House of Commons Hansard #44 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, part (c) of our motion recognizes that the entire industry is standing together to call for the problem to be resolved immediately.

I just want to draw the attention of my colleague from Windsor West to the quote from Mr. Peter Gould, who is the general manager and chief executive officer of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. He said, “...effective border control is the foundation of a successful supply management system, of a strong domestic dairy industry, and that is the pillar in supply management that the federal government has the sole responsibility for”.

I wonder if my colleague can comment on the fact that it is lamentable that not only is the dairy association standing up, but so is the legislative branch standing up to the executive and reminding it of its responsibilities.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent question. That is how unified this is with regard to the concerns, because so much is at stake. Once we actually lose our competitive ability to have safe, viable products, we then become vulnerable from that. There are also other side things that take place, and the member is right to point out the border.

I would argue that there is another one, and that is cheese. We have seen that with pizzas being shipped in and getting through the screens. Canadian cheese producers have been losing a lot of money over the years because of this import element. They have a loophole and they send it through in a cheaper and unregulated way.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind the member before I acknowledge him, that at 5:15 I will have to interrupt the debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address a very important issue. There is no doubt that there are hard feelings and a lot of passion for dairy farmers. It is a very difficult time, and that difficult time has not just been for the last days but for the last number of years. There have been certain activities, which we have heard a great deal about all day today, that have been causing a great deal of frustration.

I have had the opportunity to visit dairy farms in the past, and I believe in supply management. I believe in the quality of product that Canada's dairy farmers have produced for many years. I would ultimately argue it is some of the best, if not the best, product in the world. In good part, it is because of the whole supply management system, something which the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and other members have talked eloquently about, not only about how important it is to the Liberal Party but to the Government of Canada.

I am very much in tune with the threat to the industry, but it is important to recognize that the issue we are talking about today is before us because three or four years ago, the then Conservative government decided to stand by and ignore the law in essence. It allowed for this to take place. It has come to the point where there is a lot of stress and anxiety within the dairy industry, and it wants action to be taken.

Yes, Liberals were elected six months ago, and it took a month for the transition of power. Yes, we have been in government now for five months, and we have accomplished a great deal in that time. A month or so ago, someone in a restaurant said to me, “Kevin, the current Prime Minister has done more in three months for Canada than the previous prime minister did in 10 years.” We are moving forward on a multitude of fronts, and we recognize that this issue is very important. We truly care about the farming community, particularly the stress on dairy farmers.

As the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge pointed out, it is not as simple as saying that we should stop it right now, today. It just cannot be done. It has to work its way through. We understand that, and I believe the Conservatives understand that. I do not know about the understanding of the New Democrats. It can be very difficult to understand their thinking process at times. However, they were the official opposition when this issue first came up, and there was not a word. I did not hear the leader of the official opposition talk about it when he could have asked dozens of questions every day or used one of the numerous opposition days.

The dairy farmers came to Ottawa, asked the NDP caucus to get more engaged, and the New Democrats brought forward the motion. I applaud them for bringing forward the motion. Let us have a healthy debate today, but do not try to give the impression that New Democrats are the only ones who care about the dairy industry, because that is a false impression. I can say that Liberal members, the Liberal caucus, and this government cares about the dairy industry, and that is why we are working with the stakeholders to try to resolve the problem.

When the government and both opposition parties had the opportunity to listen to what the dairy farmers and the industry had to say the other day in committee, what did the opposition parties do? They filibustered and prevented the industry representatives from making presentations on that important industry.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

An hon. member

Shame.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. Shame on the opposition parties for doing that.

Then, a member of the Liberal government put forward an amendment that I would have thought would have been perceived as good for the industry. It was something that would have actually made a difference. It showed that all members of the House are concerned. I believe that members who have been debating this particular issue are genuinely concerned about the dairy industry. What did the Liberal Party, the government, and this Liberal member do? They put forward an amendment.

What was the amendment? It said that the House should recognize the magnitude of the economic losses to Canadian dairy producers from the importation of diafiltered milk, which has steadily increased over the last number of years.

That is a fact. Everyone of us agrees with that. It went on to say that the House should recognize that the industry is calling for the problem to be resolved.

We on this side of the House know that, and if they would have allowed the representative to speak the other day, they would have heard—

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the rule of relevance, I would like to ask my colleague to be honest and to tell the truth, which is that, in fact, their amendment—

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

That is not a point of order.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed. The member might not like what I am saying, but at least allow me to say it. That is definitely not a point of order.

The second point was to recognize that the industry is calling for the problem to be resolved.

Had the New Democrats and Conservatives allowed those representatives to present at committee, they would have heard some comments in regard to what we are debating today, but they chose to filibuster and not allow the representatives to state their concerns to the government standing committee, which has members from all parties on the committee.

It went on to say that government should work together with the industry to find a long-term, sustainable solution.

This is something which ultimately—

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Sorry, there is a point of order.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I believe that the hon. member is debating an amendment that is not on the floor of the House. If he would like to—

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind the members that there is some latitude when individuals are debating, and therefore the member is speaking to the question.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate that the NDP used the word “shame” earlier. The members should feel shameful of their behaviour in terms of trying to be transparent and straightforward on what is such an important issue.

We have recognized that, and we have been advocating that we need to develop a long-term solution that is workable. That is something which the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers of this government, in fact the agricultural committee and others ultimately want to see.

At the end of the day, we recognize the valuable contributions that our dairy industry provides to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. As I indicated, the quality of product that comes from our dairy producers is second to no other in the world, and it is something in which Liberals will continue to fight for to ensure that we do have a healthy industry going forward.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 3, 2016, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I believe if you were to canvass the House, you would likely find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Do we have unanimous consent?

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy IndustryBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

moved that Bill C-242, an act to amend the Criminal Code (inflicting torture), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I stand today to formerly address my private member's bill, Bill C-242, an act to amend the Criminal Code (inflicting torture).

After being drawn ninth in the private members' bill lottery, I felt a responsibility to take advantage of this good fortune by putting forward a meaningful reform. I might have sought for a particular cause to be given special recognition or to have a forgotten historical event commemorated. Such initiatives certainly have their place, yet I felt the need to go in a different direction.

Bill C-242 is a human rights bill that aims to add a torture offence to the Canadian Criminal Code.

Article 5 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

While a torture offence exists in section 269.1 of the Criminal Code, it only applies to acts perpetrated by state officials. Equivalent acts that would otherwise be defined as torture but committed by private individuals acting outside of state authority are instead typically considered to constitute the offence of aggravated assault under section 268. The proposed reform will pertain to those acts of brutality that may be life-threatening and far exceed instances of aggravated assault, a charge that can apply to serious and trivial acts of violence. Section 268 is therefore insufficient.

Torturers aim to rob individuals of their dignity through the intentional and repeated infliction of severe pain, suffering and humiliation over a prolonged period of time for the purpose of intimidation and coercion. These actions have no place in a free, open and democratic society such as Canada.

For critics, the current charges available in the Criminal Code have been said to be sufficient. They believe that existing laws can adequately be applied when torture offences take place. I have already mentioned aggravated assault. Other possibilities include assault, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, sexual assault offences, and aggravated sexual assault.

Judges indeed may have the ability to impose sentences that account for aggravating factors when the offence has had a particularly difficult impact on the victim. I understand this argument, but do not accept it. True, it does not deny that torture committed in the private realm can happen, yet it also implies the problem is exaggerated and that existing laws are good enough. Tell that to the victims of torture.

Existing offences are in place and can be used to prosecute perpetrators, I agree. However, they are inadequate because they do not acknowledge that torture has been endured, unspeakable acts, heinous acts, acts so terrible that everyone in the House would be left shaking their heads in absolute disgust. A gap in our Criminal Code therefore exists. Ignoring it does a disservice to the victims of torture.

I will only point to a few examples, and there are many others, that have occurred in recent years. The details while difficult are important.

In 2006, a Calgary man was made to take off his clothes and had his hands and feet tied with cables. He was then left to hang from ceiling joists while his torturers punched, cut and whipped him with a belt before spraying him with butane. This happened over a period of days. Two individuals were found responsible. The first was a youth who could not be sentenced in adult court. The second pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, and a mere two years was given in what amounted to an example of torture.

In 2008, a Brampton man had his toe cut off, was beaten with a bat, cut multiple times with salt rubbed in his wounds, and had a plastic bag put over his head. This took place over several hours and seemed to have been done with the intent of obtaining information about a theft. The individual who carried out the action was found guilty of aggravated assault and forcible confinement and given a sentence of less than 10 years. The more appropriate choice would have been torture, because that is what took place. In fact, the judge used the word “torture” to describe the victim's experience.

In 2010, Dustin Paxton beat, starved, burned, and cut off the lip and part of the tongue of his victim in a well-known Alberta case. This seemed to have happened for perhaps as long as two years. While a dangerous offender designation was assigned by the courts, Paxton was charged with aggravated and sexual assault even though torture more properly captures what happened.

I have one final example. I received a call to my constituency office recently from a woman who told me that she lived through some of the most despicable actions that anyone could imagine. Her childhood was so terrible that she felt the need to flee to the United States, where she now lives. This was necessary in order to gain the sense of security that she so desperately needed. In repeated acts of torture, this young woman was tied up, hung upside down, and had objects, such as a cattle prod, used against her.

Though extremely hard to hear, the reality that our society requires a charge of torture to be put into the Criminal Code is evident from the cases I have described throughout.

The need to call crimes what they are is not simply an academic matter. In order for victims to heal, their suffering must be acknowledged. Indeed, this fact underlined the truth and reconciliation process on residential schools, and is a basic human rights principle.

Using terms such as “aggravated assault”, which can be applied to the above cases just as easily as it can be to a fist fight, does not adequately speak to the grave human rights abuses that have been committed.

This is why the bill proposes a sentence of up to life imprisonment for those who carry out torture. Some will criticize the bill on this basis because the existing state torture law only offers a maximum of 14 years. It is true that this is inconsistent and I believe strongly that a much stiffer sentence for acts of state torture is certainly warranted.

However, rather than aiming to do everything and, hence, nothing, I have placed my focus on a gap that has been almost completely disregarded by Canadian legislators until this point. I did so after consulting with victims, their families, justice department officials, and civil society organizations.

The legislation was drafted by expert bureaucrats trained in the law. I value the support they have provided and the passion they show for their work every day.

The same line of reasoning applies to the issue of aggravated assault. The maximum penalty for aggravated assault is 14 years. This is appropriate, I admit, for most violations. However, when torture more properly describes the offence, a much harsher penalty is warranted.

Furthermore, it is true that torture from an international legal perspective has traditionally been understood as a state crime. I respect this, but add that the definition of torture has shifted. The Committee Against Torture, for example, which is responsible for monitoring the UN torture convention of which Canada is a signatory, has said that torture in the private sphere qualifies as torture.

This view has been accepted by other states. The proposed legislation shares much in common with existing torture laws in Australia and France. Both countries, extremely important allies, have strong torture laws that apply to state and private actors. Canada should follow suit. Recognizing such a change would acknowledge the ordeal experienced by those who have suffered torture and punish torturers accordingly.

Cases of extreme violence and inhumane conduct have happened in Canada and could take place again. Canadians deserve a government that will stand up for their rights and safety at all times. Previous governments had an opportunity to make this change but failed to do. It is time to act and make positive change happen.

This is not perfect legislation, and I am not sure any piece of legislation is ever perfect. However, I want to assure all my colleagues in the House that I am open to any potential amendments that could be examined by the justice committee. This includes lowering the term of punishment and any other concerns that may exist. It would be a sincere shame to have this important bill defeated because of concerns related to technicalities which could easily be altered.

I ask my colleagues, before making a final decision, that they consider these important factors. If they believe that human rights matter, if they believe that torture has no place in our society because it robs individuals of their humanity and dignity, if they believe that the way to ensure public safety is not by building more jails or through the politics of division and fear but through enshrining human rights principles into the law, then I urge them to vote in favour of Bill C-242 for all of these reasons, and allow it to go to committee where it can be further examined.

This bill is not about me and has never been about me. Indeed, this is the most important point I want to make today. I dedicate this bill to all victims of torture. Their voice matters. I have listened to them. Their suffering cannot go unacknowledged any longer, and I will continue to fight for them.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Casey Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for London North Centre, who has worked very hard on this bill. He is truly motivated by the highest standards and his dedication to human rights. I am moved by his focus on this bill and his intent and determination.

I support the bill, but I would like clarification. The member said that he was open to amendments, but perhaps he could elaborate on the extent of amendments. Some people do not support the bill as it is. It is a very meaningful bill that would have a lot of impact. However, if members have concerns, would the member consider amendments when it goes to the justice committee?

I hope to participate in the debate later on, but I want to clarify that one point on potential amendments.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am open to amendments. I would invite colleagues to allow this bill to move to committee where it can be studied.

In particular, on the concerns around sentencing, I am open to having the sentence lowered. In this private member's bill, I have called for a punishment of up to life in prison. I believe that is warranted in these cases, and members heard me describe the examples. There are obviously very egregious acts of violence that, in my humble opinion, warrant a term of up to life in prison. However, if that is not the view of colleagues, I am open to having that amendment made and having the justice committee look at that.

Beyond that, on definitional issues around torture, I am even open to that, as long as the underlying principle of the offence is understood and recognized.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for London North Centre on the passionate and vital initiative before us today.

I am very pleased to hear him reiterate his willingness to have amendments considered at the justice committee. I would agree with him that no piece of legislation is perfect, and there often can be changes made at the justice committee. I sit on that committee, and I would be very happy to assist in any way I can to ensure the bill is palatable.

The member mentioned one amendment in response to my colleague's question concerning harmonization of sentences. If there are problems in harmonizing this initiative on domestic torture with state torture, would he be prepared to perhaps remove the word “torture” should there be any ambiguity in simply reiterating the definition of “torture”, but maybe not use that word, should that give any cause for concern to the government of the day?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, as long as the underlying essence of the offence is recognized, in other words, the infliction of severe and prolonged pain and suffering for the purpose of intimidation and coercion. I am open to the justice committee looking at the definitional issues.

I know there are concerns around having this offence classified as torture and perhaps that impacting upon our international legal obligations. I respectfully disagree with that view, but it is something that the committee can examine.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member across the aisle on taking the bull by the horns and addressing such an important subject in his first bill. I also congratulate him on making the distinction between a bill like his and other kinds of bills that members can introduce, which often seem somewhat frivolous. My colleague is talking about a very fundamental issue here.

I have a question for the member. I am not a legal expert or a lawyer. What charge is the closest to what my colleague is trying to introduce as a new offence?