- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Justice
Attorney General of Canada
- Liberal
- Parkdale—High Park
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $120,537.19
- Government Page
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:39:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I am very concerned about is the use of firearms in offences and that is why we have taken significant action on assault rifles—
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I have several answers to give on this matter. The big difference between the senator's bill and Bill C‑63 is that our bill had the benefit of a five-year consultation. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that, although we agree with some aspects, we want to work in close collaboration with the big digital companies to resolve the situation and protect the public and children from pornography. Taking down that information and content within a mandatory 24-hour period is a much stronger measure than what was proposed in the bill introduced by the senator.
The last thing is that we are targeting a situation where all harmful online content needs to be addressed. This concerns children, teenagers and adults. We want a big solution to a big problem. Australia started nine years ago with children only. Nine years later, protecting children only is no longer appropriate—
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 2:42:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are firmly committed to participating in these important national discussions that have a major impact on all Canadians, discussions about issues affecting our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
As we have said many times, we have serious concerns about the pre-emptive usage of the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the charter. The first word should not be the last word in the dialogue between the legislative assemblies and the courts.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:41:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and I have said, we are firmly committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression and religion and the right to equality.
We have also said on a number of occasions that we have serious concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. If this case goes to the Supreme Court, our government will be there to intervene.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:40:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and I have already said, our government is committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression and religion and the right to equality.
We have also said on a number of occasions that our government has clearly expressed serious concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. If this case goes to the Supreme Court, our government will intervene.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:39:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that our government is firmly committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression and religion and the right to equality.
Our government has clearly expressed serious concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause on a number of occasions as well. If this case goes to the Supreme Court, we will be there to intervene.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 10:33:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite, but I think his comments reflect something that was raised also by the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.
Just to be clear for Canadians, if we do not proceed expeditiously in this chamber and in the Senate, the law will change on March 17 so as to allow medical assistance in dying for people who have mental illness as the sole underlying condition.
If the member for Tobique—Mactaquac is concerned about supports for those who are mentally ill, and I believe he has that concern, then what he should be doing is working with us collaboratively to ensure passage of the bill to prevent that situation from arising. The logical premise of his question is false.
What we are doing is proceeding expeditiously as a responsible government after hearing from the joint mixed committee of MPs and senators about the need to put a pause on this. We would be putting a pause on it. We presented the legislation expeditiously and are seeking passage of the legislation expeditiously.
As we have have heard from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, in this context even she is making an exception to her principled approach towards closure in order to invoke closure so we can get the bill done and protect Canadians. Fundamentally, my job as Minister of Justice is to do just that, and I will not be deterred in that task.
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her comments and her kind words.
I would say to her point-blank that the answer to her question is yes. What I know, as a representative of a community, one of 338 communities represented in the House, is that people are feeling that crime is a problem. Crime is up. I have seen that in my own riding with respect to violence on transit systems. I have heard that from parents like me who are concerned about the welfare of their children. It is what I have seen over the past month looking at the anecdotal evidence. I have also seen it married with statistics that demonstrate that exact fact.
Crime is up. We are looking to address the fact that people are feeling these concerns. That is why this bill is needed now more than ever, not just to be debated in the House but also to be passed. That is fundamentally why I pushed for it to be prioritized on the legislative calendar.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, obviously we have a very strong philosophical and principle difference on this issue. As a basic proposition, I would put to him that Canadians' safety is improved when we restrict the number of firearms in circulation. Any efforts in that regard, of which this bill is one, will benefit Canadians' safety. That is my first point.
The second point is that I do not dispute that there are concerns with the border. That is what I identified in my opening intervention. When issues come up about supporting the CBSA and RCMP at the border, in terms of their ability to intercept weapons, I hope this time the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and his colleagues on the Conservative benches will vote in favour of those investments instead of opposing them.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, believe me, I share the member's concerns about Russia Today and Sputnik. I will be very candid with her in saying that we have an issue and have raised it with the CRTC. It is ultimately the independent regulator, but I am very confident and pleased by the fact that Bell, Rogers and Telus have all committed to removing Russia Today from access in Canada.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:02:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Edmonton Griesbach to the House. I admit to some extreme concern when members of the official opposition have actually belittled the concerns of other parliamentarians who do not share his particular demographic and the fears that they might be experiencing.
I want to ask the hon. member something, as a man who is an indigenous advocate and as a man who is indigenous himself. When he sees people who are being arrested assaulting the police officers, throwing bikes at police horses and attempting to remove weapons from police officers, can he contemplate how that kind of response would have been met had those protesters been Black, indigenous or people of colour? Could he perhaps discuss, with some further clarity, how the response would differ?
I firmly believe it would have differed. We need to move forward and really rethink how we are doing policing, notwithstanding the tremendous work that our law enforcement officials are attempting to do in this country right now.
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:36:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Centre for his remarks. By way of a brief rebuttal, I would simply say that the powers used under the Emergencies Act declaration were used most recently as February 16 in Windsor to thwart an attempted resurrection of a blockade. If the member's concern is with investment in this country, I would say the blockades actually threaten the investment climate in this country.
My point is in response to something he raised to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said we should not be stigmatizing, and I agree with him. However, when far-right elements, including a group called Diagolon, are actively involved with arming themselves and carrying ammunition and body armour to blockade the border at Coutts, and when that results in four arrests for conspiracy to commit murder and ongoing investigations as to whether that group has links to groups raising swastikas and Confederate flags here in Ottawa and the blockade in Ottawa continues, I think we do have an ongoing threat that needs to be resolved.
Can the member comment on that response?
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
