SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

May/23/24 10:45:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a very long way of saying, yes, the Liberals have granted house arrest to dangerous car thieves; as a result, car thefts have gone up massively—

31 words

The Speaker

May/23/24 10:45:11 p.m.
Watch

The hon. minister.

3 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 10:45:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that, since the changes and investments that we put in place with respect to auto theft, more than 1,000 vehicles have been intercepted by the CBSA at the Montreal port. This shows that those investments are doing the work they need to do to keep Canadians safe.

53 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

May/23/24 10:45:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House, particularly at this time and with this august group, and indeed in the presence of wonderful colleagues across the way. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and I had the opportunity to speak on a panel yesterday. It was wonderful to see that he is continuing his ongoing masterclass in misinformation in the chamber. It is important for all of us as Canadians to reflect on the consequences when misinformation is spread, or perhaps when elected leaders choose to openly challenge the rights of others. I want to talk a little today about a woman's right to choose. I want to start by asking all of us whether or not we truly believe in freedom, the freedom of a woman to make decisions for what happens to her body. On this side of the House, we have been very clear that this is a priority for us. It has always been something that we will defend. That is why it is of grave concern to many of my constituents in Vancouver Granville to hear so many members opposite willing to really question or begin to put doubt into the minds of Canadians as to whether or not their party would indeed defend a woman's right to choose. In fact, we have heard members opposite making comments such as that women who have abortions end up needing redemption, needing forgiveness and needing God. One of the members opposite said this and said that she spoke for all MPs from the Conservative Party. That was a week ago, not 40, 50 or even 20 years ago. It was seven or eight days ago. If Canadians look at the chamber as the chamber that is supposed to uphold their freedoms, I do not understand how members opposite in the Conservative Party could truly be purveyors of freedom when all they want to do is take away the rights of women. We have seen Conservative governments across this country try to curtail the rights of 2SLGBTQI+ individuals because they do not believe they fit with their socially conservative way of living. That is also a concern for any of us that purport to care about freedom. If we in the chamber truly care about freedom, then every member of the House, including members opposite, would be actively supporting the rights of others, even those who may be different from them. That is why I think it is so important for us to continue the fight for freedom. However, our definition of freedom, on this side of the House, is not to obfuscate, misinform or mislead unintentionally, but really to do the things that would cause Canadians to feel as though their Parliament, their parliamentarians, have their back. Let us talk about ways in which members opposite have chosen not to have the back of Canadians, particularly when it comes to the question of freedom. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition openly cavorting with ideologically motivated violent extremists from Diagolon. We have seen him visit camps where people have made claims that Canada is broken or that the Prime Minister must be hanged. They have been actively engaging with white supremacists, brought them into this place and had meals with them. How is that freedom? Is that the type of freedom that Canadians want? I think it is not. I think Canadians would like to know that their parliamentarians, the leaders whom they elect, care deeply about protecting their rights. That is why it was so disturbing for me to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk so freely about using the notwithstanding clause, about how he would choose to override the rights of others under his laws, and about how he would decide what laws were constitutional. I have seen governments of all stripes, and I wonder what Canadians would ask. I wonder what Progressive Conservative prime ministers of the past would ask or would be thinking if they were to hear their once-grand party becoming the party of misinformation, the party of taking away the rights of others. It makes perfect sense. The Leader of the Opposition and many of his acolytes were trained under Stephen Harper, who sought to set up a snitch line. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was a key player in that and defended it. They sought to take away the right to vote of women who wore the niqab. They sought to take away the right to vote of many Canadians. In fact, today, the Minister of Immigration had to make a decision to overturn many of the misguided policies of the members opposite in curtailing the rights of lost Canadians. When I talk about freedom, members opposite are only interested in taking away the freedoms of people they do not like and preserving their own freedoms, the freedom to run up large expense accounts on the public purse, to have expensive champagne on the public purse or to travel to conventions on the public purse, but not the freedom for a woman to choose what happens to her own body, for a young person questioning their sexuality to feel like they can be safe in their community or for all those women and others who have been marred by violence in the home to feel safe. They want to put guns back in the homes of Canadians and in the hands of Canadians who may not need guns. Why anybody in this country would need a semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15, I do not know, but that is what members opposite want to do. It is really important for us to spend a bit of time on this concept of freedom every single day and ask ourselves what kind of freedom we want for Canadians. Frankly, I would want freedom from the types of imposing views that the members opposite have on the rights of those who they may not consider the types of Canadians they want in this country. We have heard members opposite talk openly about taking away a woman's right to choose. We have seen them cavort with people who would like to take away the rights of people who look like me. We have seen them spend time with people who openly want to overthrow our democracy and undermine it at every turn, and they do it by spreading misinformation and hate and trying to sow discord among communities in this country. It is well past time that all members of this House take a position and say that it is no longer acceptable for us to say freedom for me, but not for thee. That is the position that the Conservative Party has chosen to take. I will end with the following thought. If we truly believe in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if we truly believe in our Constitution, if we truly believe in the notion of freedom for all Canadians, then are we not willing to stand up and say that these may not be rights that I need, but they are rights that others in this country might need? Is that not the type of country we want, where each and every one of us is prepared to stand up and defend the rights and freedoms of people we may consider different? On this side of the House, that is exactly what we seek to do. I am very fearful that members opposite will persist in trying to take away the rights of people who do not share their far-right, extremist views.

1277 words

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

May/23/24 10:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his contribution to this evening's discussion and reflect on a couple of things. What I personally found most troubling, as somebody who sat on the Emergencies Act parliamentary committee after the declaration, is that we know about extreme far-right movements. We know about what happened at the Coutts, Alberta border crossing, and we know about the group that was found there and about the weapons cache. That group was Diagolon; weapons and ammunition were found there, and that resulted in charges being laid of conspiracy to commit murder against the RCMP. That is the exact same group that the Leader of the Opposition was engaging with intentionally just a few weeks ago on the east coast of this country, and I think it really begs a lot of questions about whether someone stands for and with law enforcement or whether they stand with the people who have been charged with potentially doing harm to law enforcement. The second point is that I have also heard assertions that we are misinterpreting what the member for Carleton said about the notwithstanding clause and in fact, if he used it, that it would only be in a restricted manner. First of all, I do not necessarily believe that, given the voting and track record of the Leader of the Opposition in terms of restrictions on women's rights, including women's rights to choose and recent voting patterns about women's access to free contraception. Second, I would say that the proof in writing is already on the wall, as in other instances where Conservative or right-leaning leaders of provincial governments around this country have either invoked or threatened to invoke the notwithstanding clause in areas that do not relate to criminal justice law. I think about the usage by Scott Moe with respect to the LGBTQ community or about the threatened usage by Danielle Smith against trans kids. I did not hear a peep from the Leader of the Opposition about the inappropriateness of such an invocation of the notwithstanding clause, which really leads me to question, and I hope Canadians watching right now at this late hour are questioning, how much further it would go if it was invoked for the first time ever by a federal leader, should the member for Carleton assume the mantle of leadership in this country, and how many other rights would be subjugated. These are really pressing concerns, and they should not be partisan, because they are about fundamental things like our basic rights and freedoms in this country. The member for Vancouver Granville put it quite clearly when he talked about how we do not get to do a grocery-style selection of which rights we are going to defend and which freedoms we are not going to defend. It is an entire package. It is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is important to stand up for all of the rights therein, even at times when it might not be popular, because ultimately those rights protect vulnerable people and vulnerable minorities from a potential tyranny of the majority. That is not the kind of Canada I want to live in. That is not the kind of Canada most Canadians want to live in. What Canadians identify with, independent of their political stripe and independent of their voting patterns, are certain hallmarks about what defines us as Canadians, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of those key defining documents. That is why I stand behind it. That is why I always will stand behind it. My colleagues stand with me in that regard. I wish the official opposition would as well.

625 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

May/23/24 10:57:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition voted against same-sex marriage. Does the Attorney General have any confidence that, if given the opportunity, the leader of the Conservative Party would use the notwithstanding clause to take that right away from 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians?

43 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 10:58:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in that regard I have serious doubts about that, based on the voting pattern that I have seen thus far and the actions that I have observed thus far from the Leader of the Opposition in terms of interactions with the LGBTQ community and willingness to stand up for the rights of the LGBTQ community. I do not see that demonstrated by his actions thus far, and I think that is quite amplified by the fact that I also have not seen him criticize invocations of the notwithstanding clause that are already occurring in provinces in this country against that very same community. I will judge him by his actions, and his actions leave a lot to be desired.

121 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

May/23/24 10:58:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition voted against funding for Holocaust education and the Holocaust Education Centre in my riding. What confidence does the Attorney General have that the Leader of the Opposition, if given the opportunity, would continue to defund Holocaust education, and what would the consequences of that be?

52 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 10:59:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Mr. Speaker, I think that is actually appalling, given where we are with the alarming rise in anti-Semitism post October 7. We need to be doing everything we can to shore up the Jewish community and its need for safety and security at this time. Apropos of that, I find it very troubling that the opposition articulated by the Leader of the Opposition to a bill that I am shepherding through this chamber, Bill C-63, was so vociferous that he did not even wait to read the document. He came out against it before it was even tabled. This is the very same document that groups like CIJA have gone on record about, saying that if we tackle online hatred, we will help them stop anti-Semitism online from turning into real-world consequences in the physical world. Bill C-63 is critical for the safety of the Jewish community, as it is critical for many vulnerable groups, including Muslims and Arabs in the LGBTQ community, the Black community and the indigenous community. That is what we need to stand for as Canadians. That is what the opposition leader is standing against.

194 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

May/23/24 11:00:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government, launched a snitch line and launched a full frontal attack against Muslims in this country. What confidence should Muslim Canadians have that, if given the opportunity, the Leader of the Opposition would indeed go after Muslims and attack their rights again?

53 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 11:00:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Mr. Speaker, I think the track record of the previous Harper government, in which the Leader of the Opposition played a part in its cabinet, is demonstrably curious with respect to that barbaric cultural practices hotline suggestion, with respect to interdictions on the citizenship ceremonies and what people could wear, and with respect to approaches towards settlement of Syrian refugees and who would be selected for settlement in Canada and who would not. The track record is not an enviable one. On this side of the House, we stand completely opposed to such policies and have implemented policies that are vastly different. That includes challenging Islamophobia. That includes funding for the security infrastructure program to protect places of worship. That includes Bill C-63, which would tackle Islamophobia head-on and help keep all Canadians safe.

136 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/23/24 11:01:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be joining the House from the unceded lands of the Tseshaht and Hupacasath people in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. We continue to hear the Liberal government talk about the toxic drug crisis as a public health issue, not a criminal justice issue. Will the minister tell us if he agrees that it is a public health issue, or is it a criminal justice issue in his eyes?

80 words

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

May/23/24 11:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the opioid crisis and the narcotic situation that British Columbia is facing, we have adopted an approach that it needs to be treated as a health issue. We have adopted policies of harm reduction since 2015 and will continue to do so.

47 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/23/24 11:02:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, why is the Liberal government making it a criminal issue east of the Rockies, for the rest of the country, if that is the position of the government?

30 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 11:02:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been dealt with as a health care issue since the start, and we have adopted that posture in many of our policies, including responding to the very direct ask by the B.C. government to pursue decriminalizing.

42 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/23/24 11:02:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what evidence does the minister have in terms of public safety concerns linked to simple drug possession?

19 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 11:02:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, many of these questions would perhaps be better put to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions or the Minister of Health, but what I can say is that we have analyzed the evidence that we have in terms of responding to direct asks for decriminalization.

48 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/23/24 11:02:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, these are justice issues and they are justice issues for every member of Parliament, so he can also answer with his position and viewpoint as a member of Parliament, not just as a cabinet minister. How much does this government spend on policing drug offences versus investments in harm reduction and treatment and recovery?

56 words

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 11:03:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the police of jurisdiction would be able to answer that question on how much money is being spent on policing initiatives, including police of jurisdiction in localities such as Vancouver.

32 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/23/24 11:03:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, regarding the decision to allow the recent amendment of B.C.'s decriminalization pilot and the rejection of the Toronto application, despite the fact that we have seen an 11% decrease in toxic drug deaths in British Columbia since March of 2023 and we have seen a 17% rise in toxic drug deaths in Alberta and a 23% rise in Saskatchewan, what analysis was done to ensure that the right to life, liberty and security of the person for people at risk of dying was adequately considered? Also, will the minister agree that criminal law has not and will not end drug possession and the use of illicit substances?

111 words