Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2017

Criminal Code

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the effort made by my colleague, who just advanced the clock in the House. I am very pleased that you heard the right time when he said it because it was a praiseworthy effort and it was very kind of him to speak to all of us in the House in French.

I am usually very happy to rise in the House to speak to different bills, whether they are government or private members' bills, as is the case this evening with the member for Nepean's Bill C-305. I will be very clear. I am unhappy to rise today not because of the substance of the bill, but because we have to pass a bill such as this one.

Sunday's tragic events in Quebec remind us that it is important to protect everyone living in this country from hate crimes. It is our role as parliamentarians to take action, as the member for Nepean is doing, so that we can intervene when such crimes occur.

Bill C-305 seeks to amend section 430 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the commission of mischief motivated by hate toward a group and targeting a religious property, be it a church, synagogue, temple or cemetery. Bill C-305 goes further, proposing to expand the scope of section 430 of the Criminal Code to include other types of property such as schools, other educational institutions, cultural or sports centres, seniors’ residences and other institutions.

As has been said, the bill could not be more welcome. It aims to fill a gap in section 430 of the Criminal Code. The fact is that, if a person motivated by hate against a particular group commits mischief against a religious property such as a place of worship, that person could be charged, prosecuted, and found guilty under section 430 of the Criminal Code. If the person is convicted he or she could be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

On the other hand, if that same person, being motivated by the same hate against the same group, should commit the same mischief, but against a school, a recreational facility, or a residence for seniors, that person could not be charged under section 430 of the Criminal Code and would not be liable to a maximum prison term of 10 years. That person would probably be prosecuted under the general mischief provisions of the Criminal Code, and be liable to a maximum sentence of two years.

Later in my speech I will describe one very specific case where the person was not given a prison term for an act of hatred such as this. The sad fact is that certain hate crimes are committed on a regular basis. According to Statistics Canada, nearly 1,300 hate crimes were reported in 2014. These were just the crimes that were reported. Statistics Canada informs us that the vast majority of hate crimes are not reported. People would rather not report them. They would rather not draw attention to this sort of crimes, not make them public knowledge, not deal with them, with the result that the intolerable is tolerated, to the point that acts that are even more violent are unfortunately committed. In 60% of cases, the crimes reported involved mischief.

I would like to read some excerpts from an article published on l'Actualité's website on January 31 following the tragic events in Quebec City. The title of the article is “Hate Crimes Targeting Religion on the Rise in Quebec”.

The article says:

...since Sunday, the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization and the Montreal police service have been receiving more calls than usual. Quebec's public safety ministry logged 93 hate crimes against all religions in 2014 compared to just 70 in 2010. Many of the crimes were mischief, which includes vandalism. The ministry was able to provide details about crimes against Muslims, but only for the past two years. It began keeping track of details about religion-related hate crimes in 2013 and reported that there were 20 hate crimes against Muslims that year. In 2014, that number increased by 15 to 35. According to Montreal police, hate crimes linked to religion are also on the rise. The police logged 55 in 2016 compared to 24 in 2013...

The article does not specify which religions were targeted, but I do not think that is what the debate is about. Whether they target a religion or a group, all such actions are totally unacceptable today. As I said, while many crimes or wrongdoings may not have been reported to police, not all wrongdoings that were reported led to criminal convictions.

The Montreal police service also indicated that it had received a number of calls early in the week from people denouncing hateful or Islamophobic comments on social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Some of those comments were even criminal in nature, including threats for example.

The good news is that since Sunday, people are paying more attention. People are reporting those comments; they are no longer tolerating them. Whether on Twitter or Facebook, on a church or a school, such comments should never be tolerated.

During that same period, the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence reported 14 hate incidents—targeting, for example, ethnic origin or sexual orientation—and 16 cases of Islamophobia, for a total of 30 cases. Of that number, only half were reported to police. Many people do not report hate crimes. “They are uncomfortable or nervous”, regrets the centre's director.

In Sherbrooke, in 2014, a local man committed hateful acts against a mosque and a store that sells halal products. He got a $500 fine for putting up signs that said, “no to Islam and yes to the charter”. He was referring to the Quebec government's proposed charter of values under then premier Pauline Marois. Worse yet, bullet holes were found in the windows of a grocery store owned by a Muslim in Sherbrooke. The individual was given a $500 fine and two years' probation.

More attention should have been paid to those incidents. They are indicative of a deep malaise and serious societal dysfunction. Those are things that needs to be addressed. Each of these incidents is important because we need to prevent them from escalating into a tragedy like the one that occurred on Sunday in Quebec City.

I rarely do this, but I would like to quote one of my colleagues opposite. The comments he made this week touched every member of the House. I would like to share the words of the member for Louis-Hébert with my constituents in Mégantic—L'Érable. His remarks were so eloquent that I will quote him directly. He said:

Today, I also want to ask their forgiveness, forgiveness for watching while, over the past few years, they were ostracized and stigmatized, while fear, mistrust, and hatred took root in the hearts of my fellow human beings. I did my best to do something about it, but I ask their forgiveness for not doing enough. Words have consequences, but so does silence.

I commend my colleague from Louis-Hébert for those remarks. As members of Parliament, we need to take note of what he said. Silence has consequences. As parliamentarians, failure to act in these situations also has consequences.

I am very pleased with the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Nepean because it breaks that silence. It helps us, as parliamentarians, do what we can to put an end to the hateful acts that are occurring in our country.

Bill C-305 adds to what we, as parliamentarians, can do to counter hate crimes. That is why I want to commend my colleague and tell him that I fully support this bill.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to join in the second reading debate of Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mischief, which was introduced in the House on September 27 by the member for Nepean.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Nepean for bringing this important issue before the chamber to give this Parliament an opportunity to speak to it.

I also want to thank and commend the member for Victoria and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for their remarks, which were very timely and appropriate as well.

We have been tragically reminded of the impact that hate in all of its manifestations can have on our society. The horrific attack on the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec on Sunday night, the hate-inspired acts of terror which occurred that evening taking six of our fellow citizens' lives, injuring so many, and tragically traumatizing a community and a nation must deepen our resolve to confront and prevent hate in all of its manifestations.

In my experience, the issue of hate does not immediately manifest itself in acts of terror and murder, but far more often is expressed in acts of mischief. Our failure as a society to confront and deal appropriately with these acts, to denounce them in our strongest forms, and to resolve them through appropriate serious consequence can have the effect of encouraging them through complacency. We are reminded of the importance of dealing with this issue.

As parliamentarians I believe we could all agree that hate crimes in all of their forms cannot be tolerated in our country. They are a fundamental attack on our values and our principles and on each and every one of our citizens. A crime of hate against any Canadian citizen is a crime of hate against all Canadian citizens.

Our charter of rights and freedoms guarantees that everyone in Canada has a right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and our government is committed to protecting that right. The amendments proposed by this bill would strengthen the message that hate crime will not be tolerated in Canada.

I would now like to turn briefly to where the current law stands in Canada. Currently, there is a specific hate crime of mischief committed against property primarily used for religious worship which is found in subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, mischief relating to religious property. It is a hate crime because the offence is only committed when such mischief is committed out of bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The maximum punishment for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment. Subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code was enacted as part of the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, which was also known at that time as Bill C-36.

Today, hate crime is restricted to property that is primarily used for religious worship, such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, and also includes cemeteries. However, during the committee hearings on Bill C-36, some witnesses, while approving of the creation of a specific hate crime of mischief, argued that the crime should be broader in scope, and if I may, I will cite some examples.

David Matas, lead counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, in his testimony at that time, argued that sex should be added to the list of hate motivations and also that the crime should be expanded to cover schools, organizational buildings, and cemeteries.

As well, on November 6, 2001, before the same committee, Mr. Ed Morgan, who was at that time chair of the Ontario region of the Canadian Jewish Congress, testified that all religious property should be protected by the hate crime mischief offence. He said:

Not just sanctuaries, not just synagogues or churches, but all religious structures, religious centres, religious schools, religious community centres, cemeteries—which are a particular target for hate crimes and desecration—ought to be covered as well.

He also argued at that time, and again I quote from his testimony:

...the grounds of group identification ought to be expanded to include, for example, hate crimes against groups identified by sexual orientation or gender. Gay-bashing is a hate crime, as would be an attack on a women's centre, every bit as much as on a religious community centre.

As a result, subsection 430(4.1) was amended by the House of Commons committee to add cemeteries to the list of properties primarily used for religious worship, but not the other kinds of properties that had been cited in the testimony, such as schools or community centres.

As well, a proposed amendment to add sex as a ground of hate motivation was rejected at that time, because it was seen as not relating logically back to the purpose of the hate crime mischief offence, which was to protect places of religious worship, unlike other hate motivations of race, colour, religion, or ethnic or national origin.

Bill C-305 proposes to add to this mischief offence additional kinds of property. These are buildings or structures used for educational purposes, for administrative, social, cultural, or sports activities or events, or as residences for seniors. As well, the list of hate-motivating criteria would be expanded by adding two new ones: sexual orientation and gender identity.

I wholeheartedly support the principles behind the bill that our criminal law should clearly denounce all hate-motivated mischief. However, it does bring forward some questions about the potentially broad scope of the proposed crimes in this section, which were previously discussed during the first hour of second reading by my colleague and the member for Charlottetown.

The private member's bill in its current form could potentially capture numerous unintended buildings and spaces such as sports arenas or coffee shops. These buildings or structures are currently protected by the general offence of mischief. Additionally, in order to ensure consistency with the existing hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code as well as those amendments proposed under Bill C-16, gender identity, which is currently before the Senate, we need to look more closely at this proposed legislation.

Therefore, the government will support Bill C-305 with a view to amendments to address the potential overbreadth and consistency with other provisions of the Criminal Code. We believe that Bill C-305 should receive second reading and be sent to committee for further study.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank the member for Nepean for his commitment in bringing this matter forward. It is a timely piece of legislation. It is work that demands our closest attention.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everybody has alluded to the tragic terrorist event that happened in Quebec City just days ago. I hope that you and all of my colleagues in the chamber will allow me this opportunity to mention the names of those people who are no longer with us: Khaled Belkacemi, Azzedine Soufiane, Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane, Ibrahima Barry, and Mamadou Tanou Barry.

It is also important to note that five of these six men were fathers. According to the research, which I hope is accurate, and we have done all we can to find that out, 15 children have now been left without fathers. Therefore, it is poignant that we are debating this bill tonight.

Out the outset of my remarks on Bill C-305, I would like to remind the House of the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that”.

Bill C-305 seeks to amend the section of the Criminal Code that applies to hate crimes. As we debate the merits of this bill, we should bear in mind that the antidote for hate is not merely legislation. Indeed, it is love. However, as members of Parliament, we cannot legislate that citizens love one another, although as leaders we often have the opportunity to encourage our constituents to be tolerant, accepting, and compassionate. Furthermore, it is our responsibility to ensure that the legal framework is in place so that those who commit acts motivated by hate are held to proper account.

Last weekend we marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day as we remembered the six million Jews who died in what the Jewish people call the Shoah. I was reminded of my recent visit to Israel, where I toured Yad Vashem, the museum of the Holocaust. If we were to go there, we would enter a building that shows the timeline of anti-Semitism, how it grew, how it became socially acceptable, and how that paved the way to allow the Nazis to take over Germany and to come up with what they called the “final solution”.

As we look back at this time in our collective history, it is clear that any kind of racism, when allowed to brew, when allowed to fester, when allowed to grow, can turn into these kinds of atrocities that all of us despise and all of us would condemn. It is incumbent upon us to enact legislation that would help extinguish hate before it metastasizes into a more virulent form, which is what this bill seeks to address.

In the wake of the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, misinformed individuals firebombed the Hindu Samaj temple located in my riding, a temple meant for worship and prayer. This destructive act was meant to send a message of hate to Muslims, although it actually hurt the innocent Hindu community that gathers there. This is the type of act we should seek to avert before it happens by teaching and demonstrating tolerance while ensuring that measures in the Criminal Code are in place that could target the early signs of this type of behaviour.

Before I delve into the details of the bill before us, I would like to offer one further reflection.

I have been afforded the opportunity to serve as a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights for almost 11 years. This role has opened my eyes to what hate looks like unchecked when taken to its extreme. Hate has ravaged lives in the Middle East, South America, Africa, and virtually every corner of the globe. It has taken the form of genocide, sexual slavery, torture, kidnapping, and other horrific acts. In Canada, hate does not often take these extreme forms, but these tragic events abroad should also serve as a stark reminder that hate must not be allowed to take root. In fact, it must be given no oxygen whatsoever in the public square.

With these reflections in mind, I would like to thank the member for Nepean for bringing this bill forward. He has identified a gap in our statutes respecting hate crimes and has proposed Bill C-305 in response.

Presently, the Criminal Code provides for a penalty of up to 10 years for mischief related to religious property based on bias or prejudice against a certain race, religion, or some other identifiable group. In legal terms, “mischief” broadly refers to destroying, disfiguring, or damaging property or rendering property dangerous or of no use. In plain language, houses of worship are legally protected from damage or disfiguring brought about by hate.

In contrast, if a similar act of hate is committed against a university, a day care centre, a community centre, or a seniors' residence, charges would be laid under the general mischief section of the Criminal Code, but would only carry a sentence of up to two years.

Bill C-305 seeks to close this gap by extending the legal protection afforded to houses of worship to a wide variety of other property critical to our community lives.

It is my view that the Criminal Code should be consistent and tough as it relates to hate crimes. If a person inflicts damage upon a building to propagate a message of hate, such offenders should bear the weight of our criminal justice system, wherever it is.

For this reason, Bill C-305 is deserving of our support at second reading in order to send it to committee where it should receive due consideration, including a robust inquiry of witnesses and a thorough examination to ensure that any unintended consequences are avoided.

This work should also be done in a timely fashion in light of the recent events. The horrific attack at the mosque in Quebec City this past weekend is the latest example that hate still plagues our nation. On Monday, many members of the House gathered by the centennial flame in honour of the victims and to stand in solidarity with the Muslim community. These events should serve as a reminder to us as legislators that we ought to re-double our efforts to root out hate.

Additionally, at the end of 2016 in Ottawa, three synagogues, a mosque, and a church were spray-painted with racist graffiti.

I have every confidence that these actions and others like them are being met with the vigilance of our law enforcement officials. Meanwhile, we must ensure the law responds to these acts appropriately, no matter where they take place, be it a university campus, a high school, or seniors' home. This bill would give our police forces the tools they need to combat hate in all of its forms, everywhere.

Indeed, if we support Bill C-305, we will send the message that hate will not be tolerated in Canada. I look forward to supporting the bill when it comes up for a vote.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), and even more pleased that I will be seconding the bill that my colleague, the member for Nepean, has put forward. I have had the pleasure of working with my colleague in the past, through parliamentary friendship groups and discussing a number of other issues. I have seconded the bill for many other reasons as well though. The bill is a strong response to hateful acts, like the tragic shooting in a Quebec City mosque this past weekend.

As a mother of three, my children were taught that Canada is a country of multiculturalism and acceptance. Multiculturalism and religious freedoms are core parts of Canadian identity, although there are those who have a different world view.

Multiculturalism and pluralism are still challenged today. There are those who believe they can scare people into falling backward into the past. I know that at this time some leadership candidates for the Conservative Party are promoting ideas that would only divide Canadians. I have long been proud that multiculturalism has stood in the face of that view. It has been part of our national fabric for decades.

Multiculturalism is why people move to Canada. It is a country of harmony where people can freely start new lives and raise families. It is at the core of what attracts people from other countries to want to build a life here in Canada. In my riding of Brampton South, my office often gets calls from people all over the world asking us how they can move to Canada.

While countries in other parts of the world try to shut down their borders to Syrian refugees, Canada has opened its borders and homes to let them in, and we worried about how fast we could take them in. Never forget that our inclusive, remarkable country today was only possible because of immigrants. Canada is the nation of multiculturalism. It is not just a country of tolerance, but a country of acceptance. Acceptance is important, where those of different faiths, cultures, and ethnicities can coexist with one another without any fear of discrimination.

The acts we have seen recently do not make a difference, despite how the offenders hope they might. These acts do not reflect the Canada that Canadians know and love. Some of the recent heinous acts we have seen in various communities have been committed by youth, under the age of 18. I am baffled to see that there are people, particularly youth, that are getting the message that it is okay to promote messages of hate and racism at synagogues, mosques, and schools. I do not want my children to live in a world where they cannot feel safe in their country because of their cultural and religious background.

I want to tell a quick story about one of my volunteers, who is also a constituent of my riding. Stephanie identifies herself as a Canadian of Chinese Vietnamese descent. As a child, she was a target of bullying and racism among her peers in day care and elementary school, simply because she was the only student who did not look like them. She hated going to school because she felt that she was not safe, at a place where she should feel safe. She told me it all started to turn around when their class had a day where they learned about each other's cultures and really grasped multiculturalism. Over time, most of her peers started to treat her better. There are always a few outliers who do not change.

Bill C-305 understands that we need to be conscious and respectful, and to defend our brothers and sisters of different ethnicities, religions, and various backgrounds.

People are not born racist or hateful. It is taught, and people can unlearn it as well. I come back to it because these recent acts in the region sadden me, hearing that messages of hate are being spread in a country where people should be free to be who they are away from intolerance, bias, and hatred. Hate speech and hate-motivated mischief is the line between our right to freedom of speech and unfiltered hatred.

This should not be tolerated in Canada. These acts have used the symbols of hateful regimes of the past to scare people. In Canada, such a great, welcoming, open, free country, our citizens should not walk in fear in our communities.

It causes fear in communities such as my own, and it means that parents have to explain to their children very difficult things about what is going on. Kids are told sometimes to be vigilant for people who might want to hurt them just because of their identity and how they pray. We have seen this hate before, and we must work together to combat it. This is why this bill would take the next step, in focusing on the next issue.

Bill C-305 expands the definition of mischief to also include other places as well, particularly buildings established by a religious community, which were previously not included. This would ensure the equal protections and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. These are the principles—particularly freedom of religion and protection of that freedom by the government—echoed within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We need to firmly state the message that hate crimes such as ones in the vein and spirit of what we have recently seen in Quebec City will not be tolerated in Canada.

These institutions, gathering places, and places of worship that we would protect in this bill are the fundamental backbone places in each of our communities. In each of our ridings, we can point to places that make a real difference in bringing together our various communities: a park where communities gather, like Chinguacousy Park in my community; an educational institution like Sheridan College in my riding; or any number of landmarks we can point to.

We need to stand up for those groups who are being discriminated against and the culture of fear overall. In a world where many live in fear, Canada can be a beacon. This government stands up against that fear and that approach. This optimistic spirit drives our ministers and our Prime Minister to be more open. We cannot stand idly by. This is our opportunity to stand up and speak out. We are not making false choices like pitting safety and free speech against one another; we are making a choice where everyone wins.

I am glad to see support from around this House so far on this bill. I would like to commend all the groups who were involved in working on this bill. For years, the discussion around safe space has been happening, and this bill would make a real step forward on this. This bill has been supported by a number of important groups, and I want to take a moment to recognize them:

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs; the World Sikh Organization of Canada; Coalition for Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations; Canada India Foundation; Canadian Rabbinic Caucus; Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada; Baha'i Community Canada; Multicultural Council for Ontario Seniors; Ukrainian Canadian Congress; Ghanaian Canadian Association of Ontario; Presbyterian Church in Canada; Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Canada; Armenian National Committee of Canada; Canadian Polish Congress; Jamaican Canadian Association; Reconciliation Canada; Anglican Diocese of New Westminster; Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver; Vivekananda Vedanta Society of British Columbia; Temple Sholom, B.C.; International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Vancouver; and Akali Singh Sikh Society, Vancouver.

This bill speaks up in favour of those whom some would want to silence. This bill is something I think this Parliament should be very proud to pass into law. Again, I want to commend the author of this bill on his work to advance this discussion. Together, we can make a real difference for Canadians by voting for this. I encourage all my colleagues to think of those places in their community that they want to protect when they cast their ballot on Bill C-305. I know I will when I stand and vote yea on this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I just want to remind the hon. members that there is debate taking place in the room, and there just seems to be a slow rumble that kind of gets louder. Whispering is fine. It is nice to see everybody getting along. It must be something with the new year. We had two bills go with unanimous consent. We have people talking, but we do have to listen in on the next speaker.

The hon. member for Nepean.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise once again to speak to Bill C-305. I do so with a very heavy heart in light of the recent horrific attack at a mosque in Quebec City. It pains me to see such a hate-motivated act taken against our fellow Canadians. Hate such as this has absolutely no place in Canada. Bill C-305 is one of the small steps we can take to eliminate hate-motivated crimes in Canada.

I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties for their interest and contribution to this debate.

I would like to quote Martin Niemöller, the prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. He stated:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Bill C-305 would recognize that hate motivated by bias based on gender identity and sexual orientation would carry the same weight as crimes committed against religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The bill would expand it to include schools, day care centres, colleges or universities, community centres, seniors' residences, and cultural centres. The impact felt by victims of hate crimes cannot be limited to just places of worship.

The public properties proposed to be included have either all been subject to hate crime or are vulnerable to being a target of hate crime. Whether it is places of worship or other property, the negative impact of hate crimes on the community remains the same. Also, under this criminal subsection, if a person is found guilty of an offence, there are stiff prison terms. While I agree education is the best long-term solution, I also believe a strong law and punishment act as major deterrents.

At this point, I would like to quote Dr. Martin Luther King on the interaction between positive law, morality, and culture. He stated:

It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me...So while the law may not change the hearts of men, it does change the habits of men. And when you change the habits of men, pretty soon the attitudes and the hearts will be changed. And so there is a need for strong legislation constantly to grapple with the problems we face.

It is very important that we have a strong and robust law for hate crimes. Again, I agree education is important, but I am equally confident that good law is also required.

It is heartening to note the near-unanimous support I have received from all sections of society. I would like to recognize and thank the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs for its ongoing support and its efforts to mobilize other stakeholders.

Bill C-305 takes a strong step to making our neighbourhoods and communities safer places to live. Think of the strong message we would be sending to all Canadians: that not select people but all people of Canada can feel safer knowing that Parliament has taken concrete and strong measures to protect them. I ask my fellow members support this important bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five members or more having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 8, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Telecommunications

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 25, I asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development about the broadband funding and the challenges of high-speed Internet in a rural riding, such as the one I represent, North Island—Powell River. Today I am glad to have the opportunity to follow up on this issue.

As members know, high-speed connection remains very expensive, and the speed and access are inconsistent across my riding of North Island—Powell River. This unfortunate reality is common outside large urban centres. Whether it is the backbone or the last mile missing, it is a strain on our economy and restricts many opportunities.

I am pleased to hear that the minister has rolled out a new federal funding opportunity, connect to innovate, with $500 million over five years, starting in 2016-17. I am hopeful this will truly extend and enhance broadband service in rural and remote communities. I have invited all prospective applicants from my riding to take advantage of this source of funding and am pleased to see that the deadline has been extended.

This funding was supposed to invest only in backbone infrastructure. The problem is that many rural and remote residences cannot connect due to the last mile issues. I was glad to hear that the minister heard our concerns and decided to include funding opportunities for the last mile, as well as backbone infrastructure in this new funding program. I also want to applaud the regional districts in my riding which have taken a leadership role on this file by studying the gaps and making a strong case for improved telecommunication in our region.

I recently had the pleasure to meet with local telecom providers in my riding. They painted a very grim portrait of broadband in rural and remote regions and are hoping to feel some meaningful support from the government. For decades it has been the local providers that have managed to be innovative in providing the services to a difficult marketplace, and this was not done without risk. They are committed to providing a service to communities. They provide good jobs, and they are important jobs to ridings like mine.

I rally the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to recognize that the betterment of broadband cannot solely be done by one-time funding. Smaller operators need wholesale resources to help fund services on the edge. They need spectrum and access to land for relay sites at affordable rates, and meaningful, unobstructed access to wholesale resources. In short, they need the support of government at all levels, and those of Industry Canada and the CRTC. Will the minister listen and commit to helping them?

Recently, I sent a mail-out to the members of North Island—Powell River on broadband, and I was pleased by the level of feedback. I want to thank my constituents for sharing all their stories. People in my riding are dismayed by the price gouge. I also heard from local businesses that could expand, bringing much-needed jobs into our riding, but they require better high-speed connections to do so. Others attested that the most remote and rural first nations communities are severely impacted by marginal access to the Internet, especially for the important online learning that they need.

Many of my constituents are concerned that this new federal funding will end up in the pockets of the large telecoms exclusively. They want to see real solutions on the ground to their homes and to their businesses, and a collaborative effort from all stakeholders to create more accessible broadband. How will the minster ensure that this happens?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the remarks made earlier by the hon. member for North Island—Powell River on the importance of broadband service for the rural regions of Canada.

Broadband networks are the very foundation of the competitive digital economy we are building. This broadband infrastructure affords access to digital tools, global markets, and employment opportunities. This same infrastructure opens new avenues of education and training, spreads our Canadian culture throughout the country and the world, and, lastly, connects us to our friends and families.

We are therefore in full agreement with the hon. member on the importance of broadband service. It is a critical service for the digital future of Canada. It is essential that the rural regions and remote communities have their full place in that future.

During our consultations on support for the program an inclusive innovation agenda: the state of play, Canadians emphasized the importance of upgrading high-speed broadband coverage.

New statistics published last October show a permanent improvement in Canada’s broadband networks: 96% of Canadians now have access to Internet service at speeds of five megabits per second or more; 75% of Canadian households have Internet access at speeds of 100 megabits per second or more. The private sector is also announcing investments in its gigabit network that will literally transform our digital landscape.

While these statistics are encouraging, they also underscore the digital divide between the rural regions and the rest of Canada, which can only be deplored. However it is true that the economic barriers to the distribution of digital service are far greater in rural and remote regions than in the urban regions. These difficulties are compounded by the far greater needs of rural communities.

For some of our more remote rural regions and communities, which lack medical facilities and educational institutions and do not have a solid labour market, the business opportunities for digital solutions are limitless. That is why we feel that our government has a role to play in collaborating with private sector partners and other levels of government to improve the community.

The connecting Canadians program is an initiative that can bridge the digital divide. Projects announced in 2015 and 2016 will benefit 300,000 households in the rural and remote regions of Canada. In December, our government was pleased to launch a new program known as an inclusive innovation agenda: the state of play, which will provide up to $500 million to build high-quality broadband networks in underserved regions.

In co-operation with partners all across Canada, we are investing to bring transformative change to our rural and remote communities.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just recently, the CRTC decided to deem access to the internet as an essential service. This is a major step in Canadian telecommunication history. I suspect this will have some profound consequences on our infrastructure and services over the next decade. This makes sense as internet usage is growing across our country and its practical applications are increasingly varied.

The job market and services are more and more web-dependent. Like many resource-based economies trying to expand and diversity, our riding's local economy needs broadband access to adapt.

The CRTC decision to make the internet an essential service is a step in the right direction, but we need a target and a plan.

My constituents need need to know how this will specifically impact rural regions and the many smaller providers in those regions. When can we expect details on how this new new ruling will be shared?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all have a role to play in building Canada's digital future and ensuring that remote communities have their place in that future. We are well aware of the decision declaring high-speed Internet an essential service. The private sector, provincial and territorial governments, and federal departments can and are making significant efforts in this area.

Consider, for example, the federal and provincial contribution of $180 million for high-speed Internet services in southwestern Ontario, a project led by the Western Ontario Warden's Caucus and supported by our government and the Government of Ontario. That is an example of what we can do when we work together to identify the challenges—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Public Services and Procurement

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this evening's proceedings. I want to begin by congratulating the member for Gatineau on his new role. I look forward to working with him on the many issues related to the Department of Public Services and Procurement.

First of all, I would like to talk about the fiasco that is the Phoenix pay system for those watching us. It began in February 2016 when the Liberal government decided to approve the implementation of a new pay system, that is a new computer system meant to ensure that all public servants receive their pay properly on a given date, in other words every two weeks.

It was a huge change, especially considering the more than 300,000 public servants in the system, and the fact that the previous pay system had been in place for over 40 years. Thus, it was considered a huge change, one that had been planned by the previous Conservative government. In 2016, we were not there to assess its effectiveness and operational readiness.

Last February, the government, through the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, gave the go-ahead to implement the system. A month later, government workers began to notice major problems. Some of them were not getting paid, which is pretty serious. Some of them were not getting their employment benefits, such as maternity leave or a pay raise following a promotion. Others were not getting the correct pay. Some were getting too much, which made no sense to them, and others too little. As the months passed, the situation got worse and worse. The problem ballooned from a few thousand public servants having trouble with their pay to tens of thousands of cases. By July 5, 2016, there were 80,000 cases.

At that point, after three months of pressure from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and budget forecasts by the opposition parties, both Conservative and NDP, the government acknowledged the situation and said it would take action. The minister held a press conference on July 5. She stated that there was a backlog of 80,000 cases of people with the kinds of pay problems I mentioned. She said that the backlog would be cleared by October 30. It is now February 2017, five months later, and there is still a 13,500-case backlog.

The problem is not the government's process. The problem is the lack of accountability. The minister says she was not made aware of the Gartner report that was submitted to her department in February which said that the Phoenix pay system was not ready to be implemented. The minister says she did not see that report, but approved the system anyway.

Accordingly, the deputy minister did not respect the minister's responsibility and worse, if the minister did indeed see the report, which is my personal opinion, then she went ahead knowing that the system was not ready to be implemented.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his kind words and his speech.

First, we agree on one thing, probably. It is completely unacceptable that federal government employees are not getting paid what they are owed. Public servants deserve much better. As the member for Gatineau, it goes without saying that many of my constituents were directly affected by the failures in this system. We are living this every day and I am listening to them very closely.

I want to come back to a few things the member across the way said. First, the Phoenix problems did not start in February 2016. They started when the previous government banked on saving $70 million, put that money in the budget as though it were a done deal, and dismissed hundreds of pay advisors. The previous government left us in this unacceptable situation without the former pay system. We had to trust the development of the Phoenix system. We had no choice but to implement it.

Although we did not cause this, we have accepted the responsibility for fixing the problems caused by the previous government. We take these problems very seriously. We are working hard to help federal employees and to resolve their pay issues. That is why timely processing of pay requests is a top priority for the Department of Public Services and Procurement. I am proud to be the parliamentary secretary for that department.

The goal is to process pay requests in accordance with the established service standard, which is 20 days for most changes, based on when the requests arrive at the Public Service Pay Centre.

This is what has been done. The backlog of cases is 7,000, and not 12,500 as claimed by the member, and as it clears the Public Service Pay Centre compensation advisors are assigned to process new requests. Reassigning resources means that pay requests are processed more quickly, wait times are reduced, and late payments are resolved. Requests for parental leave and disability are the priority, as requested by the unions.

With more resources and increased efficiency at the pay centre, government employees will notice that their pay transactions are being handled much faster.

Finally, new transparency measures, a lot more transparency measures than were contemplated under the previous government, are being introduced to keep employees informed of the progress being made. Starting very soon, monthly information about pay performance will be posted online. This will let employees see how well the pay centre is meeting its service standards.

Finally, as tax season approaches, there is an added focus on addressing overpayments so that employees' earnings are reported as accurately as possible.

Employees are being reminded to call the call centre to ensure that any overpayments are handled as a priority.

With more resources and increased efficiency at the pay centre, government employees will notice that their pay transactions are being handled much faster. Employees will also soon have access to detailed information online about all payments they received in 2016. This will help them verify whether the taxable earnings stated on their tax slips are correct.

We continue to work closely with all our partners, the Canada Revenue Agency, and the Treasury Board Secretariat. The department also continues to work with the unions on several issues in order to help them solve pay problems.

Our government is aware of the important—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. My colleague is talking about new transparency measures, but we know what happened this morning. We learned from a journalist that 150 employees who are currently having problems with the Phoenix pay system have turned to the Access to Information Act to find out what is happening with their pay, when it will be resolved, and what errors have been made. They had to turn to the Access to Information Act. I do not know what these new measures are, but they are obviously not working.

I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier. The real problem here is the minister's lack of accountability. It very much seems like she is not managing her department. First, she approved the activation of the Phoenix pay system in February when three reports, including the Gartner report, indicated that the system was not ready—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is talking about accountability when, every two weeks, we send the deputy minister to give an update and talk to public servants, to everyone affected, to everyone who wants to know what progress is being made and what the new statistics are. New statistics are generated every two weeks. We can see that progress is being made.

I cannot believe that a member of the party across the floor is asking us questions about the Phoenix pay system when his party is responsible for replacing a system that was working with a flawed system without giving us the option of reverting back to the old system. Phoenix is a poorly designed system with many flaws. We have made a commitment to fix that. That is what we are going to do. Our public servants will see progress and results in the coming weeks and months.