Information & Ethics Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Hang on a second.

After reviewing the amendment, Mr. Housefather, I am going to rule it in order.

I'll accept the challenge. If that's what you'd like, go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Madam Clerk, we have a challenge to my ruling on the amendment.

Please call the vote on the question: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 4)

I'm going to continue on the motion.

Mr. Kurek, I see your hand. I'm going to get back to you. I'll put you on the list.

Mr. Barrett is next. Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

With respect to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition on using section 33, the notwithstanding clause, it's important to note that section 33 is section 33 of the charter. Of course it's legal. Of course it's part of the charter for a reason. Once used, the laws in question are, of course, constitutional.

When we're talking about the rationale for using the notwithstanding clause.... Look, as my colleague, Mr. Kurek, pointed out, when you have someone like the Quebec City mosque shooter who stormed a place of worship, who murdered in cold blood six innocent worshippers in a place where they must have felt safe—we have to feel safe when we go to our places of worship—the violation of that sanctity can't be overstated. For the heinous disregard for the lives of the victims in that terrible event—I'm not going to use the name because they don't deserve the notoriety they were seeking—what the shooter deserves is to spend the rest of their natural life in maximum-security prison. What we've seen is that's not the reality that the individual is going to have to live with.

What are the other options? They'll go to medium security, and then they'll end up with a security override and they'll be in minimum security, and they'll be living in a townhouse with other offenders on a street where there are no walls and no barbed wire.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Minimum security is not a townhouse in communities. We can at least stick to the facts here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

This is debate, Ms. Damoff.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Chair, I would say this to Ms. Damoff. I'd invite her to go to Pittsburgh Institution, just outside my riding, where the minimum-security inmates live in townhouses. They have a shared kitchen. There's a single door handle lock on the door. There are no alarms on the windows. They wear jeans and T-shirts on the weekends and walk, of their own volition, down to the lake and go fishing. There's no fence to keep them in, and there are lots more of them than there are guards.

Do you know how I know that? I was there two weeks ago. I walked in. There was no fence, and there's nothing to keep them in. For the individuals who are in there, multiple security overrides have been used. They're not minimum-security offenders. There's just no room for them.

We have people who should be serving sentences in more restrictive conditions but are living in a townhouse. The pork chops were thawing on the counter when I went inside. I opened the fridge and it was jammed full of food—fresh fruit, fresh vegetables. One of the residents of the townhome was sitting watching TV and welcomed me in. His compatriots were not working for the day. They were sitting on the step, just enjoying the sun on their faces.

That's what we can expect when we don't have a framework in place. The individual I referenced before, who perpetrated a heinous crime, ought not to leave maximum security save for in a pine box.

That's what we're talking about when we talk about the use of the notwithstanding clause.

The Leader of the Opposition has been explicit about that. If anyone missed that, I'm reiterating it right now. That's exactly the type of criminal justice use that is required.

We know that minimum-security escapees, inmates who have been in maximum-security and had security overrides down to medium security and down to minimum, have just walked off site and perpetrated more heinous offences, made more victims of those who live in the communities around there.

That's not our expectation.

We had a point of order moved by the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, now in a different parliamentary secretary portfolio.

It is a matter of public record that minimum-security inmates have been able to walk off. In the last couple of weeks, I have verified, with my own eyes, the conditions that these inmates live in. I was surprised that I live so close. I know that people who work at this institution live in my community. I had no idea that these were the conditions that exist at our minimum-security facilities. That says nothing of what I observed and the poor conditions in our medium-security facilities or our assessment facilities, or for our maximum-security inmates.

The reality for Canadians is that what we expect is going to happen when justice is done isn't necessarily the reality. We have seen this. I have a list now of examples of escapes that have resulted in more crimes being perpetrated on people in their communities. That's why it's so important.

We have to remember that our rights as Canadians deserve to be protected and respected. When we have this imbalance that begins to take form, begins to take shape, where the rights of the accused and the rights of the convicted, of the guilty, are given higher order than those of victims and those of innocent Canadians writ large, I'm frankly not comfortable with that.

While there's a cry that this is some kind of hidden agenda, well, it's not very hidden. The Leader of the Opposition stood up in front of a room full of police officers and said that there needs to be reform to some criminal justice laws. When pressed for more information, he said that the type of criminal justice reform that was previously proposed, where we would have consecutive sentencing for individuals who commit heinous crimes, should be restored.

We've seen section 33 used before, and I won't pronounce on the acceptability or the appropriateness of its use, but I will speak to my comfort with this proposal. I think that this is peak transparency. This is peak transparency to have the Leader of the Opposition, in a minority Parliament context, tell Canadians that he's ready for an election today, and if he is elected, we will stop putting the so-called “rights” of people like the individual I mentioned before, who perpetrated a heinous crime.... He needs to stay in maximum security. He shouldn't get out and shouldn't have the privileges that a medium-security situation offers. I'm very comfortable with that. I'm very comfortable with the proposal from the Leader of the Opposition.

It's going to become more important, and it's eminently reasonable for us to pronounce on what we would do. Should the committee make a statement that we recognize the importance of the charter, including section 33, the notwithstanding clause, to protect the rights of all Canadians, including their right to privacy? I could see us getting there. That's reasonable. I think that's fair.

What I haven't heard, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, is them seeking to repeal section 33. If there's this great discomfort with the notwithstanding clause, repeal it. You're in government. You have a majority. Stack the Senate with Liberal appointees and just take it out. There hasn't been any talk of that, nor a challenge. Well, it depends on the provinces as to whether or not they want to challenge its use.

This is very important when we consider what kind of country we want to live in. I'm very comfortable in saying that I want to live in a country where people who commit the most heinous offences stay in maximum-security prisons for their natural lives. The beautiful thing about a democracy is that people who don't like that have the opportunity to have their say. That's the beautiful thing about our democracy.

Mr. Kurek spoke very well about the contortions that one has to bend themselves into to say that everyone who voted for the bill to protect minors from pornography is somehow looking to further a digital ID, a single digital ID. I don't think that's reasonable, but I don't think the intention was for this to be reasonable. It was supposed to be outrageous, but I'm not outraged. I'm happy to speak to it. The digital ID that the Privacy Commissioner talked about, when he was here earlier, spoke to a single digital ID to access government services, so for those of my colleagues in the Bloc and in the NDP who are considering this motion, it's important to note that there has been no statement by the Conservative Party of Canada to require a digital ID to access content on the Internet. That's patently false. We often hear talk from this committee about being serious in our proposals and making sure that we're being logical and ethical, but that, of course, was never said. What we said is that minors shouldn't be victimized by companies who operate sites like the crime scene that is Pornhub.

We talked in this committee about bullying, online bullying and the effects of social media on young people. Young people in schools have often seen revenge porn or had non-consensual sexual images of themselves being shared online and finding their ways onto these sites, sites like Pornhub. To say that we want to protect children from these very dark and truly dangerous places on the Internet is.... We've been transparent about what it is that we want to do, and to say that it's nefarious and that it's going to have some other purpose, like a one-size-fits-all digital ID, is disingenuous.

Again, I think the intention was for it to be outrageous and disingenuous. I'm very comfortable...and that's why I voted for the idea that it would be a requirement to have age verification to access pornographic material online, because it's necessary to protect children. I can't see where the controversy is with that. There's never been any proposal. I think Mr. Kurek spoke to the number of options that were discussed in the studying of the legislation, but no one serious or credible said that the sites in question, like Pornhub, would be entrusted with people's personal information. As I said before, it's a crime scene, and what is allowed to go on there is criminal.

Protecting children, I think, is reasonable and important. It's more than just a part of my job as a parliamentarian; it's part of my job as a member of society, and so too I believe it's a part of my job as a member of society to protect people from the types of heinous monsters who seem to find their way into minimum security and then go and commit capital crimes, the worst kinds of crimes, like murder, after walking off camp. We're not talking 50 years ago. We're talking in recent years.

It's a question of what kind of place we want to live in. Do we want to live in a place where we have children being exposed to the sharing of non-consensual, sexually exploitive material that victimizes some of their peers and is monetized by monsters like those that run Pornhub?

Can we take a step like requiring the use of age verification to limit the exposure and the risk for children? I think that's important.

To try to conflate it into something else, because there's maybe a belief that we wouldn't want to talk about it.... I'm actually eager to talk about it. I think there should be more conversations about what's happening to children, what our role is and if we want to be complicit, because failure to take action when there are options in front of you would make one complicit.

As I said before, do I support the idea of making a statement to the House that we recognize, as a committee, the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the notwithstanding clause, or all parts of the charter to protect the rights of all Canadians, including the right to privacy? Yeah, I think so.

I think I'd move an amendment to that effect, Chair. I'm not going to pull the trigger on that at this moment, because I'd like to work on it, but I think that's where I would go with it.

With respect to the use of the notwithstanding clause, or perhaps to add the context of the proposed use of the notwithstanding clause to make sure that the type of monsters I mentioned before—again, I'm being vague so as not to glorify the individual or the crime. I don't want to keep saying it, because it truly is horrible. Individuals like that who perpetrate crimes like that need to be locked up for the duration of their natural life.

If we want to add the context of what the Leader of the Opposition's comments were, that's an amendment I would consider, and I'd be interested if colleagues were interested in supporting what he said. If they want to offer a quote, they can offer a quote from me. I've made them in the House and outside the House specifically with respect to the use of the notwithstanding clause as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, and also there's the context on the use of age verification to protect children from pornography and the sharing of non-consensual or sexually exploitive materials. I think that the context in both of those examples would be useful.

Further—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Barrett, you're going to have the floor, but I'm going to suspend for five minutes, because I have to confer with the clerk.

I'm going to suspend for five minutes, and then I'm going to come back to you after that, if you don't mind.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'll work on my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting back to order.

When we left, Mr. Barrett had the floor.

The floor is still yours, Mr. Barrett. Go ahead, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You move to adjourn.

Okay, do we have consensus to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, I'm going to call the vote.

Madam Clerk, if you don't mind....

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

The motion fails.

Mr. Barrett, do you still...?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I just thought, since it was the end of our scheduled time.... It's 1:30 p.m. I heard that folks had places to be.

Look, while I have an amendment to prepare, I just want to summarize my comments.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I thought we had suspended so that Mr. Barrett could draft his amendment. That was what our last wording was.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No, we suspended because I had to confer with the clerk, which I did. I resumed the meeting, and I gave the floor to Mr. Barrett. Mr. Barrett still has the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I just want to summarize, Mr. Chair.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

This is out of curiosity, so I mean no personal offence to Mr. Barrett. I'm just curious. When a motion to adjourn happens, would that not be the final....? Would that not mean that the member would have conceded his time to the speaking list, and it would go to the next speaker?

How do you move that motion and keep the floor, procedurally?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That is a very good question, Mr. Green.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm full of them, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, you know, I'm honestly not sure about that, Mr. Green, so I'm just going to consult with the clerk. However, in the meantime, Mr. Barrett has ceded the floor. He's given up his time, so I am now going to go to Mr. Brock. I will come back with some guidance on that.

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll allow you to be mindful of the clock. I know we have resources to two o'clock. I probably have at least two hours' worth of commentary and material to read out.

I start by sharing the initial commentary from my colleague, Mr. Kurek, on just how disappointed he was to hear the commentary from Ms. Khalid in terms of the framing of her motion and how shocked and disturbed she was. The hypocrisy from that member—and, quite frankly, the entire Liberal bench—on these two issues is just astounding. The lengths they will go to try to change the channel on where public opinion is with the Liberal Party of Canada and their leader, Justin Trudeau, really speaks to how low they have sunk, and the attempts they will make to try to fearmonger, to frighten and scare Canadians, are pretty much the entire playbook of the Liberal Party of Canada since Justin Trudeau became leader of the party. Literally, since 2013, it has all been about scaremongering.

Even before 2013, one can make the argument that going back to the 2004 and 2006 elections under PMs Martin and Chrétien, there were lengths they would go to to try to paint any leader of the Conservative Party of Canada as a bogeyman and suggest that Canadians ought to be fearful that there is somehow a hidden agenda, that they will say one thing and do another, which really is the playbook of Justin Trudeau and has been since he formed government in 2015.

It's more pronounced now because, let's face it, they're down 20-plus points in the polls. They have been down for well over a year—