Debates of Feb. 5th, 2019

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the legislation I tabled in February 2013 was given second reading June 5, 2013, because that is when it came up in the draw. It was reinstated after the recess. It was already through second reading and referred to committee. I was then appointed parliamentary secretary and as parliamentary secretary, I was not allowed to carry any Private Members' Business.

Therefore, it was picked up by colleague, Colin Mayes, who then brought it back in April 2014. It was then given second reading around that time and referred to committee, after the summer break, on September 24. It came though committee, and if I recall, the committee was jammed up with a number of pieces of legislation. However, it was reported back on April 1, 2015, with report stage on June 2 and third reading at the same time.

Therefore, it came through the normal process of private members' bills. As the member fully knows, often we are lower in priority and have only an hour a day in the House for these types of debates. Government business takes precedence at committee over private members' bills.

I am hoping we can get everyone onside and move the bill through quicker, knowing the time frame we have in front of us, recessing at the end of June.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his leadership in bringing forward the bill.

The fact is that murder is the most serious offence in the Criminal Code, but not all murders are equal. Some are so heinous, so sadistic, so violent that they are really in a special category. As the member pointed out, that is the object of the bill. I agree wholeheartedly with him that it is important that we pass the bill at second reading to get it to committee to hear, as he said, from some of the victims' families and friends.

However, as the member pointed out, the bill was studied at committee in the last Parliament. I was not there in the last Parliament, but I did read the transcripts from the committee, and there was some very powerful testimony from victims. Could the member comment?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, Susan Ashley and Sharon Rosenfeldt were there. It was heart-wrenching for them to be there to talk about how their loved ones had been murdered and how important this legislation was. I hope we can get the bill back to committee as quickly as possible.

However, to go back to the point raised in the previous question, the reason the bill is only coming forward now is because this is when my name came up in the draw. This is why it has been sitting around for three years since I tabled it at first, and we are only getting to second reading now.

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility.

The objective of the bill is to protect victims and alleviate their re-victimization by limiting the number of parole applications in which they may need to participate. The underlying assumption of Bill C-266 is that its proposed reforms would spare families from the heartache of reliving the loss of their loved one who may have been murdered in unspeakable circumstances.

As currently drafted, Bill C-266 proposes to modify section 745 of the Criminal Code in order to effect two changes. First, it would make it mandatory for a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period of not less than 25 years for all offenders convicted of the following offences committed as part of the same event or series of events and in respect of the same victim: kidnapping and abduction-related offences; sexual offences; and murder, irrespective of whether it is in the first or second degree.

Second, the bill would provide judicial discretion to set the period of parole ineligibility between 25 and 40 years for the same small subset of offenders who, given the severity of their crimes committed, are truly unlikely to obtain parole in any event.

It should be noted that Bill C-266 is similar to previous private members' bills, including Bills C-478 and C-587. Bill C-478 got through second reading stage and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but it did not get any further than that.

Unlike Bill C-266, former Bill C-478 did not require that the offences for which the offender was found guilty to be committed as part of the same criminal transaction.

Former Bill C-478 was later reintroduced as Bill C-587 by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and essentially proposed the same legislative amendments as Bill C-266, except for slight wording differences.

Ultimately, former Bill C-587 was adopted by the justice committee, without amendment, and had commenced third reading debate in the House, but did not proceed further because of the dissolution of Parliament for the 2015 federal election.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the laudable objective of the bill. I think all of hon. members of the House can agree that alleviating the trauma, emotional suffering and re-victimization of families whose loved ones have been murdered is a worthwhile cause that merits our full consideration.

Victims have rights at every stage of the criminal justice process, including the right to information, protection, restitution, and participation. These rights, previously recognized by internal polices of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada, are now enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and give clear rights to all victims of crime.

Once victims are registered with the Parole Board of Canada or the Correctional Service Canada, they can choose to receive information on the offender, including but not limited to: the sentence start date and length; and the offender's eligibility and review dates for unescorted temporary absences, parole or statutory release.

Upon further request, additional information could be provided to a victim, including: the date of any Parole Board of Canada hearing and the reason why an offender waived a hearing, if one was given; and whether the offender has appealed the decision of the Parole Board not to grant a release and the outcome of that appeal.

Victims' participation rights include the following: attending the offender's parole hearing or listening to an audio recording of a parole hearing if the victim is unable to attend in person; presenting a written statement that outlines the continuing impact the offence has had on them and any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose and requesting that the Parole Board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release; and obtaining a copy of the Parole Board's decision, including information on whether the offender has appealed the decision and the outcome of the appeal.

I would like to pause here to highlight Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, which is proposing other legislative changes to better support victims of crime.

Currently, victims who do not attend a parole hearing are entitled to listen to an audio recording of the hearing. However, if victims do attend, they lose their right to listen to a recording. Simply stated, parole hearings can be quite difficult for family members. Despite attending the hearing, they may not always remember everything that was said and may, for a variety of reasons, wish to listen to an audio recording at a later date. I am pleased to know that changes proposed in Bill C-83 would give all victims the right to listen to an audio recording, regardless of whether they attend the parole hearing.

The laws and policies that have been put forward were designed to be respectful of the privacy rights of victims who do not wish to be contacted or receive information about the offender who has harmed them. This recognizes the fact that victims are not a homogenous group; while some victims may choose not to attend or receive information about parole hearings in order to avoid emotional trauma, others will attend parole hearings as a means of furthering their healing and to feel empowered by having their voice heard.

In fact, on March 9, 2015, officials testifying on behalf of the Parole Board of Canada indicated during their testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on former Bill C-587 that every victim is different and that the Parole Board of Canada also has victims who are interested in attending parole hearings.

Therefore, we need to ask ourselves if the proposed amendments in Bill C-266 are the most effective way of supporting the needs of victims affected by these brutal crimes.

I also wonder, despite the bill's laudable intentions, whether some victims might feel negatively impacted by legislative changes designed to reduce the number of parole hearings they may choose to attend.

I am certain all hon. members would agree that a thorough debate on the impacts of Bill C-266's proposed changes requires consideration of these questions. Also, I would be interested to hear the views of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on these points.

It is clear that there are various ways of supporting victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-266 present one avenue for bettering the experience of victims at the very end of the spectrum of the criminal justice process.

As parliamentarians, we should strive to achieve a fair, effective, just and compassionate criminal justice system for all involved. For these reasons, I will be closely monitoring the debate on Bill C-266 and look forward to hearing the views of other hon. members on its potential impacts.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the initiative of my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on Bill C-266. As members have heard, the bill proposes to increase the period of parole ineligibility from 25 years to up to 40 years for those convicted of heinous crimes such as abduction, sexual assault and murder.

I want to start by saying that I am not here to criticize at all the good faith of the member for this initiative coming forward. Again, this is above politics. I respect entirely his passionate commitment to victims and his not wishing through the parole process to re-victimize the people who have suffered such trauma from these heinous crimes. I therefore respect entirely the initiative and the intention behind it.

On the other hand, there are some significant problems with this initiative. It would do more harm than good, for reasons that I will describe.

My primary motivation for taking this position is that the security of prison workers is at issue. The proposed legislation could further remove the incentive for inmates to behave while incarcerated. This poses serious risks to prison workers and other inmates. The workers who look after our incarcerated population often put themselves in harm's way to do so and they are entitled to a safe workplace. For that reason alone, we cannot support the bill.

Second, as I insinuated in my earlier question for the member, lawyers whom we have consulted have serious concerns about the constitutionality of the bill. First, here is a little history. In 2010, to my surprise, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted to abolish what has been called the faint hope clause. That provided an opportunity for a hearing 15 years into a 25-year sentence. At that time, the NDP opposed what was then Bill S-6 in an effort to keep the faint hope clause alive. As previously mentioned, the rationale was to keep security personnel safe in our institutions.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman's proposal would further disincentivize good behaviour in correctional facilities, with the potential of increasing violence toward other inmates and correctional workers. While I am sure that was not the intent whatsoever, this aspect is worthy of our consideration and discussion. Unfortunately, Bill C-266 may present adverse safety concerns.

Providing even a glimmer of hope for parole provides incentives for good behaviour. It reduces the prospect of violence toward other inmates and correctional workers. The bill would remove any foreseeable chance of release for those convicted of serious crimes for up to an additional 15 years, thereby further reducing the rate of rehabilitation.

If someone in prison is serving a life sentence and cannot be eligible for parole until he or she has served up to 40 years, arguably that person has nothing to lose by committing violence in prison. It can create quite a difficult situation for everyone involved. The rationale for the faint hope clause was that it incentivizes offenders to participate in programming and work toward their rehabilitation, which leads to reduced violence and better behaviour toward other inmates and correctional workers.

I do not think this is simply any kind of tough-on-crime initiative. I think it truly is, in spirit, as I said initially, a bill that is trying to look after the victims who do not want to be re-traumatized. I respect that motivation entirely.

In our current system, offenders can apply for parole two years after they are initially denied parole. After that two-year period, they are eligible to reapply after five years. I understand that victims' families are under duress when the convicted individuals have a parole hearing, but we must not forget the safety of those prison workers and other inmates who are exposed to these individuals every single day.

A 2010 internal study by the Department of Justice found that this was the case, that those with nothing left to lose are more likely to resort to violence. That was confirmed in that study, which was discussed in a 2011 article in The Globe and Mail by Dean Beeby. He said, “A key, taxpayer-funded study supporting the faint hope clause never entered that debate because it was not released by the Justice Department.” It came out under the Access to Information Act.

The June 2010 report looked at whether the faint hope clause was working. It concluded that it worked well. The Globe states:

“Overall, the analysis indicates that the faint hope clause is not a free pass for individuals convicted of murder,” says the study....

“Those granted reduced time under faint hope do better in the community than other offenders. Lower recidivism rates from faint hope offenders suggest that decisions to release early are based on fairly accurate assessments of an offender's risk to reoffend.”

There are a couple of obvious points. The Parole Board points out on its website that a life sentence means life. Lifers will never again enjoy total freedom. As well, it is important to note that seven out of 10 offenders are denied parole at their first parole review date. The board has absolute discretion to keep them back if there is a concern. The foremost consideration is the safety of the public. Most offenders released on parole successfully complete their sentences without committing new offences.

In 2013-14, 99% of federal day parole periods and 97% of federal full parole periods were successfully completed by offenders without reoffending. The evidence, it seems to me, is incontrovertible that a gradual, controlled and supervised release is the most effective way of ensuring public safety. That applies to the serious offences we are talking about in this bill as well.

I found it staggering that offenders who were released at the end of their long sentences were four times more likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence than offenders who completed their sentences on full parole. In other words, it appears that the system, which can easily be criticized like every other institution, is actually working well in this particular context.

Extending parole eligibility beyond the current possible maximum of 25 years may have been possible sometimes in certain situations in the past, but the faint hope clause is no longer there to help mitigate any increase in parole eligibility since Bill S-6 was passed by Conservatives and Liberals in 2010.

I know I am running out of time, but the other point I wanted to make is that there is a concern about the constitutionality of having to wait up to 40 years. I have made the point about safety, but there is also the notion that lawyer Michael Spratt of Ottawa has put forward, which is that by extending it up to 40 years there is a large chance that the bill would be challenged as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He also points out that the practical result would be that people would no longer plead guilty because of the fear of that. They would end up finding themselves in the justice system for longer, and the courts would be even more clogged than they are now. The member described how he arrived at the arbitrary period of 40 years. However, it is so arbitrary that I cannot believe a court would find that compelling.

The Canadian Bar Association's criminal law section likewise does not believe that Canadians would benefit from a system where individuals are effectively condemned to spend their entire lives behind bars, with no hope of ever being released.

In conclusion, the introduction of Bill C-266 would, like the abolishment of the faint hope clause and the introduction of consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, remove incentives for good behaviour in correctional facilities, thwart rehabilitation efforts and put the lives of our correctional workers in greater jeopardy. Therefore, the NDP cannot support this provision.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in strong support of Bill C-266, introduced by my friend, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. This is legislation that seeks to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to provide a judge with the discretion to increase the parole ineligibility period from the current 25 years to up to 40 years for individuals who are convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering the same victim.

Before discussing the merits of the bill, let me just note that the bill was introduced by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman in the last Parliament and carried forth by the former member for North Okanagan—Shuswap when the hon. member was appointed parliamentary secretary. It is a bill that passed second reading. It is a bill that was carefully studied at the justice committee. It is a bill that enjoyed the support of both Liberal and Conservative MPs, and it is a bill that simply because of timing did not make it through the last Parliament.

First degree murder is the most serious offence in the Criminal Code. That is why individuals who are convicted of this offence are subject to an automatic sentence of life and are also subject to a parole ineligibility period of at least 25 years.

However, as I noted in the question that I posed to the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, not all murders are equal. There are some murders that are so heinous, so sadistic, so violent, that they fall into a category unto themselves. That is the object of this piece of legislation. It is directed at those offenders, those individuals who have committed such a heinous crime and whose character is so irredeemable that for all intents and purposes, the only thing that can be done with them is to separate them from society for the rest of their lives.

My friend, the hon. member for Victoria, referred to the faint hope clause. He talked in his speech about the issues around offenders losing hope. Simply put, these offenders have no hope. They have no hope of ever seeing the light of day. However, if they are sentenced to life with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years, unless they are classified as a dangerous offender—a category that has a high threshold and is rarely applied—they would be eligible for parole even though, for all intents and purposes, those applications are dead on arrival.

That has a profound impact on victims. When the bill in the previous Parliament was studied, there was compelling evidence from victims' families, who are also victims. One was from Susan Ashley, whose sister, Linda Bright, was abducted, raped and murdered when she was 16 years old in 1978 by one Donald Armstrong. As Ashley said before the committee, when Mr. Armstrong was sentenced, the family was assured that they would never have to see or hear from him again, but in the end they did have to hear and see him again, because he applied for parole.

Ms. Ashley spoke of the betrayal, horror and the pain her family went through having to prepare for and then observe the parole hearing. Of course, Armstrong was never issued parole. People of Armstrong's ilk are never issued parole. Nonetheless, Ms. Ashley and her family had to go through the process. Theoretically, they could be required to go through the process again and again. Is that just? Is that fair? Is that compassionate? It is not.

My friend from Victoria raised issues about section 12 of the charter. There is precedent for this legislation in the way of Bill C-48, which provides for consecutive sentencing for individuals who are convicted of multiple murders. It has been applied on a number of occasions in courts across Canada since its passage. Some of the horrific cases in which it has been applied include the case of Douglas Garland in my province of Alberta, and of Derek Saretzky, another horrific Alberta case.

About the only thing just that came out of those horrific trials was the fact that those individuals were put away for the rest of their lives, and the victims' families had the assurance that they would never have to go through the process of a parole hearing to relive the horrors of what the likes of Saretzky and Garland did to their loved ones.

While there is consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers, what we do not have is a regime that can provide appropriate discretion in appropriate cases by judges to hold those most particularly evil killers accountable and spare families unnecessary parole hearings.

One perfect example of that is in relation to Tori Stafford's killer. He was 28 years old when he was convicted. That means he will be eligible for parole at the age of 53. Make no mistake, when Justice Heeney sentenced him to life without eligibility of parole for 25 years, he characterized that individual as a “monster”. He is not going to see the light of day, but he will be entitled to a parole hearing at the age of 53 and then every two years thereafter. If he lives until the age of 80, Tori's family could be subject to 14 or 15 parole hearings. How is that fair, how is that just and how is that compassionate? It is not.

The law needs to be changed, and Bill C-266 would change the law in the right direction for victims.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated in the past, it is always a privilege to share some thoughts on important pieces of legislation and motions that come before the House.

I listened very closely to my colleague across the way as he introduced his proposed legislation. He talked a great deal about the issue of parole hearings.

I could not help but reflect on another initiative the government brought in. I believe it was Bill C-83. Through this bill, the government made some changes regarding audio recordings in parole hearings. In the past, if a criminal was up for parole and a victim of sexual assault, for example, wanted to listen to the parole hearing in person, that individual would not be allowed an audio copy of what took place at the parole hearing. Through this legislation, the government recognized that as a problem and made the necessary correction.

I mention this because I believe that if members take a look at the issues in justice and at the legislation we have brought forward in the last three years, they will see that there is much legislation that takes victims into consideration, and that is just one example. Today, as a result of that legislation, the victim of a sexual assault would be be able to go to a parole hearing and listen and also request an audio recording of it so that nothing would be missed because of the atmosphere the victim might have been placed in when listening at the parole hearing.

That is one piece of legislation. We had another piece of legislation dealing with victims. We reformed the way our military laws were being dealt with to ensure that they conformed with the Criminal Code. A Victims Bill of Rights was incorporated into the legislation.

I use these cases as examples because I have found, when in opposition and even in listening to the current Conservative opposition, that at times the Conservatives seem to want to use our justice system and the law as a way to create wedges and to look tough on crime. It is that sort of mentality.

A good example of this was referenced earlier today. In his speech, my colleague talked about first degree murder. It is a crime that the criminal courts recognize for what it is: When people are convicted of first degree murder, they are going away for a long time. However, he is right in his assertion that this does not mean that all murders are equal. Some are far more horrendous than others.

Let us stop and think about this. Members will recall that we had a huge debate not that long ago about Tori Stafford. She was the focal point of debate in the House for a great period of time. The government of the day was being criticized because Tori Stafford's murderer was transferred to a medium-security prison facility, and there was outrage from the opposition.

I raise this issue because on the surface, the legislation that is being proposed is fairly compelling in terms of support, but there are a couple of things that come to my mind.

First, the member who brought forward the bill was a fairly influential member of the Harper government as a parliamentary secretary. He was fairly well known among the Conservative benches. No doubt that was one of the reasons why he was elevated to parliamentary secretary. That bill did not proceed. In response to the questions posed to the member, he said that it was a timing issue, that there was not enough time. The bill sat for a lot more time than what he has given this government to deal with it.

One could question why the member feels the urgency is greater today. Was he told something that did not allow the Harper government to proceed with it? I would be very much interested in hearing the ongoing debate on this. Is that a part of what is often the case with the Conservative Party, that it likes to take a tough line?

That is the reason why I am giving the second example, which is the Tori Stafford case. Day after day, opposition members gave the false impression that this Liberal government was going about it in the wrong way. We were asked how we could do that. I heard the same thing at the local restaurant I go to on a weekly basis. People were starting to listen to what the official opposition was saying.

The Minister of Public Safety did great service to the issue when he had an internal investigation conducted and we came up with the right answer.

While some of the research was being done on the Stafford file, we found that under former prime minister Stephen Harper, other murderers had been transferred from high-security to medium-security prisons. These murderers committed not only first degree murders, but some of them committed multiple murders. After the Conservatives realized the double standard, it then became a marginal issue.

The Government of Canada did what it was supposed to do. The minister said that he would look into the matter and come back to the House, and he did. We were able to rectify the problem.

This Liberal government has been very sensitive to victims of crime with respect to the legislation we have brought forward. We have been progressive in our way of dealing with individuals in our jails. Unlike the Conservatives, we recognize that a good number of those who are in jails today will be back in our communities. Many of the reforms we have made will ensure that we have fewer victims in the future.

Our government has treated the public safety file seriously. We have not reacted to the degree the opposition has at times, which has not been in the best interests of public safety.

I listened to what the member said about this legislation. I am interested in hearing further debate on it, as this is only our first hour of debate. I would like to hear particularly from some Conservative members as to why they believe Stephen Harper did not recognize the value of the legislation, as it sat on the Order Paper for a few years.

I would also like to hear a response as to why the minister responsible at the time did not incorporate this in some of the judicial legislation that the Conservatives brought to the House. Why did the Conservative public safety minister not see fit to address this? Maybe we are missing something.

I can assure the House that the government is listening, will continue to listen to the debate, and will ultimately make a determination as time goes on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Indigenous Affairs

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, February is Black History Month. Events from coast to coast to coast give Canadians an opportunity to celebrate Canada's diverse black community. For many of these communities, their stories, history and contributions, both in the past and today, do not get the recognition they deserve. Black History Month serves to remind us that we can and we must do better.

While the government talks about doing a lot of things better, it often fails to take action. A year ago, the Prime Minister said it was time to take action on anti-black racism in Canada. Budget 2018 even provided some good first steps for funding. However, even the Liberal MP for Hull—Aylmer, chair of the parliamentary black caucus, is publicly complaining about how little is actually changing. He spoke about the need for public service buy-in for the initiatives.

Unfortunately, leadership comes from the top. Before blaming the public service, we need to recognize that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism set the tone by suggesting that systemic racism does not exist in Canada. In October, I asked the minister four times to acknowledge his out-of-touch statement that systemic racism is not part of his vocabulary.

The minister's comments were an insult to racialized and visible minority Canadians. For Canada's indigenous communities, who continue to deal with the legacy of colonialism on a daily basis, his comments were a slap in the face. If the minister took the time to read the heritage committee's report, “Taking action against systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia”, he would get a glimpse of the impact of systemic racism on the indigenous, Métis and Inuit community from Senator Sinclair and Dr. Cindy Blackstock.

Senator Sinclair said:

...systemic racism is the racism that's left over after you get rid of the racists. Once you get rid of the racists within the justice system, for example, you will still have racism perpetrated by the justice system.

The minister, to date, has yet to apologize for his comments. The minister was caught out with those outrageous comments, because it was reported in the media. He learned that systemic racism exists in Canada through a process of open and public accountability.

It is no small irony that the consultation process for Canada's anti-racism action plan was done behind closed doors. Participation was by invitation only. Canadians have no information about it. We do not know who was invited or what was said. All we know is that the consultations are now closed.

This is the same old story, time and time again. The Liberal government makes a bold announcement. It says that it is the most transparent government ever, then it engages in a pretend exercise of consultation behind closed doors. I have learned from some participants that they were asked only to comment on a few very specific questions. Some left wondering what the purpose was. Maybe it was so the government could elicit the kind of feedback on developing a program it has already decided on so that it could produce the kind of photo ops it wants.

Even members of the Liberal caucus are growing frustrated. The minister should apologize for the insulting comments and let the light of day shine on the process to develop Canada's anti-racism action plan.

[Andy Fillmore, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I will speak frankly. Despite Canada's reputation as a welcoming multicultural society backed by laws and policies to combat racism and discrimination, various forms of systemic racism and discrimination continue to exist and persist in Canada.

We know that all forms of institutional and systemic racism and discrimination have a direct impact on Canadians, indigenous peoples and racialized groups in particular. It affects them in many ways in their lives, whether during their migration process when they are looking for employment; during interactions with the justice, education, or health care systems; or when attempting to obtain services.

Canada is also not immune to hatred and bigotry. We recognize that discrimination and racism against indigenous peoples are systemic in Canada. Past paternalistic and disempowering federal policies and institutions have perpetuated and deepened racism and discrimination against indigenous groups. Sadly enough, indigenous peoples and racialized women and girls are among the most disadvantaged groups when it comes to their economic outcomes and social participation.

Racism in any form is unacceptable. It cannot be tolerated. Diversity is our strength, and when we embrace it in a spirit of openness and co-operation, we all benefit significantly.

Budget 2018 had committed a total of $42 million to address racism and discrimination targeted against indigenous peoples and racialized women and girls, to plan cross-country consultations on a new national anti-racism approach, and to enhance community supports and research to address the unique challenges faced by black Canadians. We are consulting extensively to develop this anti-racism approach and have heard first-hand from indigenous peoples across the country on the issues they are facing.

As the Prime Minister has said, there is no relationship more important to our government and to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. We have made it very clear that we intend to build a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples, one that is built on a foundation of recognition, rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. We can only achieve real reconciliation when indigenous peoples are treated fairly and equally.

To that end, we have committed to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, several of which focus on addressing racism; and to creating a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework, which will ensure that the recognition and implementation of rights is the basis for all relations between indigenous peoples and the federal government.

Reconciliation is not only an indigenous problem; it is a Canadian imperative. Similarly, we must combat and try to eradicate all forms of institutional and systemic racism and discrimination that affect our country's social cohesion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, since it is Black History Month and the anti-racism planned consultations are apparently over, I would have thought the Minister of Canadian Heritage would take this opportunity to stand in the House, apologize for his comments and lay out the path forward. The parliamentary secretary acknowledges there is systemic racism, yet the minister said that is not in his vocabulary.

Sadly, this is not the case. Whether it is the housing crisis at Cat Lake or reports of coerced sterilization, the indigenous community is well aware that systemic racism exists. Canada's black community knows it well, too. Today, black Canadians are still stopped far more frequently than other groups of Canadians through the practice of carding. In 2016, former Hamilton city councillor Matthew Green, who will be running for the NDP in Hamilton Centre this fall, was street checked while merely waiting for a bus. Black lives matter and the time for action is now.

[Andy Fillmore]

Madam Speaker, I can edify my colleague with the news that the Government of Canada remains committed to meaningful, evidence-based, community-involved and whole-of-government initiatives in the pursuit of equality and growth for all Canadians. That is why budget 2018 committed $23 million to Canadian Heritage to address racism and discrimination targeted against indigenous peoples and racialized women and girls and to support cross-country consultations on a new national anti-racism approach.

Budget 2018 had also committed $19 million to Canadian Heritage and the Public Health Agency of Canada to provide community supports for Canadian black youth at risk and to develop research in support of more culturally focused mental health programs in the black community.

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a very sensitive matter before the House of Commons: the trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. It would take me two hours to go into all the details, but for now I will just briefly review what has happened so far.

First of all, I want everyone to remember that Vice-Admiral Norman's case began while he was the commander of the Canadian navy. On November 18, 2014, Admiral Norman informed the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence that there was a problem with our supply ships and that the navy was no longer able to meet its operational needs. The navy was unable to acquire one or two supply ships to supply our frigates around the world. Then, the government of the day, the Harper government, said solutions would have to be found because contracts awarded under the national shipbuilding strategy to Vancouver's Seaspan were not yet underway. The shipyard had not even begun building the supply ships the Conservative government of the day had ordered.

We started to look at what had to be done. There was an operational problem. Federal Fleet Services, a partner of the Davie shipyard in Lévis, in the Quebec City region, had a genius idea to convert a civilian supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy at a good price and within a short deadline. This would get the Royal Canadian Navy its equipment as quickly as possible. On August 1, 2015, then prime minister Mr. Harper decided to award the contract to build the Asterix to Federal Fleet Services and to the Davie shipyard. The following day was the start of the election campaign, which lasted until October 19, 2015. A new government came in after the election and inherited the file. The contract had been awarded, but the official decree had not been signed.

I have here a document containing all of the details so far. This record of events shows that different stakeholders were putting enormous pressure on the new government to prevent the Davie shipyard from getting the contract. The deadline for signing the contract was November 20, 2015. Right up until the very last minute, everything was being done to prevent the contract from being signed.

That is when the problems began.

Then, Vice-Admiral Norman, who became second in command at the Canadian Armed Forces, was charged and is now being tried.

We understand that this matter is currently before the courts. What matters to us right now is the political game being played. We know it and we see it. We are no fools. Everyone knows it.

We want Admiral Norman to have all the evidence and all the exchanges that were made between the various stakeholders to ensure that he has a full and complete defence. This man must not pay for political games. If he made a mistake, then he will pay the price, but for now he has to be able to properly defend himself and we want to know why the government is refusing to provide this information.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, there are two reasons why the government must refrain from commenting on this matter.

First, it is important to respect the role of the director of public prosecutions and the independent prosecutor who reports to her. Second, according to the sub judice convention, it is inappropriate to discuss matters that are before the courts.

To begin with, it should be noted that the case in question is being prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which operates independently from the Department of Justice. Lawyers with the Attorney General of Canada are meeting all their obligations to the court regarding counsel's third party record applications. It is also important to remember that the matter currently before the Ontario Court of Justice is an application for third party records at a criminal trial.

Defence counsel seek to obtain relevant documents from certain government departments and entities. To be very clear, these are not the relevant documents provided to defence counsel in a criminal proceeding under first party disclosure obligations, which is known as Stinchcombe disclosure. What is now before the court is third party disclosure, meaning relevant documents that are not in the possession of the prosecutors and presumed to be in the possession or control of a third party.

Third party record applications are a two-step process. In the first step, the court must decide whether the requested records are relevant to the criminal proceedings. In the second step, the court must carefully examine the records and determine whether those that have been deemed relevant truly are relevant. Next, the court issues a ruling as to the public interest immunity versus confidentiality, striking a balance between those interests and the degree to which the records are needed to allow the accused to make a full answer and defence. The court ultimately determines whether the relevant records are held by a third party and, if so, whether to order that they be shared with the defence.

Witnesses in third party record applications are called to provide evidence in respect of the existence and availability of relevant records. Counsel for the defendant may ask a wide range of questions and raise a variety of allegations in the course of the examination. However, nothing has been proven or accepted by the court as a fact at that point. Such determinations are for the court to make at the appropriate stages of the proceedings.

I would reiterate that it is improper to speak on matters that are under active deliberation before the courts and that counsel to the Attorney General of Canada is clearly fulfilling all of their obligations before the court with respect to third party record applications.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for the government's response to my question.

I understand why he answered that way and the legal aspect of this matter. There is a political aspect too, however. The Prime Minister has the power to lift the publication ban for certain documents. He has the power to require that the documents requested be turned over.

I would like to know if my colleague believes the Prime Minister should use that power to help Admiral Norman.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, there is a legal rule and a rule of convention called the sub judice rule, which restrains parliamentarians on statements made about ongoing legal proceedings, especially criminal cases before the courts. Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals, which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. As the Supreme Court of Canada has stated, "It is a wise principle that the courts and Parliament strive to respect each other's role in the conduct of public affairs.”

Asbestos

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is the start of a new year and Canada has a ban on asbestos. Well, that is not quite true. While I applaud the government for moving to ban this deadly substance, I am perplexed and disappointed that it has decided to allow exemptions. The final regulations have been watered down considerably. Most worrisome and troubling are the chlor-alkali plants that will be allowed to continue to use asbestos for 10 more years, despite alternatives being available.

How we get from a ban to exemptions can only be explained by heavy-duty lobbying by the asbestos industry, and a government that did not stand up for workers and their health. I say this because there is no evidence whatsoever to the claims being made by industry to allow exemptions. The only evidence to continue exemptions is to ensure good profits for a few at the expense of many, putting at risk the health of Canadians to make a buck.

Companies will also be allowed to sift through mining waste with asbestos concentrations of up to 40% to look for magnesium. I need to add that there will be no big-wig CEO sifting through asbestos-laden mining waste. Workers trying to make a living will be the ones putting not only their lives on the line but the health of their families, friends and communities.

Kathleen Ruff, who has campaigned for years for a ban on asbestos, is also disappointed that the government has “weakened their proposed regulations and succumbed to lobbying by vested interests”. The government promised three years ago that it would bring in a comprehensive ban on asbestos, the deadliest industrial killer, yet the regulations that have just gone into effect have been weakened by allowing exemptions. Between the time the proposed regulations were made public in January 2018 and the time the final regulations were published in late October, the government had added new exemptions.

In his promise to ban asbestos, the Prime Minister said, “We know that its impact on workers far outweighs any benefits that it might provide”, but the final regulations contradict this statement.

The government estimates that asbestos exposure was responsible for approximately 1,900 lung cancer cases in 2011 and 430 cases of mesothelioma. According to these statistics, throughout the duration of Canada's proposed seven-year to 10-year time-limited exclusion, asbestos will be the cause of cancer for over 16,000 individuals in Canada.

Just yesterday, the Minister of Health talked about the government's commitment to helping Canadians take action to prevent cancer, and I agree. I would suggest that a total, comprehensive ban on asbestos should be a priority for a minister of health committed to preventing cancer, yet the Quebec and federal governments have both contributed millions of dollars in funding for Alliance Magnesium to extract magnesium from decades of asbestos mine tailings in Quebec.

Now that the government has finally acknowledged the dangers of asbestos to human health, it makes no sense that its ban on asbestos allows so many exemptions. Will the government immediately move to disallow these dangerous exemptions, stand up once and for all to the asbestos lobby, and protect the health of workers and all Canadians?

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made by the hon. member for Saskatoon West regarding asbestos. This is clearly an important issue, and her advocacy on this issue is important.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the environment and safeguarding the health of Canadians from toxic substances. That is clear.

The government recognizes that asbestos can cause life-threatening diseases and is proud to have taken action by banning asbestos and products containing asbestos. These regulations prohibit the import, sale and use of asbestos, as well as the manufacture, import, sale and use of asbestos-containing products, with a limited number of exclusions. Those were highlighted by the member for Saskatoon West.

These new regulations, along with existing provincial controls, will prohibit activities using asbestos mining residues that could pose health risks. During the development of the regulations that are now in place, the department held consultations with a wide variety of stakeholders, including industry, non-governmental groups, labour organizations, health and safety institutes, and provincial ministries and agencies.

The member can be assured that all the information and comments received in response to the proposed regulations were taken into consideration in the development of the final workup of the regulations. Through these consultations I just mentioned, it was determined, for example, that the Quebec government has controls in place to manage the risks associated with the use of asbestos mining residues. In addition, there are numerous regulations in place across Canada to protect the health and safety of all workers, including those working with asbestos mining residues.

While the new regulations do not generally apply to asbestos mining residues, they do prohibit certain activities, including the sale of asbestos mining residues for use in construction and landscaping, unless authorized by the province in which the construction or landscaping occurs. The regulations also prohibit the use of asbestos mining residues to manufacture a product that contains asbestos.

Allowing the extraction of valuable metals, such as magnesium, from asbestos mining residues is an important economic opportunity. Furthermore, allowing the use of asbestos mining residues for the rehabilitation of former mine sites will lead to a reduction in asbestos mining residues over time.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have heard all these rationales before. There is no such thing as a safe level of exposure to asbestos. Every single one of Quebec's health authorities has asked the federal government to use its authority and not to exempt mining waste. The facts about asbestos are irrefutable. For more than a century, asbestos has been known to be a deadly cause of diseases. All types of asbestos cause cancer. There is no such thing as a safe level of exposure or a safe controlled use of asbestos.

There are numerous pathways of asbestos exposure for those mining, transporting, handling, repairing, removing and disposing, in particular in the chlor-alkali industry. All exemptions will impact the efficacy of the Canadian ban and signal to importers and users in the United States and around the world that industry comes before health and the environment in Canada.

Why does the government ignore the evidence and continue to put Canadians at risk?

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member for Saskatoon West and her comments in the House, the issue of the health of Canadians is a fundamental priority for the government, as it should be for all parliamentarians.

Again, the regulatory approach we are taking to asbestos mining residues is consistent with the government announcement that was made in December 2016. At that time, we indicated that we would prohibit asbestos and products containing asbestos, but would allow the use of asbestos mining residues for the extraction of valuable minerals.

While the new regulations do not apply to asbestos mining residues, they do prohibit the sale of asbestos mining residues for use in construction and landscaping, unless authorized by the province in which that construction or landscaping occurs. The regulations also prohibit the use of asbestos mining residues to manufacture a product that contains asbestos.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:03 p.m.)