be more than a legal status. It ought to be more than having a passport.”
“It would provide automatic citizenship to persons with virtually no substantial connection to Canada, and without so much as a background check. That is right. Persons with criminal records, who might pose a threat to national security, if they were to meet the very wide parameters provided for in the bill, would be granted automatic Canadian citizenship. It is just crazy. There is a small glimmer of light coming out of committee, and that is because Conservatives brought forward a number of amendments to fix the most problematic aspects of the bill. The Bloc Québécois worked with us, and those amendments were adopted at committee.”
“Instead, what this bill provides for is that someone born abroad would be able to acquire Canadian citizenship if only one of their parents had spent a grand total 1,095 days in Canada, and that need not be over a specific period or over a consecutive period of time. It could be a few weeks here and a few months there over the span of decades, so long as one parent had spent 1,095 days in Canada before that child was born, and then that child could extend automatic Canadian citizenship to their child if they also spent a grand total of 1,095 days over their lifetime. On and on it could go, generation after generation. Make no mistake about it that the bill would facilitate intergenerational chain migration.”
“It is a bill that has been accurately characterized as a chain migration bill, a bill that would open the floodgates to the ability to acquire Canadian citizenship by people who are generations removed from any meaningful connection to Canada. (1550) It is important to note that, while the lower court judge struck down the first-generation limit, the judge provided that it would be reasonable for Parliament to impose a substantial connection test. In other words, the judge said it is permissible for Parliament to require that someone born abroad who is applying for citizenship by descent to establish that they have some meaningful connection to Canada. What did the Liberals do in the face of that pronouncement? They ignored the judge. They hide behind the decision, but they introduced a bill with absolutely no substantial connection test.”
“The people of course would then claim the right to health care, housing and other benefits afforded to Canadian citizens. That is what the first-generation limit sought to prevent. The Liberals will tell us not to blame them, because they had no choice, due to the decision of the Ontario Superior Court. They did have a choice. They could have appealed the decision. That is what would be done in the normal course. After all, it was a lower-court decision rendered by one judge's striking down a law duly passed by Parliament. Of course the Liberals did not appeal the decision, because they are motivated by their postnationalist ideology. Instead what the Liberals did was use the lower-court decision as a pretext to bringing forward the radical bill now before the House.”
“It was implemented for good reason: to end what amounted to abuses of citizenship by so-called Canadians of convenience, persons who have little or no connection to Canada, who have not been born in Canada, who have never set foot in Canada in some cases, who have not paid taxes in Canada and who have made no significant or any contributions to Canadian society, but who hold a Canadian passport. Invariably, when there would be a crisis in their respective country, they would demand that the Canadian government come to their rescue and bring them to Canada. We saw this in 2006, during the crisis in Lebanon, when the Government of Canada was effectively forced to rescue 15,000 people with next to no connection to Canada, almost all of whom returned to Lebanon when the crisis ended, at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million.”
“It follows that if Canada has no core identity, then Canadian identity means nothing and Canadian citizenship means nothing. That is the vision of the Liberal Party for this country: Canada's being a postnational state. With respect to background, the bill technically arose following a decision of an Ontario Superior Court judge to strike down the first-generation limit passed by the Harper government. I emphasize that it was technically arising from that court decision. What is the first-generation limit? All it provides for is that only the first generation of children born abroad can acquire citizenship by descent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-3 , an act to amend the Citizenship Act, brought forward by the Liberal government. The bill would eliminate the first-generation limit for the granting of citizenship by descent and would drastically expand the granting of citizenship to persons born abroad who have little to no connection to Canada. In short, the bill is radical and reckless, and it would significantly undermine confidence in our immigration system. Then again, it should come as no surprise that we have this awful piece of legislation brought forward by the Liberals across the way, because after all, they subscribe to a radical, globalist, postnationalist ideology. Justin Trudeau infamously said that Canada is a postnational state with “no core identity”.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be curious whether the hon. member across the way supports a basic background check before automatic citizenship is granted to a Canadian born abroad who gains citizenship by descent, because as the Liberal bill was drafted, it would provide automatic citizenship without any kind of security check. Conservatives brought forward an amendment at committee to fix that. What is the member's position on the Conservative amendment?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's company Brookfield has been exposed as Canada's biggest tax dodger. According to expert analysis, Brookfield managed to avoid paying a staggering $6.5 billion in Canadian taxes through the use of offshore tax havens in just five years. As chair of Brookfield, the Prime Minister registered three multi-billion dollar investment funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, all to avoid paying taxes in Canada, funds that the Prime Minister stands to profit from in the way of future bonus pay. Canadians deserve answers about the Prime Minister 's use of offshore tax havens, and today, the House will be voting on getting those answers. The question is, will Liberal MPs stand with taxpayers, or will they cover for their tax-dodging Prime Minister? We will soon find out.”
“Madam Speaker, I guess the more things change, the more things stay the same. That is what I would say. We had a former prime minister who had serious issues with complying with the Conflict of Interest Act, and we have a new Prime Minister , the current Prime Minister, who has an unprecedented number of conflicts of interest and is not acting in accordance with, at the very least, the spirit of the act and may not be fully complying with the act. We do not know because of the lack of transparency surrounding the Prime Minister's dealings.”
“Madam Speaker, what is fundamentally lacking is any level of transparency on the part of the Prime Minister . We have a Prime Minister who has not revealed all of his conflicts. That is a problem because Canadians cannot, therefore, be assured that he is, in fact, avoiding conflicts of interest. Second, we have an ethics screen that is based entirely on trust. There is no reporting and no understanding of when it is being triggered or if it is being triggered. At the very least, as a starting point, we need transparency from the Prime Minister . Some of the transparency does not require amendments to the act. It just requires the Prime Minister's staff to step forward and come clean.”
“Madam Speaker, what good is a blind trust in the face of carried interest payments and future bonus pay, in the amount of tens of billions of dollars, that the Prime Minister could be entitled to? A blind trust does nothing to deal with that. It is one example of many of the loopholes that exist in the complete inadequacy of the Prime Minister's simply saying, “I have set up a blind trust, and by the way, I also have an ethics screen that is being administered by my chief of staff, who answers to me.” It is not good enough.”
“We need to hear from the Prime Minister 's chief of staff and from the clerk with respect to the ethics screen, and we need to hear from the CEO of Brookfield about the many serious ethical questions surrounding the—”
“They are arguably in a blatant conflict of interest in overseeing that screen. Not only that, but there are no checks and balances to see that the screen is being used as intended to keep the Prime Minister away from making decisions in which he would have a conflict of interest. There is no reporting mechanism, for example. We are really left to having to trust the Prime Minister 's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council who, by the way, even if they were doing their best, which they may be, to shield the Prime Minister from these types of decisions, are subject to an ambiguous proportionality standard that raises other questions about the effectiveness of the ethics screen. (1650) For all of these reasons, this amendment could not be more timely.”
“The Prime Minister said he was coming to stand up and rescue this country at a time of crisis, but when we look at the actions of the Prime Minister, we see time and again that his words do not match his deeds. He was very happy to set up major funds, some of the world's largest clean-energy funds, in offshore tax havens. He was very content to hide behind loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act to not disclose his hidden conflicts. Of course, we know that he was also very happy to move Brookfield out of Canada to New York City months before he ran for leadership of the Liberal Party. Then there is the so-called ethics screen. Who administers the ethics screen? It is none other than the Prime Minister 's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, both of whom answer to the Prime Minister.”
“In fact, analysis done by Canadians for Tax Fairness revealed that of Canada's 123 largest corporations, Brookfield is the largest tax dodger; there was the largest tax gap by Brookfield, based upon what Brookfield actually paid in taxes versus what Brookfield should have paid had the statutory tax rate been applied, because of Brookfield's use of offshore tax havens that the Prime Minister actively used and took advantage of while he was chair of Brookfield. How much was it in the way of tax avoidance that Brookfield, I guess to some degree, succeeded in taking of advantage of? It was $6.5 billion of tax dodging in just five years.”
“Where did he set up the global transition fund? Oh, it was not in Canada but in Bermuda. How about the second global transition fund? It was not in Canada; the Prime Minister registered it in Bermuda. The catalytic transition fund is not in Canada. How about the Cayman Islands? All are in offshore tax haven jurisdictions. Last week at committee, we learned about the extent of Brookfield's use of offshore tax havens.”