SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 221 - Sep/20/23

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Sep/20/23 3:53:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of those who recognize that we are in a climate crisis. They recognize we are spending at least $4.8 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies. Recent estimates actually have it much higher, at more like upwards of $20 billion a year. The petitioners recognize that by subsidizing fossil fuels, we are making it cheaper to produce and consume more fossil fuels. As a result, the petitioners call for the Government of Canada to immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies, both international and domestic, to all corporations, buyers, sellers and users of fossil fuels.

109 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Sep/20/23 3:53:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by various Canadians from across the Prairies who would like to highlight one of the decisions Health Canada has made that puts the livelihood of livestock farmers at risk in our country, and that is the banning of strychnine. Strychnine, when used properly, is not something that puts wildlife populations at risk. However, this ban is leading to an out-of-control, year-over-year increase in the population of gophers. The petitioners are asking for the government to use common sense to trust farmers and ranchers with the safe usage of strychnine, and restore the ability for farmers across the Prairies to properly use this chemical for the management of gopher populations.

123 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Sep/20/23 3:54:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 10th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba to present a petition with respect to the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River are fed up with the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies that have allowed crime to haunt the community. Folks are forced to increase their security by barring the windows and installing alarms on their doors. Business owners are forced to ask themselves whether they can even afford to stay in business among the crime and chaos. We cannot expect rural communities to thrive when the local economy is held hostage by the same repeat offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

141 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Sep/20/23 3:55:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to table a number of petitions on behalf of my constituents and other concerned Canadians. The first petition deals with the issue of political discrimination and the growing fear some Canadians have that they will face discrimination in the workplace, including, perhaps, bullying, risk of employment consequences, etc., on the basis of their political views. While the Canadian Human Rights Act provides protection for Canadians against certain kinds of discrimination, there is not protection against discrimination on the basis of political views. That is why I have tabled Bill C-257, a bill that would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Petitioners support Bill C-257, which is great, and they have prepared this petition, which I am, on their behalf, presenting to the House. The petition asks the House to support Bill C-257, which would ban discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity and defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions. I will refrain from expressing a personal view on that petition at all. I just wanted to share the views of petitioners. I know my friend from Winnipeg North is watching closely to ensure that the rules are observed.

214 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Sep/20/23 3:57:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents concerned about proposals to legalize the killing of children in Canada under the so-called MAID regime. They note in particular that one of the witnesses at a previous committee was calling for the legalization of euthanasia for babies. The petitioners call on the government and the House to strongly oppose any effort to legalize the killing of children in Canada.

69 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Sep/20/23 3:57:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the third petition deals, similarly, with an issue involving discrimination on the basis of political views. It references a 2021 platform commitment from the Liberal Party of Canada to politicize charitable status determination, that is, to deny charitable status for certain pro-life organizations. The petitioners note this would jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on matters of conscience. The petitioners note this would apply a values test for charitable status, similar to what we saw with the Canada summer jobs program, and jeopardize the good work of organizations that are not doing anything controversial but simply wish to be sincere about the private convictions of those involved in the organization. The petitioners call on the House to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test, as well as to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.

185 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Sep/20/23 3:59:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the final petition today concerns the discrimination against and persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in the People's Republic of China. The petitioners note that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. The petitioners go on to explain a decades-long campaign of violence and persecution that has targeted Falun Gong practitioners. They also note the work of David Matas and the late, great David Kilgour on uncovering the campaign of forced organ harvesting targeting Falun Gong practitioners. The petitioners call on the government to strengthen its response to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, to do more and to stand with them and other victims of violence at the hands of the Communist regime in Beijing. I commend these petitions to the consideration of my colleagues.

147 words

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

Sep/20/23 4:00:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the revised response to Question No. 1621, originally tabled on September 18, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

31 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/20/23 4:00:48 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Sep/20/23 4:00:59 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1621—

Questioner: Philip Lawrence

With regard to wrapping or other advertising expenditures for the exteriors of buildings since April 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on wrapping or advertising, broken down by individual building; and (b) what are the details of all wrapping, tarp, or similar type of advertising on government buildings, broken down by individual building, including the (i) vendor, (ii) description of good or services provided, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) file number, (vi) address of the building, (vii) message on the wrapping or the summary of advertising campaign?

103 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/20/23 4:01:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

11 words

Stand
Ask

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/20/23 4:01:06 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

Sep/20/23 4:01:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time please.

23 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/20/23 4:01:23 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed

7 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Sep/20/23 4:01:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to request an emergency debate, following yesterday's news that Canada's CPI inflation is once again on the rise. It has increased 43% in the last two months to reach 4%, double the Bank of Canada's target rate. This is at a time when Canadians are already suffering the cost of living crisis following two years of inflation brought on by the Liberal government's inflationary deficits. As former Liberal finance minister John Manley has said, that is like pushing on the gas while the Bank of Canada slams on the brakes as it raises interest rates to levels not seen in over 20 years. Insolvencies, bankruptcies and mortgage delinquencies are on the rise. A quarter of mortgage holders say they are struggling to pay their monthly mortgage bill, and food banks estimate they will see a 60% increase in usage this year. Canadians can no longer afford basic necessities, the cost of rent or a mortgage. According to the IMF, our country is the most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. The pain felt by Canadians is real, and the risk for even more serious economic problems is very real. Therefore, I request an emergency debate to address this crisis.

212 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/20/23 4:01:29 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/20/23 4:02:45 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn for his intervention. However, the Speaker is not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

31 words

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Sep/20/23 4:03:49 p.m.
Watch

moved that Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am here today to discuss Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. This bill is yet another example of our government's ongoing efforts to make the criminal justice system more effective in the fight against sexual offences and more responsive to the needs of victims and survivors of crime. The main purpose of this bill is to respond to the Supreme Court decision that found sections of the sex offender registry unconstitutional. If we do not pass this bill by October 28 of this year, judges will not be able to add newly convicted sex offenders to the sex offender registry. I think we can all agree that none of us in the House from any party wants that outcome. Police have told us that this is an important tool for them in their work. We do not want to let police lose this tool. We hear a lot of rhetoric from members in the House at times, including from the Leader of the Opposition, about ensuring consequences for serious offenders and about keeping Canadians and victims safe. This bill is about doing exactly that. I look forward to collaborating with members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that it is passed and receives royal assent by the court deadline. I want to start by thanking the Senate for its work on this critical legislation and indeed the many witnesses whose important testimony provided the impetus for the amendments the Senate has proposed. In particular, I want to thank the victims and survivors of sexual violence who lent their first-hand experience to the legislative process. I have listened and I have heard their pain. We need to do better as a nation. I thank them for helping us shape this critical reform. Senate members put in the work to ensure that we got this legislation in a timely manner in the House of Commons, and I thank them for their expeditious work. Bill S-12 is a fundamental priority for me and for our government. I know it will improve our justice system, particularly for victims and survivors of crime. Along with responding to the Supreme Court decision and strengthening the sex offender registry, this bill also makes victim- and survivor-centric changes to the publication ban regime and to how victims access information. I will explain each of these elements. First is the response to the Supreme Court decision. The urgency to pass this bill stems from the court's October 2022 decision in the Crown v. Ndhlovu case, which struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the sex offender registry. The first provision that the Supreme Court struck down required judges to automatically order an individual to register with the sex offender registry when they are convicted of, or found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder for, a designated offence. The Supreme Court held in that case, from last year, that the law was too broad because judges had to issue an order in every single case, including in cases where offenders do not pose a risk of reoffending. The court gave Parliament one year to respond to the striking down of this provision. The second provision the Supreme Court struck down required a mandatory lifetime registration for those convicted of or found not criminally responsible for multiple offences within the same prosecution. To that category, the Supreme Court said that because people who are convicted of more than one offence during the same prosecution did not necessarily pose a higher risk in some circumstances, the provision went too far by requiring mandatory lifetime registration when a shorter period might be appropriate. The striking down of that provision was effective immediately upon the decision being rendered last year. The bill before us now, Bill S-12, responds to the Supreme Court's decision. It does so by improving the approach to mandatory registration. The bill maintains mandatory registration in two circumstances: those involving serious offences against children and those involving repeat sexual offenders. In all other circumstances, the bill before Parliament proposes a rebuttable presumption of registration. This means that individuals convicted of or found not criminally responsible for a qualifying offence will be required to register unless they can demonstrate to the court that registration would unduly affect their rights. Thus, it is rebuttable. By adding narrow judicial discretion back into the sex offender registration regime, we are directly responding to the court's direction. However, we are also, at the same time, ensuring that we continue to have a robust sex offender registry, the registry that police have asked us to maintain. That means a registry that gives law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate sexual offences and to keep our communities safe. My fundamental job is to do just that. The approach is essentially what was suggested by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security back in 2009 when it reviewed the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. However, the Conservative government, at that time back in 2009, decided not to heed the public safety committee's advice and proceeded instead down a path that was deemed unconstitutional. It is not a coincidence that this is similar to what we see today from members across the aisle. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that he is willing to ignore the charter when he does not like a court decision, and that is something that troubles me. In fact, I will note anecdotally that a few of the petitions that were just read into the record talked about the invocation of the notwithstanding clause because of perceptions and views about certain Supreme Court judgments. Returning to the bill, I want to highlight the circumstances in which we believe the automatic registration to the national sex offender registry would be justified. These are all for repeat offenders and for child sex offenders convicted of indictable offences and sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that automatic registration in all cases is unconstitutional. It violates section 7 of the charter. Our government, nevertheless, believes that it is important to maintain automatic registration in two categories. The decision to retain automatic registration for these two categories is informed by evidence that shows an objectively verifiable risk of reoffending. The first category, as I mention, is sexual offences against children. They are among the most heinous criminal acts. Based on the evidence, which we have reviewed, sexual offending against children is a known risk factor for sexual recidivism. Second, we know from experts that repeat sexual offenders have a high risk of reoffending, a risk that is five to eight times higher than individuals who have non-sexual criminal histories. For all other cases, other than the two categories I just mentioned, offenders would be required to register unless they can prove to a court why it would be inappropriate in their case based on the criteria I mentioned earlier. This approach, outlined in Bill S-12, is respectful of the charter. Again, one of my fundamental duties is keeping Canadians safe while all the time respecting charter rights. It is also consistent with upholding public safety. To respond to the court's decision about the automatic lifetime registration, Bill S-12 would give courts the discretion to order lifetime registration in cases involving multiple offences in the same proceeding where the pattern of offending indicates that the individual poses a risk of reoffending. In addition to certain aspects that respond to the Supreme Court decision, Bill S-12 contains a number of elements to strengthen the sex offender registration system as a whole. These elements were developed through ongoing consultation with our provincial and territorial partners, including law enforcement agencies. Bill S-12 would add new offences to the list for which registration may result, such as extortion for a sexual purpose, or sextortion, and non-consensual distribution of intimate images. These are inexcusable crimes that have inflicted real damage on Canadians' lives, especially those of women and girls. We take them seriously and are ensuring that offenders of these deplorable acts are held to account. Changes would also require those who are already on the registry to provide 14 days' notice of any travel, as well as the specific address of their destination. When Attorney General Garland and Secretary Mayorkas were in Ottawa in March for the cross-border crime forum, they applauded this very important change to our legislative structure. These changes would strengthen our partnership with our American allies in maintaining safety and security across our shared border. Furthermore, Bill S-12 would enact a new warrant provision that would allow police to arrest an offender who is in breach of their obligations and bring them to a registration centre. Essentially, the changes to the national sex offender registry proposed in Bill S-12 will make the registry more effective and will make it easier for law enforcement agencies to investigate and prevent sexual offences. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting these changes. As I mentioned at the start, Bill S‑12 also includes important and useful reforms of publication ban provisions. These reforms aim to empower victims of crime by ensuring that their wishes are respected when it comes to issuing, lifting or changing publication bans, and that their right to information about their case is fully upheld. For a long time, these changes have been called for, including more recently by victims' and survivors' groups, such as a group called My Voice, My Choice. The support for these reforms spans across all parties. I want to thank the member for Victoria in particular for her leadership on this very issue. At an event hosted by My Voice, My Choice this spring, members of the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party all heard heartbreaking stories from survivors of sexual violence. Across partisan lines, a promise was made to deliver changes to the publication ban regime, as called for by these brave survivors. We now, in this chamber, have the ability to fulfill this very promise. I hope members from all parties will join me in doing so. One survivor of sexual violence who has spoken out on this issue sought to lift a publication ban on her name to protect her children. She was abused as a child and came forward to tell her story as an adult, after hearing that her abuser was working in the child care sector. It took months, legal fees and a complicated court process to finally get the ban lifted before she could try to protect her children and other children who she feared risked the same abuse as she had suffered. When someone has the courage to reopen an immensely painful chapter in their life in order to lift a publication ban, I firmly believe our justice system needs to make it easier for them to heal and not retraumatize them. That is critical. Calls for these changes have been advocated for a long time, including more recently by victims' groups like My Voice, My Choice. Calls for reform were also heard in the December 2022 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. I am proud to be part of a government that finally took action on this matter. While publication bans can be a useful tool for protecting victims, they can also unduly silence them. I want to assure Canadians, in this chamber, that our government's intention is for victims and survivors of sexual crimes to have ownership of their stories. That is absolutely critical as a priority for our government, and it is a priority for this legislation. The publication ban amendments in Bill S-12 were the subject of significant discussion in the Senate. There was broad support for the policy objectives grounding these changes, but there was also a belief that more could be done to give them better effect. Our government worked collaboratively with survivors, experts and advocates to make some important changes. The bill was amended in a number of ways. Generally speaking, I believe these changes have made Bill S-12 better, and I am thankful for that. I am thankful to the witnesses who shared their stories and their insights during the committee study. They also shared their stories with our colleagues in the Senate, who listened and proposed such thoughtful amendments. What would Bill S-12 do in the area I am describing? First, it makes it clear that if a publication ban has been imposed, the court must, at the first reasonable opportunity, inform the recipient of their right to apply to revoke or vary the order. It is empowering the individual. The bill also requires the court to ask a victim or witness if they wish to be the subject of a publication ban, if they are present in court. If they are not present, the court would be required to inquire of the Crown if they sought out the wishes of the victim or witness. Again, this is further empowerment. The bill clarifies obligations that the prosecutor has toward the victim or witness with respect to information on their right to seek, revoke or vary a publication ban. All of these changes place victims and witnesses at the centre of the publication ban process. The goal is simple: If wanted, a publication ban should be requested. At the same time, we know it is not always possible to reach the victim or witness in the early stages of criminal proceedings, and it is important to safeguard their interests prior to knowing what they may wish to do. That is why the bill would not prevent a publication ban from being sought in cases where the views of a victim or witness cannot be ascertained. It is my expectation that it would only be impossible to seek the victim's wishes in very rare instances. The bill would also make important changes to codify and clarify the process for varying or revoking a publication ban once imposed. Again, the perspectives of victims and survivors are at the centre of these changes. Bill S-12 would create a new section of the Criminal Code to clarify and streamline the process of seeking to change or revoke a publication ban. If the person who is the subject of the publication ban wants it to be revoked, the court would be required to do so without holding a hearing. The only exception to that rule would be where the court believes that the privacy interests of another person who is subject to a publication ban would be impacted by the revocation or variation. For example, there could be a situation where there are two victims of sexual assault; one wants to have the ban removed, but the other wants her privacy maintained. A hearing should be held in that case to make sure that removing one of their publication bans will not inadvertently identify the other victim against her wishes. That is an important safeguard. I want to make it absolutely clear that the accused would not have any say in the process of modifying or revoking a publication ban. We are not focused on the accused here; we are focused on victims and witnesses. This is about empowering victims to decide what is best for them. In response to concerns expressed during the debate on Bill S-12, there are now provisions in the bill that make clearer when prosecution of a breach of a publication ban by the recipient shall not occur. Specifically, the changes make clear that prosecution shall not occur in situations where a person breached their own publication ban, unless they compromised the privacy of another person who is also protected by a ban and where a warning would not be appropriate. These changes are important to me, to our government and to the many victims who have long advocated for reforms in this area. Earlier I indicated that I believe Bill S-12 was generally improved by the amendments passed in the Senate. I do, however, want to ask the justice committee to consider whether there are any changes that need to be made; it should do so quickly, given the imminent Supreme Court deadline of October 28. The final piece of the bill for victims responds to calls from victims groups and the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime to make it easier for victims to tell the court system whether they want to receive ongoing information about their case after trial. Under the Victims Bill of Rights, victims can decide whether they want to stay informed about all case developments, such as appeals or parole. They can also decide that they do not want to be contacted about the case. They have the right to move on and not have to hear about it again. It is their decision. However, as advocates told the justice committee, many victims who want to receive ongoing case information are slipping through the cracks. They do not know that they need to register to receive ongoing information. To address this acute problem, Bill S-12 proposes to significantly simplify and streamline the process for registering by making the judge ask the victim their preference and by making it a simple box to tick on a form. I am grateful to the advocates who brought this to my attention, so we can address it with this important bill. In conclusion, I would say that Bill S-12 is a tremendously important piece of legislation. It has victims and survivors at its core. It would contribute to public safety and respect charter rights at the same time. I look forward to the debate on this bill, and I am confident we can work together across party lines on both sides of the aisle to ensure and facilitate its speedy passage. This will show the importance not only of the continued operation of the national sex offender registry but also of the continued strengthening of the criminal justice system's response to victims of crime.

3115 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Sep/20/23 4:23:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I listened with great interest to the minister's speech. He spoke about sexual crimes. One thing I have noticed here is that a number of sentences have been struck down for sexual offences, as they have been for firearms, yet the government has legislated when it came to firearms but not to sexual offence sentences. We all acknowledge that sexual offences have a very significant impact on their victims. Sentences should reflect the gravity of the offences of those abusing our most vulnerable, who are serving a psychological life sentence based on the abuse they suffered. Will the minister commit, here and now, to amping up sentences for sexual offenders and reducing the use of conditional sentences?

139 words

Hon. Arif Virani

Sep/20/23 4:23:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what I would say with respect to sexual offences is that these are some of the most heinous crimes that we know. The specific targeting of sexual offenders, particularly those who would sexually offend a child, is at the heart of what this bill is about. What we are doing is working to protect victims, to ensure their safety and to ensure they are healing after the fact. That relates to the publication ban provisions I outlined. It also fundamentally relates to ensuring that the sex offender registry is maintained at the end of October of this year. It is in every parliamentarian's interest to ensure that the sex offender registry is maintained. The registry is what law enforcement wants; it is helping to keep our communities safe and addressing the sexual offences mentioned by the member opposite. I look forward to the member's co-operation and that of his party to ensure that we are able to do so expeditiously.

165 words