- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-20 this evening. This is a piece of legislation that the government thought was fairly straightforward. When we take a serious look at the essence of the bill, it would provide a sense of public confidence in our bureaucratic system.
For many years, there was an independent commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where, if there were complaints or issues surrounding them, the public knew they had a way they could address a grievance of one form or another by going to the commission. I thought that it was fairly well established and that people had a basic understanding of the true value of having something of this nature. It has done well. If we look at the different agencies across Canada, particularly law enforcement agencies, we often hear about the importance of having some sort of checks in place to ensure a higher level of accountability.
In Manitoba today, for example, there is a sense of independence in offices, where it is not necessarily the police checking on the police or holding the police accountable when there is a grievance, but it is an independent board. It is important that it be independent for the simple reason that there would be far more confidence in the person bringing forward the grievance or the complaint. That is really important to recognize. Whether it is for provincial jurisdictions or for the RCMP, this has been deemed by all aspects of society as absolutely essential.
When we look at the Canada Border Services Agency and the fine work that border officers do, day in and day out, at the end of the day, there was no independent body at the same level as the RCMP. It makes sense. The government had a choice. We could have a stand-alone independent body for the RCMP and we could also have a stand-alone body for the Canada Border Services Agency, but it was determined that the best thing would be to bring the two agencies together.
I should have started my comments by highlighting that, even though we are bringing forward this legislation, it is not a reflection on the fine work that the border agents or the RCMP members do. The vast majority of the work is done in an outstanding fashion. Countries around the world often look at what is happening in Canada, through these two agencies. Unlike in many other countries, these institutions are held in high esteem, particularly the RCMP. I have travelled to nations where the confidence level in their national policing agencies is nowhere near as high or as respected as it is in Canada because of issues such as alleged corruption, whether real or perceived.
Periodically, I talk to individuals who came from another country, and they talk about the RCMP being the difference between Canada and some other nations. The RCMP, especially when one puts on that red uniform, is something that is highly respected. Historically, it might not necessarily have been a shining gold star. Yes, there have been many mistakes, but we have been able to overcome those mistakes, and in good part, still today, we look at ways we can compensate for those mistakes.
A good example of that is the record with the RCMP and indigenous people of Canada. There has been a great deal of effort through truth and reconciliation, with all forms of gestures and actions, to deal with some of those issues. By doing that in a public way, it does what the board has actually been doing; it helps build confidence in the institution. I believe we should all strive to see that. Fast forward to today, where we have the legislation that recognizes the importance of having these independent agencies. Through this legislation, we would create the opportunity for the Canada Border Services Agency to be incorporated into a new entity both for the RCMP and for the CBSA.
I thought this would have been universally well received by all members in the chamber. I was surprised at the degree to which members of the official opposition have resisted passing the legislation. I was not participating at the committee level, so I could not tell members how they performed at the committee level, but I was here during the report stage and the second reading stage. The lack of goodwill in recognizing the legislation was somewhat disappointing. When we actually got to the report stage, in fact, the Conservatives moved an amendment to it. It was what I would classify as a silly amendment; it was to delete the short title. When I look at the legislation, it suggested, in an amendment at the report stage, that this act may be cited as the public complaints and review commission act. That is the short title.
When one looks at the short title, one questions the benefit of moving that amendment. The reality is that the only purpose of moving that amendment was to delay the passage of the legislation. That is the reason that they moved that amendment and the reason that we see some of the behaviour of Conservative members, in particular, dealing with second reading, whether it is Bill C-20 or other pieces of legislation. That is why we see many of the concurrence reports brought through. Time and time again, and Bill C-20 is an excellent example of this, the Conservatives are more determined to try to prevent legislation from passing.
A lot of that legislation is solid, tangible legislation that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. When I look at this piece of legislation, I look at the many benefits of it, and I fully expected that the legislation would have passed relatively quickly. I know that Conservatives are going to be following my comments this evening, so it will be interesting to to hear where their objections to the legislation actually are. Do they not feel that the principles of the legislation are something that could have warranted us passing the legislation sooner?
That principle applies on a number of pieces of legislation, but I think that has a lot more to do with the politics inside the chamber than the actual substance of the legislation. That is a determination that has been made by the House leadership of the Conservative Party.
I am glad we are at this point today because it would seem that there is a very good chance that the legislation is going to pass third reading, and for a very good reason. When we think about our border control, all one needs to do is to look at the number of people who travel back and forth to the United States or, for that matter, to any country in the world. I have an active interest in trying to help facilitate people coming to visit Canada.
In the area I represent, every month, I write literally hundreds of letters. In some months, it is probably four hundred or five hundred letters, and in other months, it is probably closer to eight hundred letters, trying to get individuals to be able to come to Canada to visit, whether they are attending weddings, funerals, graduations or just visiting family members who may have immigrated from countries like Philippines, India, Pakistan, and many other countries.
Every time someone comes in, they have to deal with border control officers. We are getting numbers that go into the millions. Our border control agency and its officers are dealing with literally millions of people coming into Canada every year. They have a lot of authority.
I have had the opportunity to take tours of our detention centres, through customs, where people are going through without the appropriate papers, for example. Our officers actually have the ability to detain or to prevent someone from leaving the airport. That is a fairly serious responsibility.
With that responsibility comes the need for accountability and transparency. It does not mean that we are saying that there is something wrong with the system because that is not the case. All in all, the system works exceptionally well. We are talking about tens of millions of people coming and going every year.
If we look at the actual number of complaints we receive, it is but a small fraction of the overall number of people coming and going. However, that small fraction does warrant the need for us to be able put something in place so that if people have concerns, maybe it is the manner in which they were treated at a border or at an airport, wherever it might be, they have an opportunity to be able to express themselves.
If I was going through the Canada-U.S. border, an agent could ultimately make a decision that items I have brought with me are going to be kept or that something is going to be applied to them, and I might not feel that it was appropriate. It could also be something that greatly offends someone, anything from a racial incident to a wide spectrum of other behaviours that one might see.
At the end of the day, I would suggest that establishing a place that people can go to in order to express their grievance is absolutely critical. For those individuals who feel intimidated by it, as I said, it is not a reflection on the vast majority of the people who are performing this service. It really puts into place the opportunity, as I have said and as I have tried to amplify, that those agencies will in fact be better off because there will be a truly independent commission that actually deals with what is coming up. This legislation enables the commission to investigate complaints and take a look, for example, at levels of service, or even conduct a CBSA employee investigation where it is actually warranted. The commission does have the powers to review the activities of the CBSA. It would exclude things such as issues related to national security and other sensitive types of areas, but it has significant powers to look into, to review, to come up with recommendations and be able to take actions.
At the end of the day, what we do know is that it has been very effective for the RCMP. I believe that it will be just as effective for Canada border control officers. Canadians must have confidence in our law enforcement agencies, and having an effective civilian review is central to implementing public confidence and trust.
Let me just add to that. Bill C-20 would establish the PCRC, which would function as an independent review body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Through this review body, we will ensure that all Canadians can expect consistent, fair and equitable treatment. We will do that through strengthening the review body's independence and discretion, requiring annual reports from the RCMP and the CBSA on the implementation of PCRC's recommendations, which is a really important aspect, receiving those annual reports. Often we are able to make good, solid policy decisions based on the types of reports that we receive, collecting and publishing disaggregated race-based and demographic data to help assess and address systemic racism in law enforcement. All of that is part of our commitment to making Canada a safer place for anyone.
There are a number of points dealing with the legislation. The one that I would highlight is that the government is proposing to invest well over $100 million over the next six years, and about $20 million per year ongoing, in order to support the actions that the legislation is taking.
As I indicated, this is legislation that could have very easily passed a whole lot earlier. I am glad that we finally have it at a stage today where it would appear as if it will be passing. I do look forward to comments coming from, in particular, the Conservative Party, realizing, of course, that all the amendments and so forth have actually been dealt with. It is just a question of allowing it to ultimately come to a vote so that it can become law and add more value to building public confidence in two outstanding institutions.
2058 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:31:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record. I too look at the outstanding work, for the most part, that is done by Canada border control and law enforcement officers. However, there is a need to have this oversight and to ensure that there is an independent review committee. This is progressive legislation that would do just that, among other things. I am glad that we are finally able to get a consensus through time allocation, which will now see the legislation pass.
Would the member not agree, given that the Conservatives are voting in favour of the legislation, that, indeed, the sooner the legislation becomes law, the better?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on February 26 regarding the alleged premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-63, the online harms act.
I would like to begin by stating that the member is incorrect in asserting that there has been a leak of the legislation, and I will outline a comprehensive process of consultation and information being in the public domain on this issue long before the bill was placed on notice.
Online harms legislation is something that the government has been talking about for years. In 2015, the government promised to make ministerial mandate letters public, a significant departure from the secrecy around those key policy commitment documents from previous governments. As a result of the publication of the mandate letters, reporters are able to use the language from these letters to try to telegraph what the government bill on notice may contain.
In the 2021 Liberal election platform entitled “Forward. For Everyone.”, the party committed to the following:
Introduce legislation within its first 100 days to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This would make sure that social media platforms and other online services are held accountable for the content that they host. Our legislation will recognize the importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians and will take a balanced and targeted approach to tackle extreme and harmful speech.
Strengthen the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate.
The December 16, 2021, mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada asked the minister to achieve results for Canadians by delivering on the following commitment:
Continue efforts with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host, including by strengthening the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate and reintroduce measures to strengthen hate speech provisions, including the re-enactment of the former Section 13 provision. This legislation should be reflective of the feedback received during the recent consultations.
Furthermore, the December 16, 2021, mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Canadian Heritage also asked the minister to achieve results for Canadians by delivering on the following commitment:
Continue efforts with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host. This legislation should be reflective of the feedback received during the recent consultations.
As we can see, the government publicly stated its intention to move ahead with online harms legislation, provided information on its plan and consulted widely on the proposal long before any bill was placed on the Notice Paper.
I will now draw to the attention of the House just how broadly the government has consulted on proposed online harms legislation.
Firstly, with regard to online consultations, from July 29 to September 25, 2021, the government published a proposed approach to address harmful content online for consultation and feedback. Two documents were presented for consultation: a discussion guide that summarized and outlined an overall approach, and a technical paper that summarized drafting instructions that could inform legislation.
I think it is worth repeating here that the government published a technical paper with the proposed framework for this legislation back in July 2021. This technical paper outlined the categories of proposed regulated harmful content; it addressed the establishment of a digital safety commissioner, a digital safety commission, regulatory powers and enforcement, etc.
Second is the round table on online safety. From July to November 2022, the Minister of Canadian Heritage conducted 19 virtual and in-person round tables across the country on the key elements of a legislative and regulatory framework on online safety. Virtual sessions were also held on the following topics: anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-Asian racism, women and gender-based violence, and the tech industry.
Participants received an information document in advance of each session to prepare for the discussion. This document sought comments on the advice from the expert advisory group on online safety, which concluded its meetings on June 10. The feedback gathered from participants touched upon several key areas related to online safety.
Third is the citizens' assembly on democratic expression. The Department of Canadian Heritage, through the digital citizen initiative, is providing financial support to the Public Policy Forum's digital democracy project, which brings together academics, civil society and policy professionals to support research and policy development on disinformation and online harms. One component of this multi-year project is an annual citizens' assembly on democratic expression, which considers the impacts of digital technologies on Canadian society.
The assembly took place between June 15 and 19, 2023, in Ottawa, and focused on online safety. Participants heard views from a representative group of citizens on the core elements of a successful legislative and regulatory framework for online safety.
Furthermore, in March 2022, the government established an expert advisory group on online safety, mandated to provide advice to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on how to design the legislative and regulatory framework to address harmful content online and how to best incorporate the feedback received during the national consultation held from July to September 2021.
The expert advisory group, composed of 12 individuals, participated in 10 weekly workshops on the components of a legislative and regulatory framework for online safety. These included an introductory workshop and a summary concluding workshop.
The government undertook its work with the expert advisory group in an open and transparent manner. A Government of Canada web page, entitled “The Government's commitment to address online safety”, has been online for more than a year. It outlines all of this in great detail.
I now want to address the specific areas that the opposition House leader raised in his intervention. The member pointed to a quote from a CBC report referencing the intention to create a new regulator that would hold online platforms accountable for harmful content they host. The same website that I just referenced states the following: “The Government of Canada is committed to putting in place a transparent and accountable regulatory framework for online safety in Canada. Now, more than ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.”
Again, this website has been online for more than a year, long before the bill was actually placed on notice. The creation of a regulator to hold online services to account is something the government has been talking about, consulting on and committing to for a long period of time.
The member further cites a CBC article that talks about a new regulatory body to oversee a digital safety office. I would draw to the attention of the House the “Summary of Session Four: Regulatory Powers” of the expert advisory group on online safety, which states:
There was consensus on the need for a regulatory body, which could be in the form of a Digital Safety Commissioner. Experts agreed that the Commissioner should have audit powers, powers to inspect, have the powers to administer financial penalties and the powers to launch investigations to seek compliance if a systems-based approach is taken—but views differed on the extent of these powers. A few mentioned that it would be important to think about what would be practical and achievable for the role of the Commissioner. Some indicated they were reluctant to give too much power to the Commissioner, but others noted that the regulator would need to have “teeth” to force compliance.
This web page has been online for months.
I also reject the premise of what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle stated when quoting the CBC story in question as it relates to the claim that the bill will be modelled on the European Union's Digital Services Act. This legislation is a made-in-Canada approach. The European Union model regulates more than social media and targets the marketplace and sellers. It also covers election disinformation and certain targeted ads, which our online harms legislation does not.
The member also referenced a CTV story regarding the types of online harms that the legislation would target. I would refer to the 2021 Liberal election platform, which contained the following areas as targets for the proposed legislation: “hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.” These five items were the subject of the broad-based and extensive consultations I referenced earlier in my intervention.
Based on these consultations, a further two were added to the list to be considered. I would draw the attention of the House to an excerpt from the consultation entitled, “What We Heard: The Government’s proposed approach to address harmful content online”, which states, “Participants also suggested the inclusion of deep fake technology in online safety legislation”. It continues, “Many noted how child pornography and cyber blackmailing can originate from outside of Canada. Participants expressed frustration over the lack of recourse and tools available to victims to handle such instances and mentioned the need for a collaborative international effort to address online safety.”
It goes on to state:
Some respondents appreciated the proposal going beyond the Criminal Code definitions for certain types of content. They supported the decision to include material relating to child sexual exploitation in the definition that might not constitute a criminal offence, but which would nevertheless significantly harm children. A few stakeholders said that the proposal did not go far enough and that legislation could be broader by capturing content such as images of labour exploitation and domestic servitude of children. Support was also voiced for a concept of non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
It also notes:
A few respondents stated that additional types of content, such as doxing (i.e., the non-consensual disclosure of an individual’s private information), disinformation, bullying, harassment, defamation, conspiracy theories and illicit online opioid sales should also be captured by the legislative and regulatory framework.
This document has been online for more than a year.
I would also point to the expert advisory group's “Concluding Workshop Summary” web page, which states:
They emphasized the importance of preventing the same copies of some videos, like live-streamed atrocities, and child sexual abuse, from being shared again. Experts stressed that many file sharing services allow content to spread very quickly.
It goes on to say:
Experts emphasized that particularly egregious content like child sexual exploitation content would require its own solution. They explained that the equities associated with the removal of child pornography are different than other kinds of content, in that context simply does not matter with such material. In comparison, other types of content like hate speech may enjoy Charter protection in certain contexts. Some experts explained that a takedown obligation with a specific timeframe would make the most sense for child sexual exploitation content.
It also notes:
Experts disagreed on the usefulness of the five categories of harmful content previously identified in the Government’s 2021 proposal. These five categories include hate speech, terrorist content, incitement to violence, child sexual exploitation, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Another point is as follows:
A few participants pointed out how the anonymous nature of social media gives users more freedom to spread online harm such as bullying, death threats and online hate. A few participants noted that this can cause greater strain on the mental health of youth and could contribute to a feeling of loneliness, which, if unchecked, could lead to self-harm.
Again, this web page has been online for more than a year.
The member further cites the CTV article's reference to a new digital safety ombudsperson. I would point to the web page of the expert advisory group for the “Summary of Session Four: Regulatory Powers”, which states:
The Expert Group discussed the idea of an Ombudsperson and how it could relate to a Digital Safety Commissioner. Experts proposed that an Ombudsperson could be more focused on individual complaints ex post, should users not be satisfied with how a given service was responding to their concerns, flags and/or complaints. In this scheme, the Commissioner would assume the role of the regulator ex ante, with a mandate devoted to oversight and enforcement powers. Many argued that an Ombudsperson role should be embedded in the Commissioner’s office, and that information sharing between these functions would be useful. A few experts noted that the term “Ombudsperson” would be recognizable across the country as it is a common term and [has] meaning across other regimes in Canada.
It was mentioned that the Ombudsperson could play more of an adjudicative role, as distinguished from...the Commissioner’s oversight role, and would have some authority to have certain content removed off of platforms. Some experts noted that this would provide a level of comfort to victims. A few experts raised questions about where the line would be drawn between a private complaint and resolution versus the need for public authorities to be involved.
That web page has been online for months.
Additionally, during the round table on online safety and anti-Black racism, as the following summary states:
Participants were supportive of establishing a digital safety ombudsperson to hold social media platforms accountable and to be a venue for victims to report online harms. It was suggested the ombudsperson could act as a body that takes in victim complaints and works with the corresponding platform or governmental body to resolve the complaint. Some participants expressed concern over the ombudsperson's ability to process and respond to user complaints in a timely manner. To ensure the effectiveness of the ombudsperson, participants believe the body needs to have enough resources to keep pace with the complaints it receives. A few participants also noted the importance for the ombudsperson to be trained in cultural nuances to understand the cultural contexts behind content that is reported to them.
That web page has been online for more than a year.
Finally, I would draw the attention of the House to a Canadian Press article of February 21, 2024, which states, “The upcoming legislation is now expected to pave the way for a new ombudsperson to field public concerns about online content, as well as a new regulatory role that would oversee the conduct of internet platforms.” This appeared online before the bill was placed on notice.
Mr. Speaker, as your predecessor reiterated in his ruling on March 9, 2021, “it is a recognized principle that the House must be the first to learn the details of new legislative measures.” He went on to say, “...when the Chair is called on to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, it must take into consideration the extent to which a member was hampered in performing their parliamentary functions and whether the alleged facts are an offence against the dignity of Parliament.” The Chair also indicated:
When it is determined that there is a prima facie case of privilege, the usual work of the House is immediately set aside in order to debate the question of privilege and decide on the response. Given the serious consequences for proceedings, it is not enough to say that the breach of privilege or contempt may have occurred, nor to cite precedence in the matter while implying that the government is presumably in the habit of acting in this way. The allegations must be clear and convincing for the Chair.
The government understands and respects the well-established practice that members have a right of first access to the legislation. It is clear that the government has been talking about and consulting widely on its plan to introduce online harms legislation for the past two years. As I have demonstrated, the public consultations have been wide-ranging and in-depth with documents and technical papers provided. All of this occurred prior to the bill's being placed on notice.
Some of the information provided by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is not even in the bill, most notably the reference to its being modelled on the European Union's Digital Services Act, which is simply false, as I have clearly demonstrated. The member also hangs his arguments on the usage of the vernacular “not authorized to speak publicly” in the media reports he cites. It is certainly not proof of a leak, especially when the government consulted widely and publicly released details on the content of the legislative proposal for years before any bill was actually placed on notice.
The development of the legislation has been characterized by open, public and wide-ranging consultations with specific proposals consulted on. This is how the Leader of the Opposition was able to proclaim, on February 21, before the bill was even placed on notice, that he and his party were vehemently opposed to the bill. He was able to make this statement because of the public consultation and the information that the government has shared about its plan over the last two years. I want to be clear that the government did not share the bill before it was introduced in the House, and the evidence demonstrates that there was no premature disclosure of the bill.
I would submit to the House that consulting Canadians this widely is a healthy way to produce legislation and that the evidence I have presented clearly demonstrates that there is no prima facie question of privilege. It is our view that this does not give way for the Chair to conclude that there was a breach of privilege of the House nor to give the matter precedence over all other business of the House.
3096 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 1:07:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I started by acknowledging that crimes of the nature we have been talking about today affect all our communities. As much as we banter back and forth, I would not want to take anything away from the impact it has on victims. I wanted to amplify that point because I truly believe that all of us have a right to feel safe and comfortable in the communities where we live.
As the justice critic, when I served in the Manitoba legislature, as well as during a number of years here in Ottawa, I have always recognized the importance of the issue of safety and crime. As legislators, we need to do what we can to keep our communities safe. Quite frankly, I am very proud of initiatives the Liberal government has taken over the last number of years to do just that: to keep the communities we live in safe. That does not mean the issues are resolved. I am not saying that at all. I think we have work to do. We will continue to look at ways to make our communities healthier and safer.
Looking at today's opposition day motion, I see that it is very much a politically motivated issue brought forward by the Conservative Party. The message it is trying to give Canadians is that it is collectively tough on crime.
I want to deal with that, because that is not the reality we have seen. Specifically, we are talking about automobile theft. The discussions, thus far, from the Conservative benches have been focused on Canada's border control, car theft and how vehicles are exported outside of Canada. It is interesting that one member who stood up actually criticized the government. That really stuck with me. The member said something to the effect that we need to support and to provide more money to the CBSA, Canada's border control agency.
It is amazing that while the Conservatives were in government, they actually cut Canada's border control agents. At one time, we had close to 15,000 border controls. I have the actual number of full-time equivalents: 14,833. They were cut to 13,774 full-time equivalents. Those were well over 1,000 jobs cut by the former government and the former prime minister. The current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the cabinet of that former prime minister. That was a substantial cut, and now they are saying we need to have more. That was one comment.
The Conservatives talk about it being in the motion. We talk about increasing sentences from six months to three years. That six months is in regard to someone getting caught stealing a car on a third occasion. The current law states that it is a minimum of six months. The Conservatives say that it is not tough enough and that they believe it should be three years. Again, who do members think put in the six months? It was Stephen Harper.
Are Conservatives saying today that Stephen Harper messed up on that policy directive, and that Stephen Harper messed up on the cutbacks on the border controls? What the member did not reference, but I will, are the hundreds of millions of dollars cut also by Stephen Harper.
Is the Conservative Party now saying that, too, was a mistake? Let us keep in mind that it is easy for the Conservatives to concede that Stephen Harper made a mess of things and made problems a lot worse with cutbacks, and that might have contributed to the increases we are seeing. I would remind Conservatives that they might want to throw Stephen Harper under the bus, but their current leader was a minister in Stephen Harper's government, and they need to be reminded of that.
Let us think about it. This issue has been taking place for quite a while. The so-called “tough on crime” Leader of the Conservative Party, tougher than Stephen Harper was on crime, is tougher than when he was in cabinet. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first time, last week, where we actually have the Leader of the Conservative Party giving it attention. Why is that?
We announced that we are going to have a summit on the auto theft issue. The Liberal government has been working on it for a while now, unlike the Conservatives; it was not even on their radar screen until we announced the summit. Then, the Conservatives started saying that it would fit in nicely with their “tough on crime” bumper stickers, so they brought up the issue. Did they not study it? Did they not realize they are likely part of the problem?
I was the justice critic in the Province of Manitoba, and this is a quote from a StatsCan report dealing with car theft in Manitoba then, which states:
However, the province's 2007 rate remained the highest in the country...for the 11th straight year and was 24% higher than a decade ago.
In 2007, Stephen Harper was prime minister, and it continued to be a problem for years after that. If we look at it 10 years prior, there was not a Conservative government.
The point is that this issue takes more than one level of government to address it. That is the reason we have the minister responsible for public safety saying that we are going to have a summit. The Conservatives are howling, “just a summit”. They just discovered the issue, and we already said we are going to have a summit. We are bringing experts in. There is going to be dialogue, and things are going to be brought to the table. We are not only taking budgetary measures in the amount of tens of millions to look into how we can get at organized crime and organized gangs but also looking at legislative measures and possibly regulations that could be changed.
We want to take a holistic approach in dealing with this issue. Unlike the Conservatives, who like to talk tough on crime, we believe that actions speak louder than words. We will continue to work with different stakeholders and to get the level of expertise to the table so that we will be in a better position to work with provinces and law enforcement agencies. As a national government, we would be in a position to see if we could do something legislatively or could do something through regulations, and perhaps there are other pockets where we could invest more to support this issue.
That is ultimately what the Liberal government is doing. We are taking a progressive, holistic approach to make sure that the issue is dealt with, unlike Stephen Harper and the born-again Conservative right wing.
1139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, can my colleague provide his thoughts in terms of how important it was for the federal government over the last number of months to work with the provincial stakeholders and law enforcement agencies to ensure that we have legislation that can get unanimous support, as it has gotten virtually from coast to coast to coast?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 4:08:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe, ultimately, that we do not want anyone who has been sanctioned coming to Canada. That is the primary purpose and the objective of this legislation, or at least one of them.
To that end, I would expect that those who are responsible for the administration would understand what is being brought forward and passed by parliamentarians, which reflects the will of Canadians. Those responsible are our law enforcement agencies, our border control officers and our civil service, which is second to no other in the world.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 4:05:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have absolute confidence in the system we have here in Canada. That includes our national police service and the security agencies that we have.
I believe it is up to those agencies and those law enforcement officers to do the work that is necessary; where they find violations, there would be charges, and offices would be shut down. I do not ever want to see Canada take a position where, for example, a few members stand up and say, “Well, that is this. Now we want the police to go and shut it down.”
We have to have confidence in our security agencies to ensure that our interests are best served.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talked about bail reform, which is in Bill C-48. Allow me to provide a quote that comes from the association representing Canada's frontline law enforcement personnel. It was released earlier today, I believe. It states:
Front-line law enforcement personnel have been asking the government to take concrete steps to address the small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences that put the safety of our communities at risk.
We appreciate that [the justice minister and the public safety minister] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.
We have seen a great deal of filibustering on Bill C-21. I wonder if the member is of the same opinion as I am that, when it comes to Bill C-48, we should get some sort of unanimous consent to have a round of debate on it and then allow it to go to committee so we can deal with it in a quicker fashion.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the fact that there are some very progressive measures in the legislation, including one around ghost guns. Law enforcement agencies have talked a great deal about how this is becoming an issue of a very serious nature, and they are looking for legislation. We are attempting, in the legislation, to provide that tool to law enforcement, and it is being well received.
What does the member have to say about that aspect? Could the member provide some sense of why the Conservatives continue to say that this legislation would prevent people from being able to hunt, or to give that sort of impression, when we know it is just not the case?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of comments that the member expressed. I wanted to highlight that it is great to see that Bill C-21 is being supported by the Bloc and the New Democrats. We have seen amendments that have been brought forward. It is good, healthy and stronger legislation as a direct result. It is a little bit more than the legislation, which is good.
One of the interesting stats that I heard about had to do with border crossings as 1,200 illegal guns were acquired last year, in addition to 73,000 other weapons. Would the member not agree that it is good we bring forward legislation such as this through budgetary measures to support our law enforcement officers so that they are better equipped and supported in dealing with getting illegal guns off the street?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member has put on the record, but I would like to emphasize that, as a government, it is more than just the legislation. She expresses a little bit of disappointment. Maybe I can give her some words of encouragement.
We have seen, for example, a very high number of guns being confiscated at the border in the year before. I would suggest that this was probably one of the higher years of gun confiscations that we have seen, maybe, in the last decade-plus. I think that we have seen budgetary measures that support our border controls, as well as enhancements for law enforcement officers. There has been the legislation that we are talking about today. I think that, for the first time in a long time, we actually have a government that understands the issue, and 84% of Canadians, through a Leger poll, are indicating that the Government of Canada is on the right track.
Could she provide her thoughts in regard to the overall approach of the government in dealing with this very serious issue?
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, right off, I would mention the issue of ghost guns. That is a growing issue that has been raised by law enforcement officers all over the country. I believe this is a great attempt to deal with that specific issue.
I want to pick up on the member's comments that there has been a great deal of co-operation, in good part because of the NDP and the Bloc. We have seen stronger, healthier legislation than when it was first introduced. It goes to show that if the opposition works with the government and the government works with the opposition, we can have better legislation. We do appreciate that support.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:37:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have confidence that our law enforcement agencies, the RCMP and our Department of Justice, along with the professional civil servants who are there, will provide the services needed. I suspect that if the grounds and evidence are there, we will see action taken by the government. We have witnessed, over the last number of years as a government, that we have protocols and procedures. We have the checks in place to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability in the government and the private sector to ensure that Canadians' best interests are being served.
As the member knows full well, on the issues that Canadians are very much concerned about, the government will ensure that Canadians are well served.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/10/23 10:26:05 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Madam Speaker, from my understanding of the legislation, the member is quite correct. This legislation is a wonderful tool that would enable Canada to support that enforcement. My New Democrat colleague wants to ensure enforcement, and this goes a long way in supporting that.
We want people to know that there is inappropriate, inhumane behaviour taking place, and that sort of behaviour is not acceptable. We do not want individuals of that nature coming to Canada and, for those who are already in Canada, it would enable us to get them out of Canada.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/10/23 10:24:21 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Madam Speaker, part of it is ensuring we have the appropriate tools in place. That is one of the nice things about the legislation. That would be one of the tools on the tool belt that will enable us to enforce the sanctions. We are enabling Canada border control and immigration to be able to deal with some of the sanctions.
The member is wrong to try to give the impression that there is no enforcement. There is enforcement that is in place. There is a real impact. To say that there is nothing is just not true. Canada continues to work with our allied countries. The sanctions that are being put in place, not only by Canada but also by like-minded countries around the world, are having a real, tangible impact on Russia.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:47:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will get another opportunity at a future time to talk about the type of legacy that this government and the Prime Minister will be able to leave, but for now, with regard to the Emergencies Act, it is important for us to recognize that by enacting it, we have enabled people like the interim chief of police here in Ottawa and other law enforcement agencies to access laws that will assist them in dealing with things such as the illegal blockade. We know that for a fact, and there are many individuals out there who support this initiative.
My question for my friend is this: Does he not see the benefit of having targeted actions taken, such as not being able to use children as a form of blockade and having additional fines in place to protect our borders for international trade and downtowns from being blockaded in the future, if in fact that were—
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:29:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act has already demonstrated that it can be effective. Law enforcement officers are, in fact, using it and it is being effective. We are very much concerned about the blockades shutting down downtown Ottawa and the blockades that have affected hundreds of millions of dollars in international trade on our trade corridors, and about the impact they are having today and will have into the future. These are very serious. We are talking about jobs and we are talking about health conditions. There are so many reasons to do this.
Does the member believe that law enforcement officers are wrong today for using the tool we are providing them? Are our law enforcement officers offside with Parliament?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:54:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give a good example. Yesterday, or maybe it was Tuesday, when I was walking down to Parliament Hill, a police officer was meeting with some of the individual protesters and handing out a piece of paper.
As I walking by, he was referencing the Emergencies Act. This is another tool for law enforcement agencies to be able to ensure that the illegal blockades and protests come to an end. That is why we have it before us today. There are measures within it, such as a standing committee to review it on an ongoing basis. We will also have an inquiry, once all is said and done. There are all sorts of transparency and accountability mechanisms to make sure that it is not abused.
It is a wonderful tool and it can be effective.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
