SoVote

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

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/18/23 5:18:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a challenging issue, and one that has affected the lives of too many Canadians across our great country. After eight years of this Prime Minister, everything just feels broken. Life costs more. Work does not pay. Housing costs have doubled. The Prime Minister divides to control the people and, worst of all, crime, chaos, drugs and disorder rage in our streets. Nowhere is this worse than the opioid overdose crisis that has expanded so dramatically in the last several years. The opioid crisis has now killed over 35,000 of our loved ones since 2016. Six individuals have succumbed to overdoses in my hometown of Swift Current, with two very recently, of fentanyl, just within the past couple of months. This is tragic. This crisis has claimed the lives of too many Canadians. It will continue to do so if we as legislators cannot work collaboratively to enact policies that will help reduce both the supply and the demand of these highly powerful, highly addictive taxpayer-funded drugs. It is clear that current policies implemented by the Liberal government to combat this issue are not working. Since 2017, the federal government has spent over $800 million on its failed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, including over $100 million in funding for hard drugs supply projects across Canada, and plans to spend an additional $74 million to scale up these projects over the next five years. We might ask what we have to show for this huge investment. Have the trends reversed? Are our loved ones coming home drug-free? Let us look at the facts. Since tax-funded drug supply was ramped up in 2020, opioid deaths have only gone up, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada. In 2020, slightly fewer than 7,000 people died of opioid overdoses, while only 3,000 died of overdoses in 2016, according to the Library of Parliament. It is clear that the Liberals' policies are not working and pumping taxpayers' money into funding these drugs is not solving the problem. This begs the question, what is the government hiding? I look forward to a response from the members opposite, and maybe, when I split my time with the member for Foothills, they will enlighten him as to what is happening. Ultimately, this issue is one about hope. We need to offer hope to our friends, families, neighbours, fellow Canadians and especially those who find themselves addicted to these substances and feel unable to free themselves from the grip of addiction. I would ask the House: if someone is struggling with addiction, what message does it send them to offer them more of these hard drugs? Does that send a message of hope to these individuals or are we saying that we have given up on them? At its root, funding these hard drugs is an inference that we believe that they may be unable to overcome these addictions. We know that this is not true. There are incredible stories of Canadians across the country who have found themselves at their lowest, despairing of ever being able to free themselves from the bondage of drug addiction, and yet their stories of recovery are powerful stories of hope. If we asked them how they recovered, the answer would not be one of safe supply programs by the government. It is about recovering in addiction treatment and recovery programs. I had a constituent reach out to me and tell me about a family member who has struggled with addiction. For this person, it started as an early teen with marijuana and quickly escalated to other substances like cocaine and morphine. It was treatment that was available. It was not safe supply that was able to get this person the help that they needed to be able to finish high school, and not only finish high school but graduate with honours and even win a provincial academic award. That is the story. That is hope. That is hope that has been realized. I also spoke with an organization that works with at-risk youth, and there is an individual who came to work there who had previously dealt with an addiction in his life. He was using his lived experience to help the youth there, to hopefully prevent them from doing what he did and going through what he had gone through. Unfortunately, this person had a relapse when he was back home and ended up taking fentanyl for the first time in his life. It took eight days for him to be able to detox from taking fentanyl one time. The Liberals' plan is not to prevent people like this from getting their hands on drugs, it is quite the opposite, it is to put drugs in their hands, and to make drugs more accessible. I used to work for a telecommunications company in a community that had a methadone clinic because of the high volume of drug users in the area. I would regularly come across needles in the back alleys where I was working. It was an occupational safety hazard, to say the least. Many people there had large dogs in their yards to ward off the would-be thieves looking to steal things to sell for drug money. One day I was working in someone's basement, running a telephone line. As I was running the wire, I threw a bundle up over the top of the cold air return. As the wire came over the other side, I gave it a pull to get the rest of the wire. I was standing underneath the cold air return, thankfully, because four needles fell. Three of them landed on the floor and one of them must have bounced off the wire and then bounced off my shoulder before it hit the floor. That was something that I did not expect to have happen. I certainly did not go into that day looking to encounter that on the job site. I have also been in many houses and apartments where it was clear that people were functioning addicts. They were uneasy. There was a look of hopelessness on their faces. Perpetuating that with more government drugs is not the way to offer those people hope. These people are just trying to get through another day. They are trying to get through another hour. In some cases, it might even be another minute. This gets to my key point. Where is the hope for these people? The government has done a lot of things, but all the things that it is doing only contribute further to the problem. It is contributing to the state of homelessness. Many of these people, because of what the government has done, are turning to drugs and hard drugs. They are losing their homes, they are losing their jobs, they are ending up on the streets. This perpetuates where people are and what the stats are showing about where people end up. That is why Conservatives are calling for the government to immediately reverse its deadly policies and redirect all funds from taxpayer-funded hard drug programs to addiction treatment and recovery programs. Let us think about the amount of money going into supplying these deadly substances and how those same funds could be channelled into recovery programs that have a proven track record of helping Canadians overcome their addictions. I think it is safe to say we would be in a much better place today if our attention was placed on recovery. Above and beyond that, we also need to look at an upstream approach to this issue. We have to come to a point in our history as a society where we must ask, why is it that our neighbours and friends are seeking out these deadly substances? What is the root of the hurt and despair that is fuelling these addictions at an unprecedented rate? What is driving them to seek out drugs? Where have we failed our brothers, sisters, neighbours and family members in their efforts to find meaning and fulfillment in their lives? I have always believed that family is the foundation of society. While we work to reduce addictions, we must also work to ensure that the very foundation of society is preserved. We must ensure that children are growing up in safe and secure homes, where they learn the value of important things in life, and where they find the meaning and fulfillment in life. Modern medicine always encourages us to look at the root of the problem to find the upstream approach to health, and to examine the social determinants of health. While we work to combat the issue of addiction, we must also look at the root cause, and keep our loved ones from turning to these hard drugs in the first place. Every life lost to an overdose is one too many. These people are loved, and we owe it to them to offer them hope in the midst of despair. I started my speech by saying we must work collaboratively on this issue, and I will say it again. Human life, every single life, is too valuable. There is too much at stake. Let us get this issue right for the sake of our children and for the sake of our future generations. Let us bring it home.

1571 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/18/23 5:27:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives spoke a lot today about how they want to scrap the safer supply initiatives that have been put in place. Unfortunately, there are situations where those drugs are being resold so that the user can buy fentanyl. If we want to be able to implement support measures to help people recover from addictions, then we need to make sure that they stay alive first. What we want is to put in place a safe supply system where we could be sure that the person who receives the substitution drug is the one who uses it. In that case, would my colleague agree that we should continue with the safe supply initiatives so that people can have access to hard drugs that are pharmaceutically produced and do not contain fentanyl?

133 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/18/23 5:28:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the way the member is trying to ask the question, but I think the issue is that rather than offering people safe supply, we can look at what is in these drugs; one tablet of hydromorphone has the equivalent of 10 Tylenol #3 tablets. That is not the solution people are actually looking for, and that is a much different approach than offering somebody methadone or some of the other programs that are out there to try to help people come off of the high or deal with their addictions. We need to make sure that we are very pointed and specific about what we are trying to deal with here, and that is why we are concerned about the government's spending gross amounts of money on further heightening the opioid crisis, rather than trying to alleviate it.

143 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/18/23 5:29:37 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am quite concerned by what I have heard from the member. His language was creating a lot of negative labels and stigmatization. Having been an Inuk all my life, and seeing other indigenous peoples refusing to call themselves indigenous because of the racism that exists, it is hard to listen to people generating more stigma. I hope the member reconsiders how he thinks of people who are suffering from substance abuse problems and how people need extra supports. I want to ask a question. I think safe supply is a form of treatment and recovery. Because it is an option for people to recover from these struggles, it should not be eliminated as a treatment option. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all way that ensures we can do better to help people to get off hard drugs, which we know are causing many problems for individuals. Does the member agree there cannot be a one-size-fits-all way to treat people who are having these struggles and that it is better to have more treatment options for them?

183 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/18/23 5:31:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the majority of my speech was about trying to provide people with treatment and recovery. We want to provide people hope, and I do not think offering people recovery, treatment and hope is racist. Nobody has come into this debate with the goal of trying to stigmatize anybody; nobody is doing that. That is not what we are doing. What we are trying to do is make sure the government is not just worsening the crisis by offering more drugs and enabling people to get their hands on drugs so that they can sell them to get more and harsher drugs. We are trying to offer people hope and alternatives. That is what this is about. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. That is not what we are advocating for. We are advocating for the government to quit being a drug dealer.

147 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/18/23 5:31:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, recovery does not work if the person is dead before they get there. The member spoke about working collaboratively and in a less partisan way. Less than a year ago, the member for Courtenay—Alberni put forward a bill that would have at least moved forward with what Health Canada's expert task force on substance use has been calling for. It was not partisan, and the member opposite, the Conservative Party and most Liberals voted against it. Why is that?

84 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/18/23 5:32:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kootenay—Columbia put forward a private member's bill to divert drug addicts from jail to recovery. The NDP voted against it. The bill did not make it past second reading. Where is the collaborative approach in that? The bill was about offering people recovery. There is one more point I want to make abundantly clear. There is no such thing as “safe drugs”. All drugs are harmful. Some are just more lethal than others. Fentanyl is extremely lethal—

90 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/18/23 5:33:09 p.m.
Watch

We have to move on and resume debate with the hon. member for Foothills.

14 words

Foothills

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

May/18/23 5:33:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is frustrating that we are here again talking about the opioid crisis, which I think we have had debates on many times in my years as a member of Parliament. It just seems that after eight years of the Prime Minister, everything feels broken. Life costs more, work does not pay, housing costs have doubled and the Prime Minister divides to control the people. Worst of all, crime and chaos, drugs and disorder rage in our streets. Nowhere is this worse than the opioid overdose crisis, which has expanded so dramatically in the last three years. In fact, during the time we have debated this motion today, another 20 Canadians across this country have died as the result of an overdose death. These are numbers, certainly, but they are also brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, friends and loved ones we have lost as a result of this opioid crisis. What I find most frustrating is that it seems only the Conservatives are fighting for change, a change from the failed experiment that is safe supply, which is destroying families, devastating our towns and cities and ripping families apart. Any metric for any program that has seen a 300% increase in overdose deaths cannot be viewed as a success. That is not science-based. That is ideologically based, and we have to change. We have to rip the veil off the myth that is safe supply. Our nation is struggling with this ongoing opioid crisis. More than 35,000 Canadians have died an overdose death since 2016. That is unacceptable. Following eight years of the Liberal government, those numbers are only getting worse, and they are getting worse where these policies are embraced the most, in provinces like British Columbia. Many of my colleagues from that province have asked questions and have spoken today, voicing their frustration at what is going on in their ridings and their communities. British Columbia is suffering as a result of the policies of a Liberal federal government and an NDP provincial government. I know that I am not the only one in the House, as my colleagues have lost friends and loved ones to overdose deaths and suicide, which is why the Conservatives are asking for and demanding an evidence-based approach to address this issue. I had the honour of co-chairing a Conservative working group where we focused on the opioid crisis, and we spoke to experts not only across Canada but around the world. In speaking with those stakeholders, the one thing that was clear was that funding, or lack of funding, is not the issue; the funding is there. The issue is priority, and the priority needs to be on treatment and recovery, and metrics to measure that recovery. The term “safe supply”, as many of my colleagues have mentioned tonight, describes a policy that is one of the best marketing schemes of all time. There is nothing safe about injecting one's body with the toxic poison that is these drugs. It does not matter what it is; this is not meant to be ingested or injected. Consuming these powerful drugs only leads to a spiral of addiction and despair. Today, the Liberal government is only exacerbating this crisis. It has spent almost $80 million of taxpayer money subsidizing these drugs, which are flooding our streets with addiction and crime. In this year's budget, the Liberals have announced another $100 million to go to the safe supply. The consequences of this are stark: free drugs, subsidized by the taxpayer. Decriminalizing cocaine, heroin and fentanyl has supercharged the opioid crisis. I want to tell members a quick story about why this hits so close to home for me. It is about one of the most important people in my entire life. I had to break into her apartment, and I found her on the floor overdosed on fentanyl. It is a picture I want no one in the House to ever have to see, what this drug had done to this person. When I took her to the hospital, perhaps I was naive, as I just expected the doctors and nurses to put her in recovery and treatment right there. However, their answer was, “Yes, she overdosed on fentanyl. She's going to be okay tomorrow, and we will be releasing her in the morning. You can put her on a waiting list of six weeks for a recovery program.” Now, had there not been friends and family who made sure that she was okay, and she has recovered, I cannot imagine if she went back on the street and back on fentanyl. The focus and the dollars need to go to recovery and treatment, not perpetuating the opioid crisis, as we have seen. I find it very frustrating when the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions keeps saying that the government has saved 42,000 people from overdose. No, it has not. It has prolonged what is likely inevitable. If we keep them on a safe supply, they will overdose eventually, more than likely. The article in the National Post by Adam Zivo has to be an eye-opener, a shock to Canadians, who are seeing what is actually happening on the ground. Canadian families have to stand up. We cannot be intimidated any longer. Our voices need to be heard. This is the easy way out, and it is clearly not working. Canadian families need to say enough is enough, that they want their streets and their loved ones back. There is hope. Provinces like Alberta have studied this and realized that safe supply was not the answer. They warned that safe supply could cause the next wave of the addiction crisis. That has happened, and they were right. Between 2021 and 2022, because of the system that Alberta has implemented, drug overdoses have declined by 46%. It invested in 10,000 detox treatment centres that are serving 29,000 Albertans every single year. Imagine the difference we could make if provinces followed that similar model of diverting the funds from safe supply, which is not safe, and focus it on recovery and prevention. Conservatives are asking and demanding that the Liberal government dismantle this failed experiment that it calls “safe supply”. Addicts are diverting their safe supply. They are selling those drugs on our playgrounds and in our schoolyards, getting the next generation addicted. They are using the proceeds of that revenue and buying fentanyl, cocaine and heroin, which are being decriminalized on the streets. I cannot believe I am saying that. There is hope. There is hope to end the hurt and get Canadians the treatment and recovery they deserve, but we have to end this failed experiment of safe supply. It is simply not working, and we have to change it now.

1147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/18/23 5:40:52 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:41 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the amendment. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

73 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

May/18/23 5:43:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/18/23 5:43:30 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 29, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

35 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado

May/18/23 5:43:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sure if you canvass the House, you will find agreement to see the clock at 5:46.

21 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/18/23 5:43:53 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/18/23 5:44:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

There are four motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-281. Motion No. 4 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee. All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

May/18/23 5:45:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-281, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 19 on page 2 with the following: “droits de la personne;” Motion No. 2 That Bill C-281, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 15 on page 3 with the following: “rules of the Senate or the Standing Orders of the House of Commons for responses to” Motion No. 3 That Bill C-281, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 1 to 3 on page 4 with the following: “(1.‍1) Aucune licence ne peut être attribuée ou renouvelée dans le cadre de la présente partie à l’égard d’une entreprise de radiodiffusion, y compris une entreprise qui distribue de la programmation étrangère, qui,” He said: Madam Speaker, it is my absolute privilege and honour today to rise for Bill C-281, the international human rights act. This is a bill that many individuals have contributed to, including the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, as well as many other members. We had a fantastic discussion at committee, and I was very proud to be a member of Parliament when we were having productive discussions.

229 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

May/18/23 5:46:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

For those who are unaware of the legislation, I want to go through it and outline some of its key parts. This private member's bill seeks to do four things. First of all, it seeks to raise awareness about Canadians and other people being held across the world not because of any type of crime they have committed, but because of the beliefs they hold or who they are as individuals. We have seen this with the two Michaels, who were held by the regime in Beijing. We have also seen many prisoners of conscience held for many different reasons. Of course, in the past and with the Soviet Union and others, many times individuals were held because they had beliefs that were different from the regime's beliefs. We have seen individuals incarcerated by governments across this world simply because of the person they choose to love. We are calling for the government to go forward and publicize what it is doing to help prisoners of conscience around the world. Specifically, we are asking for the government and the foreign affairs department to share the following information: the number of prisoners of conscience detained by each government or detaining authority and the names of prisoners of conscience. I will talk briefly about the names of prisoners of conscience. We had quite a bit of debate at committee, and I think we landed in a really good spot, a spot where everyone could be happy. There were concerns expressed from across the political spectrum that perhaps publicizing the names of individuals who are being held for their beliefs may cause them additional issues and may even put them in peril. What we have done with this legislation is given the government the broad latitude to redact names where it believes the individuals' security may be impacted by the publication of their names. We are also requesting that the government consult with the families of these individuals. This is so the families who have members being held as prisoners of conscience across the world who want a name published, want to see the force of the Canadian government and want to put the name on a list can point to it and say their brave brother, their brave sister or their brave father is standing up and speaking truth to power in an authoritarian regime. Others who feel this may in some way imperil these individuals or reduce their ability to eventually be released can choose not to do so. By publishing this list, the idea is that we bring awareness to the cause of prisoners of conscience, so they do not just get swept underneath the rug in the name of diplomacy or in the name of economics. As Canada's traditional role is to be steadfast in standing for human rights both at home and abroad, by having this provision we get to find out, through this mechanism, what Canada is doing to protect these prisoners of conscience, both Canadians and other people around the world. Where it makes sense, we will publish their names so that family members can point to them and say that the Government of Canada believes their brother, mother, sister or dad is being held as a prisoner of conscience. We will have an ability as parliamentarians to hold the government to account. If the government is doing enough, we can say thanks for helping those folks. For those it is not doing enough for, we will also have the ability to ask questions, provoke and advocate for them, as prisoners of conscience are often some of the bravest people in the world. They are people who have stood up for women's rights. They are people who have stood up for freedom, for liberty and for LGBTQ rights. These individuals are heroes and should be protected. The next provision is with respect to the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky act. Many members of caucus and many individuals, including Bill Browder, and of course Sergei Magnitsky himself, were instrumental in creating these sanctions that seek to hold those who perpetrate the worst of human rights crimes accountable. Knowing individuals cannot torture or incarcerate individuals simply for their political beliefs or for fighting for the cause of freedom and then hop on a private jet to attend cocktail parties around the world, make these sanctions so critical to raising the standard of human rights in Canada, and more importantly, across the world. Canada has not only an ability but also an obligation to stand for human rights as a country that has been blessed with constitutional democracy, liberty and freedom. We have an obligation to the world to fight for human rights around the world. The Sergei Magnitsky act is incredibly important in doing that. Unfortunately, we have seen inactivity on this file. Unfortunately, the government has had very few instances of triggering the Magnitsky act, especially in recent years. Let us be clear and let us be frank. The is no shortage of individuals who could be held accountable. We have seen the atrocities in Ukraine. We have seen the atrocities done by the regime in Beijing. We have seen what these individuals are doing. We have seen what is happening to the Uyghur people. We have seen what has happened to the Tibetan people. We need to make sure the individuals who commit these most horrendous of crimes, these most vile of human rights offences, are held to account. Bill C-281 would give Parliament the ability of oversight. It would now have the ability, through the committee structure, to ask why an individual is not being sanctioned, and the government would be compelled to answer why. In many countries it goes even further, where legislative bodies are actually given the ability to trigger it themselves, but this is a great first step along the way to encourage, advocate for and make sure as much as possible that the government is doing its job. I am so proud to help and advance the cause of Sergei Magnitsky and others, who have done an amazing job of fighting against the human rights violations we have seen in the Russian regime and elsewhere. The next section I will talk about briefly is the Broadcasting Act. Unfortunately, we have seen foreign regimes able to broadcast their propaganda over Canadian airwaves. The most egregious time was with Russia Today using it to broadcast hate against the Ukrainian people. Fortunately, its licence was revoked, but there lacked a process for the CRTC to do it. Bill C-281 would put a process in place so that, if genocidal regimes were using our airwaves to broadcast propaganda, we would have an ability to withdraw their licence. Finally, there is the prohibition of cluster munitions. This bill would put in place the ability to restrict Canadian companies to finance the construction of cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are not weapons of war. They are weapons of terror that often kill civilians, often children. Cluster munitions are really just bombs of bombs, and there are numerous stories of children going out in the fields, playing with these and unfortunately dying. These four provisions are at least a small step in making our world a bit of better place in fighting for human rights and restoring Canada's place in the world as a hero and worker for human rights.

1244 words

Mr. Sameer Zuberi (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)

May/18/23 5:56:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to speak to Bill C‑281. I would like to congratulate the member across the aisle, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, for introducing the bill. Bill C-281, the international human rights act, is now at third reading. Canada is steadfast in its commitment to uphold human rights, both at home and abroad. We consistently look for opportunities to bolster commitments, add to our robust foreign policy tool kit and better address human rights crises wherever they are. We protect those people who are in vulnerable and marginalized situations and, ultimately, advance respect for human rights globally. I am pleased to have the chance to discuss Bill C-281, which seeks to amend four instruments. The first is the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, which establishes the federal department known as Global Affairs Canada. The second is the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which allows the government to impose sanctions against individuals responsible for gross human rights violations. The third is the Broadcasting Act, which gives the CRTC the authority to regulate broadcasting in Canada. The fourth is the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, which implements Canada's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The purpose of the bill is to further promote, protect and advance human rights internationally, a purpose the government is also strongly committed to. During debate at second reading, many of my colleagues from all parties, including the sponsor of the bill, noted and identified that the initial draft of the bill contained several aspects of important concern. It was in the spirit of this multipartisan support for human rights that the bill was agreed to and referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The hope and the goal were to see that, through expert testimony from witnesses representing the implicated departments as well as civil society, along with the diligent work of committee members, key improvements could and would be made. As a member of the foreign affairs committee, I was entitled to attend several meetings over the span of more than a month, and we worked hard on this task. I would like to thank all colleagues on the committee, including the sponsor of the bill, witnesses who testified and department officials who gave their time and studied the bill, for the contribution and efforts that they all made. As a result of the proposed amendments at committee, members of all political affiliations have strengthened the bill. The amendments address many of the issues raised in the original drafting. While these changes have made substantive improvements, I would like to expand upon some remaining concerns as well as highlight some areas that could use further refinements. The first concerns the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. On this particular item, Canada strongly supports the vital work of human rights defenders to advance respect for human rights, as well as strengthening the rule of law. Bill C-281 would introduce new reporting requirements for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It would also require an annual human rights report that outlines the Government of Canada's efforts to uphold its commitments to human rights globally, which would include support for human rights, particularly a list detailing activities undertaken by Canadian officials to secure the release of persons identified as prisoners of conscience. While this would be a new initiative for the minister and for Global Affairs Canada, it would also be the first time, the first moment, that such a reporting requirement would be mandated under the act. It would also align well with the government's established priorities. Such a report would help demonstrate Canada's robust engagement on human rights and would create space for greater transparency. It would also create accountability for our actions, particularly Canada's advocacy on behalf of prisoners of conscience, who can range from those with Canadian citizenship to those with no connection to Canada but with causes that are crucial to Canada's interest. That said, the personal safety, security and privacy of all persons must be paramount. The government must ensure that, at all times, it is able to continue to act in the best interests of Canadians. Publicizing a list within the report that includes the names of prisoners of conscience, as well as the circumstances of their detention and the government's efforts to engage with them and on their behalf, could have serious consequences. These are people whose cases the government is actively working on. The consequences could include undue harm to the individual detained, and none of us want to see that. To ensure that the value of “do no harm” is respected, any information in the report that could endanger the personal safety and security of a person should not be made public. Numerous witnesses have testified to exactly this point during committee proceedings. Committee members have also opined on this exact item, saying that there is need for discretion in this regard. While the proposed exemptions provide considerable reassurance that the minister will be able to respect the wishes of these individuals and act in their best interests, the requirement to produce a list of prisoners of conscience remains a concern, particularly for Canada's ability to pursue effective, quiet diplomacy and coordination with other countries on particular files and cases. Careful implementation will be key. Additionally, Canada must ensure that it can continue with its efforts to more broadly advance human rights internationally. We must ensure that Canadians abroad can count on consular support and diplomatic advocacy, if needed, through established bilateral relations with countries at all corners of the globe. An amendment introduced by the committee also added a legislative requirement for the minister to produce a government-wide international human rights strategy. While the idea has merit, and the government is committed to working with all parties in the House on advancing human rights around the globe, we support the ruling made earlier that such a proposal went beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading, especially given the substantial financial and human resources that would be involved to develop and maintain such an effort across the whole of government. Next, this bill seeks to amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the Sergei Magnitsky Law. Sanctions are an important tool used by the Government of Canada to address human rights violations and must be used when appropriate. In this respect, amendments to this bill, supported by all parties, were appreciated. They included ensuring that timelines for responses by ministers to reports by committees, as proposed under the act, remain consistent with established practices specified in the Standing Orders or rules of the Senate. The amendments also included changes to avoid inadvertently giving individuals or entities a heads-up that such consequences as sanctions may be coming their way. With respect to the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, Canada is a proud signatory and fully compliant with the Convention on Cluster Munitions, underscoring our continued commitment to the eradication of these deadly weapons. While we are supportive of including language that would seek to explicitly prohibit investments in cluster munitions, we remain concerned about the current wording of the bill. We continue to believe the bill would be stronger if it incorporated an element of intent. This would ensure that innocent investors, such as pension beneficiaries or mutual funds holders, would not be held criminally liable for the actions of professional investment managers who knowingly finance the production of these terrible and vile weapons. While all parties acknowledged this challenge, unfortunately, the committee was unable to revise the language to address this concern in a way that preserved Canada's steadfast stance against the financing of cluster munitions. This is an area that needs to be addressed as the bill continues through the legislative process. Finally, the Broadcasting Act is also touched upon in this bill. There are some important vehicles for the transmission of ideas. Bill C-281 recognizes the important role of prohibiting the issuance or renewal of broadcasting licences to broadcasters. I am sure others will be able to contribute to this debate. I would like to thank members and all those who have contributed to this discussion. I hope that we can make this legislation improve upon the good intention behind this bill.

1421 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)

May/18/23 6:06:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

Madam Speaker, you may have noticed that, as my hon. colleague from Mirabel will definitely appreciate, I am proudly wearing the traditional Ukrainian embroidered shirt known as the vyshyvanka today, on international Vyshyvanka Day. Of course, I am wearing it in support of the very courageous Ukrainian nation, which was invaded by Russia illegally and without justification. I am beginning my speech by talking about the vyshyvanka for a reason, as my remarks will show. I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑281. I think the motivations underlying the bill are really very noble. However, as the saying goes, “do not bite off more than you can chew”. This is a bill that has very different scopes and, as a result, it contains a number of flaws. We tried to fix these flaws through amendments at committee stage. Some of them were even introduced at report stage. In spite of these amendments, we still get the impression that this is like a patchwork quilt that—unlike those made by our valiant farm women in their farm women's groups—is not very pleasant to look at. Despite our efforts to try to correct these flaws, there are still a number of them in the bill. I want to say a few words about that. First, this bill is intended to increase government transparency, as it will have to report to the House on international human rights issues. For starters, we had a problem with the definition of prisoner of conscience, because the notion of a prisoner of conscience can involve a value judgment. What is a prisoner of conscience? We wrestled with a few definitions, one of which was proposed to us by Alex Neve, the former head of Amnesty International Canada. I think we came up with an arrangement that, on the whole, enabled us to correct the bill's vague initial concept of a prisoner of conscience. The focus is more on people who are victims of human rights violations under international law. We were able to rectify that little issue in the original wording of the bill. There was also a proposed amendment that was ruled out of order, but the committee nevertheless adopted it. We overruled the chair. What a surprise it was yesterday to see our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, intervene to ask the chair to rule the amendment out of order, which the chair actually did. I will explain what was so surprising about the request by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. This is the amendment in question: “The Minister must develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.” The deputy House leader rose in the House to ask that the amendment be withdrawn, even though it simply requires the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. This same government, which is currently making a bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, asked for the following to be removed from the bill: “The Minister must develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.” I could not make this stuff up. The government claims it wants to become the best human rights advocate in the world, but at the first opportunity, it eliminates the minister's obligation to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. I have to say that it is very astonishing. If not for the intervention from the government's parliamentary secretary, perhaps the Chair would have had the indulgence to allow this amendment. However, it was ruled out of order because of the magnificent intervention from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Another element of this bill concerns the fact that new sanctions will be imposed on corrupt foreign officials, in particular by requiring the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days to any committee report recommending sanctions against a foreign national under the Magnitsky Law. I have nothing particular to say about this provision. We can see that this bill is trying to cover a lot of bases, because another provision prohibits the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a foreign propaganda broadcasting undertaking when the foreign country is recognized by the House of Commons or the Senate as having committed genocide or being subject to sanctions under either the Magnitsky Law or the Special Economic Measures Act. As far as the Magnitsky act is concerned, although the government got it passed, it has never enforced it in any way so far. I must say that this amendment to the act bothers the government a bit because it means that when a House or Senate committee or when the House or Senate identifies a state as having committed genocide, it would be binding on the government. Members will recall that the House nearly unanimously acknowledged the Uyghur genocide. The government is ignoring the democratic will of members elected by the people of Canada and Quebec; it is doing what it wants. This provision would make it so that from now on, the government would have to consider the opinions of the House and its committees or the Senate and its committees. I must say that caused much gnashing of teeth across the way. The last amendment, and this is another attempt to cover all the bases, is about prohibiting any investment in an entity that violates the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. To be clear, Canada signed the international Convention on Cluster Munitions. Once again, as I was saying, one cannot be against motherhood and apple pie. In theory, therefore, everyone should agree with this provision, except that it has indirect consequences that are potentially harmful. For example, the Government of Canada plans to purchase a number of F‑35 aircraft from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin makes cluster munitions, though. Is the Canadian government breaking its own law by doing business with a company that manufactures cluster munitions? We therefore came up with an amendment to correct that little legislative oversight as well as we were able. There is another one too, because the bill would also crack down on direct or indirect investments in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. We tried to introduce that amendment, but we were unable to do so in committee. The Chair ruled against the amendment I had proposed on the grounds that it should have been moved in committee, and that is true. However, we were unable to move it in committee because there was no consensus. That is why we moved it at report stage. Here is the problem. Any one of us, any of my fellow MPs, may hold investment funds that make us unwilling investors in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. In theory, we could all be held responsible for violating this provision that says that we cannot directly or indirectly invest in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. We tried to correct that, but were unable to do so, so if the bill were to be passed as it is currently worded, anyone here in the House could, along with our fellow citizens, find themselves to be in violation of the act. Despite the flaws I mentioned at the outset and discussed throughout my speech, we will have to vote in favour of this bill because—I am sorry to have to say this again—we cannot be against motherhood and apple pie. Still, we have to recognize that this bill has issues. Despite people's efforts during the committee's study and even during the debate at report stage, I believe we will have to conclude that, unfortunately, the bill's provisions are still flawed. We may eventually have to introduce another bill to fix it all.

1329 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/18/23 6:16:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

Madam Speaker, New Democrats are happy to support Bill C-281 at report stage and third reading. We would like to thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing this bill forward. This bill makes four changes to different pieces of Canadian legislation to improve Canada's work on international human rights. First, it would require the minister to publish an annual report on human rights, as well as a list of prisoners of conscience for whom the government is actively working. It amends the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act to prohibit a person from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the act. It also amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky law, to require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee that recommends that sanctions be imposed under that act against a foreign national. Finally, it would prohibit the issue or renewal of broadcasting licences in the case of genocide, as recognized by the House or Senate, subject to Canadian sanctions. We heard very clearly from witnesses at the committee stage that Canada's approach to international human rights could be much stronger. We want to thank those witnesses for their testimony and their guidance. The NDP introduced four strong amendments to this bill, three of which were accepted by the committee. The first amendment we proposed changes to the list of names of prisoners of conscience for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working. We were concerned, as all parties were, that a fully public list of names may put certain individuals at risk of reprisal from authorities in the countries in which they are detained. We also took note of the government's concerns over privacy and security of individuals. In the end, after significant conversation among the parties, the committee agreed to an NDP amendment, with subamendments from other parties. The resulting list still details the number of prisoners of conscience detained by each government or detaining authority, the circumstances of their detentions and the efforts the Government of Canada has made to visit them or attend their trials. It also includes a list of names. However, our amendment gives the minister the power to not include certain information on the list, if the government had concerns that it would not be in the best interests of the personal safety of the prisoner. The minister is also required to consult with family members of representatives of the prisoners of conscience before they make such a decision. This would alleviate concerns the government initially had with publishing such a list. I also note that the committee agreed to the NDP's proposal to ensure that the government's annual report include a description of the Government of Canada's communications with the families of prisoners of conscience, and its consultations with civil society on matters of human rights. Several civil society witnesses testified that the Liberal government was not doing enough consulting with human rights experts, and it is clear that the government needs to do a much better job at communicating on these issues. The NDP amendment also defined the term “prisoners of conscience” in the bill. Our second amendment was to require the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. The Canadian government does not currently have an international human rights strategy. What we heard from expert witnesses at committee, including Human Rights Watch and human rights expert Alex Neve, was that Canada needed such a strategy by which the annual report, as required by this bill, could be measured. While this amendment was deemed out of scope, the committee voted to overturn the decision of the Chair, with no opposition. All parties voted unanimously at committee stage to accept this NDP amendment and establish a government-wide international human rights strategy. However, yesterday, the Liberals went back on their commitment to do this and appealed to the Speaker to reject the amendment. It is shocking that the Liberal government is now refusing to develop an international human rights strategy, when just last week the foreign affairs minister announced that Canada was seeking a seat at the UN Human Rights Council. The Liberals' decision goes against the will of the committee, goes against the advice of experts and, most importantly, is completely inconsistent with its stated goal to promote human rights. How can they say that they are promoting human rights when they are afraid to do the work? This is highlighting the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Liberal government, which has a lot of nice things to say but is just not willing to do the hard work. There is no good reason why the government should not proceed with this amendment and, I must say, we are extremely disheartened and disappointed by this decision. Moving on to the rest of the bill, we are happy with the sections on the Magnitsky act and the Broadcasting Act, and we agree with much of what our colleagues from the other opposition parties have said today. With my remaining time, I would like to discuss the NDP's amendments to the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act and, once again, the lack of leadership from the Liberal government when it comes to disarmament issues and cluster munitions. We are pleased that the committee agreed to an NDP amendment that would include Canada's positive obligations under the cluster munitions convention in Canada's legislation. However, New Democrats also introduced an important amendment to fix section 11 of Canada's cluster munitions legislation. This was rejected by the government, despite its being the exact same amendment the Liberal Party introduced back in 2013. In 2013, the NDP and the Liberals fought very hard to have section 11 of Canada's cluster munitions legislation fixed. The late Paul Dewar, the NDP's foreign affairs critic at the time, said, “when we sign international agreements, it's important that we live up to our signature. It's important that the legislation we adopt does not undermine the treaty we negotiated and signed on to and accepted.” The NDP amendment we introduced was the exact same amendment that former Liberal MP Marc Garneau introduced when Parliament was first considering the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Mr. Garneau was a strong opponent of section 11 in Canada's legislation, as was Bob Rae, as were all Liberals at the time, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and others who currently hold seats in this chamber. Our amendment used the same language we will find in Canada's legislation on landmines, which we can all agree sets an important precedent. Cluster munitions are banned for a reason. The humanitarian impacts of cluster munitions are horrendous. We can all agree that under no circumstances should any Canadian ever use, order the use of or even transport cluster munitions. This amendment would have still allowed Canadians to participate in joint operations with non-party states, but it would have fixed the loophole to finally make Canada's legislation consistent with the convention and with the opinions of over 100 other countries, including many of our NATO allies, as we heard clearly from witnesses. In 2013 and 2014, the Liberals argued strongly to fix section 11. Marc Garneau wrote an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, arguing that it needed to be fixed. Bob Rae gave strong speeches in the House of Commons against it and, at third reading, in 2014, the Liberals voted against the unamended bill, with the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister voting against. The objections were over this exact clause. Ambassador Rae testified last month that he had not changed his position that this clause is wrong. Many Liberals, I think, feel the same. All expert witnesses who testified to this, including Earl Turcotte, who negotiated the treaty for Canada, want to see this fixed. However, the Liberals did not support moving the NDP amendment forward. They refused to fix section 11 of the cluster munitions act, just as they are now also refusing to take bold steps on a human rights strategy. It is very disappointing to watch the government try to explain away its bad decisions on this bill. This was an opportunity for the Liberals to show real leadership on human rights, make real change, do the real work and move Canada forward. Instead, they have chosen to approach this issue with reluctance and excuses. This is not the human rights leadership we need.

1438 words