- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Justice
Attorney General of Canada
- Liberal
- Parkdale—High Park
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $120,537.19
- Government Page
- May/30/24 3:00:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, the bill that the Bloc Québécois tabled today proposes using the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The opposition leader opened the floodgates last month when he stated that he would use the notwithstanding clause to trample on the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the charter.
Now we see another federal party deciding that the charter is optional. Nevertheless, our government will always protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the charter.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 9:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I appreciate that the member opposite is new to the House and I welcome him.
What I would indicate to him is that we have been spending some time talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would encourage him to look at the fact that constitutional protections apply to bail and are entrenched in section 11(e) of the charter.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 7:29:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are the party that invented the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We created it and passed it into law.
We are the party that will always stand by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that includes all charter rights and freedoms. We do not selectively choose some of them. We will defend every Canadian's rights under the charter, and not cavalierly invoke the notwithstanding clause.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 7:28:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to understand what the charter protects. It protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, lawful assembly and Canadians' right to equality. It also protects Canadians' right to be presumed innocent under the law. These are quite fundamental.
What I find absolutely cavalier and astonishing is that instead of speculation, we have the Leader of the Opposition, a man who would purport to one day trying to become prime minister, openly declaring that he would use a clause within that document to trample on those charter rights.
That is really quite astonishing. First, because it has never been done before at the federal level, and that is for good reason. With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we do not get to sort of cherry-pick which rights we are talking about and which rights we would purport to defend. The Leader of the Opposition talked about it in the context of criminal justice reform that he would purport to put in place.
Next, the charter deals with protections of things such as women's reproductive rights, Canadians' ability to marry the person they choose and their ability to use pronouns of their choice. These are fundamental rights for Canadians, and they deserve to be protected.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find this line of questioning quite fascinating, given that the main charter issue that is at issue in Bill C-63 deals with very sensitive issues about the protection of freedom of speech, which is protected under section 2(b).
What I will do is always maintain my oath under the Constitution to uphold the Constitution and people's charter rights. This individual works under a leader who has brandished the idea of using the notwithstanding clause to deprive people of their charter rights. Section 2(b) is subject to the notwithstanding clause.
If we are talking about who is actually committed to protecting people's freedoms, including freedom of speech, people on that side of the House should be looking at themselves in the mirror.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:11:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the charter protects our right to free expression. It protects our right to worship whom we choose. It protects our right to equality. It protects our right to be presumed innocent.
If we stand for freedom, we do not get to cherry-pick which rights and freedoms we defend, but that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has said he would do. He has openly declared that he would use the notwithstanding clause to trample on these very charter rights. No federal leader has ever done this in Canadian history.
Our government enacted the charter, our government stands by the charter, and we will always defend the charter rights and freedoms of every Canadian.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:27:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and our government have always said, we will be there to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter protects freedom of expression, but also freedom of religion and the right to equality.
That being said, if this ruling ends up at the Supreme Court of Canada, we will be there to intervene.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:26:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. Obviously, the Quebec Court of Appeal has just handed down its ruling. I will read it, and we will reflect on it.
However, I want to emphasize the same message that we have always emphasized. We will always be there to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If this decision goes to the Supreme Court, we will be there to intervene.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 10:30:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his contributions today and every day, particularly on the justice committee and on the joint mixed committee. I agree with him that this is probably the most challenging and personal issue that any of us has touched, particularly for those who were elected in the class of 2015, who have been dealing with this for the last eight years. Because what is at issue is so significant, because the consequences are so permanent by definition, it is critical to get it right and to proceed in a prudent manner.
Some of those things are outlined in the charter statement we have tabled in the House. It talks about the screening for decision-making capacity being particularly difficult in the context because of the symptoms of the person's condition or because their life experiences can impact their ability to understand and appreciate the decision they are about to make. Further, feelings of hopelessness and wishing to die are common symptoms of some mental illnesses, which can make it difficult for even an experienced practitioner to distinguish between a wish to die that is fully autonomous and considered, and something that is a symptom of one's personal illness.
Also, the course of a mental illness over time is very much less predictable than that of a physical illness. Last, and importantly, we do not have a record of evidence that has been built up in this country with respect to how the practice would unfold. Ensuring that we build up that record of evidence and that we build up the important curriculum and the uptake of that curriculum for the assessors and providers is critical.
For these and many other reasons, we are adopting a position that we would proceed responsibility, cautiously and prudently in three years' time with the initiative, but also reconvene the joint committee on which the member has sat so it can assess system readiness about two years from now, prior to the three-year deadline's coming to the fore.
350 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:37:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear, as the member for Calgary Shepard has read the material, as I hope everyone who is participating in this debate has read the material, that it talks about certain regulations, certain powers and certain prohibitions. One of the prohibitions is on assemblies that would lead to a breach of the peace, but what is important, and what the Prime Minister and every cabinet minister has said, is that everything that is undertaken under this emergency declaration must be done in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms talks about charter liberties. It also talks about limitations on such liberties that are saved under section 1. That is the important facet all Canadians must recognize, and that is the important facet under which we will operate as a government. That is what all parliamentarians must operate under, because the charter and those fundamental rights are sacrosanct in our democracy.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:26:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.
I rise today with some humility. I rise to speak not on behalf of a political party, because I firmly belief this issue cannot be partisan today. I rise not as a representative of a particular community, because I do not think it is a regional issue that we are discussing today. I rise today, in all sincerity, as a member of Parliament, as a member of this chamber, the House of Commons, committed to serving the public, to serving all Canadians in a genuine effort to do what is best for our country.
At this stage, I firmly believe that the only way to resolve the present threat that is facing this country is to declare a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act.
I want to start by talking about the charter. Let me state at the outset that the right to freedom of expression is sacrosanct in this country. It is entrenched in section 2(b) of the charter for a reason: because it is the hallmark of our democracy, and indeed of any democracy. It is the ability for citizens to voice their discontent, to challenge authority and to seek change. I do not deny any of this. To the contrary, I vigorously defend it. I also do not deny that the people gathered outside this very chamber right now, who have been on the streets of Ottawa for what is now 21 days, have legitimate grievances; criticisms of my government, of my party; perhaps even of me personally, which they have every right to air.
However, in our democracy, freedom of expression, while sacrosanct, is not absolute. This charter protection under section 2(b) extends toward lawful, peaceful protest; the charter does not protect illegal, violent blockades. It is the latter, unfortunately, that this protest has devolved into.
I want to reference Ottawa. How do I substantiate this assertion I just made? I substantiate it with the evidence I gathered with my own eyes and from the accounts of other parliamentarians that have been shared with me.
Far from seeing people exercising their constitutional rights to disagree vigorously with the government, we have instead seen intimidation, threats and harassment. We have seen deliberate nuisances being created by truck horns blowing at all hours of the day and night, rendering the city effectively uninhabitable for local residents. We have seen open displays of hatred, such as swastikas and Confederate flags, and acts of direct hatred when windows are smashed on coffee shops that dare to fly the pride flag. We have seen the desecration of national monuments, including our national war memorial. We have seen deliberate efforts to block the movement of people and goods by people intentionally disabling large vehicles and trucks by activating their air brakes or actually removing the tires from their vehicles. We have seen death threats follow toward an Ottawa tow trucking company accused of being complicit with police efforts to remove such disabled vehicles.
We have seen the shuttering of businesses in the entire downtown core, impeding residents' ability to work. It is puzzling, to say the least, to see protesters who claim to eschew lockdowns themselves causing Ottawa's downtown to enter into a lockdown for a period of now three weeks. We have seen intimidation and threats toward the media, again ironic for those who would be more ardent defenders of freedom of expression than even I am, in terms of what I have articulated. We have seen the active sabotage of 9-1-1 emergency call lines and even an attempted arson.
The protest ostensibly began over vaccine mandates. It has morphed into what resembles an occupation of the city by people who have openly declared on the public record that they are seeking to overthrow the government. That constitutes a complete breakdown of public order in Ottawa. Despite efforts from the Ottawa Police Service, law and order in the nation's capital have been impossible to maintain.
The evidence that I am outlining here extends beyond the nation's capital. Members have heard references to the borders. I want to address this now. What commenced as a protest targeting this city and this Parliament has emerged as a concerted effort to block our national border crossings and impede the flow of people and goods. In Texas and Florida and in other parts of the United States and indeed in other nations, foreign entities openly and publicly have declared their sympathy with the blockades and admitted to sending money and resources to help the blockades continue. Today the Anti-Defamation League showed a result of their analysis of the GiveSendGo website; it found 1,100 people in the United States who supported the January 6 insurrection last year actually donated money under GiveSendGo to these blockades. Just let that settle in for a moment, in terms of what the motivations are for such types of people.
The blockades that have emerged around the country are deliberately targeting critical infrastructure. We know about what happened at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and Detroit. The multi-day siege on Canada's busiest border crossing alone, and I am now wearing my hat as the parliamentary secretary for international trade, resulted in the suspension of nearly $400 million in daily trade between Canada and the United States, the cancellation of shifts at multiple auto plants in southern Ontario and an intervention by President Biden and the Governor of Michigan showing that confidence in Canada as a safe place to invest, do business and trade with is starting to erode.
Blockades have occurred in Surrey, Emerson and Coutts, Alberta. What should be startlingly alarming for every person in this chamber and every Canadian watching right now is that when members of the RCMP went to clear the Coutts border crossing, they made 13 arrests, including laying charges for conspiracy to commit murder. They found firearms, ammunition and body armour. That bore out certainly my worst fears, and I think all of our worst fears, that blockade protesters were armed and preparing for violent confrontation with law enforcement. The violence is continuing to ratchet up. We have had bomb threats at a Vancouver hospital as well as suspicious packages and language about hanging members of Parliament being sent to colleagues of mine from Nova Scotia.
I am laying this all out in such excruciating detail because there is a legal test that must be met when we are doing something that has not ever been done under this legislation or even in this country under antecedent legislation in 52 years. The test is high, as it should be, when we are considering a statute that temporarily permits the suspension of civil liberties.
What is the test? It is entrenched in section 3 of the Emergencies Act, which states:
a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
It is my fundamental belief that this high legal threshold has been met in this case. When we have a blockade laying siege to an entire city for 21 days and counting, intimidating, harassing and threatening locals and rendering a city uninhabitable, it is endangering the safety of Canadians. When those blockades limit the ability of medical first responders to respond quickly to emergencies, they are endangering the lives of those on the other end of those 911 calls. When factions armed with weapons and ammunition are blockading borders, they are directly endangering the lives of Canadians. When groups are deliberately blocking trade corridors with our single largest trading partner, grinding our border traffic to a halt, they are threatening the ability of the federal government to preserve our sovereignty and economic security. These are important.
In the last two minutes, I want to address some of the general objections we have heard, not just today but prior to this.
To those who say there is an overreach here, I say there are five checks that are important.
First, everything done by a government under the Emergencies Act must be done in accordance with the charter. That is entrenched in the preamble.
Second, all declarations are time-limited to 30 days and no more. In fact, it may be less, and hopefully it will be less in this context.
Third, the very act of declaring an emergency under the declaration must be reviewed by a committee of all members of Parliament and senators from all parties.
Fourth, the exercise of powers under the declaration must be reviewed by that committee.
Fifth, following the end of an emergency, a full inquiry must be held.
What we are doing is not a power grab and it is not the invocation of the War Measures Act; we are simply giving the RCMP the power to enforce local laws and work quickly with local law enforcement. We are not calling in the armed forces. We are not putting the RCMP or any other police force under the control of the government. Policing operational decisions remain independent, as they must in any democracy.
I am going to end with the right to protest, because people have asked about their children's rights to protest. I take this very seriously, because I myself have taken my children to protests. This law talks about the right to lawful protest. It is in entrenched in black and white. The measures we are contemplating would address or prohibit public assembly that is a threat leading to a breach of the peace; we are specifically carving out the right of lawful advocacy, protest and dissent.
I would say this to those who say the threats have been addressed: Windsor had an attempted blockade yesterday, and we know the protesters are returning to the Quebec National Assembly on February 19.
I will conclude with this sincere undertaking to the members of this chamber and all Canadians: I will do everything in my power to ensure that this act lasts for only as long as is absolutely necessary; I will do everything in my power to ensure that there is no overbreadth; I will do everything in my power to ensure that charter rights are always fundamentally protected. All members of Parliament should strive for nothing less.
1771 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:42:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech on CPAC as I was walking over here. I want to try to reduce the tone of this debate, so I will respectfully point out a couple of things.
First, what happened in Coutts, Alberta, is extremely concerning for any Canadian, and I presume all parliamentarians who are concerned about violence.
Second, people, including some outside of this very building, have openly called for the overthrow of a duly elected government, including an entity that is calling itself Canada Unity. I think that is direct evidence of an ideological imperative or agenda that is being pursued.
Last, I will gently point out one thing to the member opposite, and I appreciated his submissions, with all sincerity. All that is being extended here with respect to laws that are already compliant with section 8 of the charter, which relate to unreasonable search and seizure and FINTRAC, is ensuring that FINTRAC can be applied to cryptocurrency and crowdfunding sources. Is that not a necessary initiative given the foreign funding that is streaming into this country right now? If the member could—
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
