Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2022

Charitable Status

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present a number of petitions.

The first petition is from Canadians across Canada who are concerned about the Liberals' promise in their last election platform to politicize charitable status. These people are concerned that the jeopardization of charitable status may affect hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on matters surrounding abortion. Many Canadians depend on the benefits of these charitable organizations, and the government has previously put a values test on the Canada summer jobs program. The petitioners are concerned that this may similarly be placed upon charitable status.

Therefore, they are calling on the Government of Canada to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of a values test. They ask us to affirm Canadians' freedom of expression and association.

Forced Labour and Child Labour

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting is from Canadians across Canada who are very concerned about the issue of modern slavery. It appears that today, more than 50 million people are caught up and enslaved in modern slavery, and many of the products we buy here in Canada are affected by this form of slavery.

Approximately 20 million people are in forced labour today, and it is estimated that over 1,200 companies operating in Canada are at risk of selling or using products that are produced by child labourers or forced labourers. Approximately 20 billion dollars' worth of goods are imported each year that are at risk of being produced through modern slavery. Large companies at this point are not required to report measures taken to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains. Canada has committed to target 8.7 of the 2030 United Nations goals to eliminate all forms of child slavery by 2025.

The folks who have signed this petition are calling on the House of Commons to quickly pass Bill S-211, an act to fight against forced labour and child labour in supply chains and to amend the Customs Tariff. I note that this bill is at committee right now and is in its final stages. The petitioners are calling for Parliament to quickly pass it.

Age Verification Software

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am presenting this morning is from Canadians across Canada who would like to draw the attention of the House to the following.

Sexually explicit material, including demeaning material and material depicting sexual violence, can be easily accessed on the Internet by young people. The petitioners are concerned that a significant proportion of sexually explicit material accessed online is made available for a commercial purpose and is not protected by any effective age verification method. They are concerned that the consumption of this material is associated with a wide range of harms, including the development of addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, particularly against women.

The petitioners are calling on the government to recognize the harmful effects of the increased accessibility of sexually explicit materials for young persons. They want this to be recognized as an important health and public safety concern. They also want the government to ensure that meaningful age verification technology is being used to prevent young people from gaining access to sexually explicit material. They want anybody making sexually explicit material available for a commercial purpose to have a responsibility to ensure that young people are not gaining access.

Therefore, the people who have signed this petition are calling on the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, which I note is on its way here from the Senate as we speak.

Indigenous Affairs

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by 2,054 people.

The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to recognize the genocide that was declared in the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry, and the lack of urgent action from the government. They note that the root cause of this is colonial violence against indigenous women, men, children and two-spirit people.

The petitioners are calling specifically for the government to take immediate action on the calls for justice recommendations related to police services. They are calling on the government to develop a national action plan in partnership with news media to address the lack of coverage of missing persons cases of indigenous women, men, children and two-spirit people, including the vulnerable. They are also calling on the government to organize search parties for missing indigenous women, men, children and two-spirit people, and to work with all levels of government to fund the expansion of community-based security models that include indigenous perspectives and people such as local peacekeeper officers, or programs such as the Bear Clan Patrol and Butterflies in Spirit.

Addiction Recovery

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to table a petition on behalf of dozens of Canadians adding their names to those of thousands of Canadians across the country who have called upon the House of Commons to designate the month of September every year as national recovery awareness month to recognize and support Canadians recovering from addiction and to demonstrate that recovery from addiction is possible, attainable and sustainable.

Connecting people to community is key to long-term addiction recovery, and recovery service providers across Canada are working together to overcome addiction. In my community of New Westminster, over 40,000 people came out for Recovery Day this September, and I am pleased that this petition has a happy conclusion to it. As members know, on September 28 of this year, the House of Commons voted unanimously to declare September national recovery awareness month in Canada.

Human Rights

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today.

The first petition deals with the ongoing genocide of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China at the hands of the Chinese Community Party.

The petitioners note various reports showing, for instance, forced sterilization, forced abortion and a campaign of systematic sexual violence targeting Uighur women, as well as political and anti-religious indoctrination, arbitrary detention, separation of children from families, invasive surveillance, destruction of cultural sites, forced labour and organ harvesting.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to take action to formally recognize that Uighurs in China have been and are being subject to ongoing genocide, and to also use the Magnitsky act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, to sanction those who have been responsible for these heinous crimes committed against the Uighur people.

The next petition I am tabling is about a specific Uighur Canadian who has been detained in China approaching two decades. That person is Huseyin Celil.

The petitioners note the efforts that were undertaken to secure the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and certainly support those efforts, and they call on the Government of Canada to take similar efforts to secure the release of Mr. Celil. They note that he was taken from Uzbekistan while travelling there. The Government of China has failed to recognize his Canadian citizenship or provide consular access.

The petitioners have a number of specific suggestions. They want Canada to demand that the Chinese government recognize Mr. Celil's Canadian citizenship and provide him with consular and legal services in accordance with international law, and to formally state that the release of Mr. Celil from Chinese detainment and his return to Canada is a priority of the Canadian government and is of equal concern as the unjust detentions of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. They want the Government of Canada to appoint a special envoy to work on securing Mr. Celil's release, and to seek the assistance of the Biden administration and other allies around the world in obtaining Mr. Celil's release, as done in the case of the two Michaels.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling deals with legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. Bill S-223 is currently before the foreign affairs committee.

The petitioners want the government to recognize the problem of forced organ harvesting and trafficking and to support the rapid passage of Bill S-223. This bill has been before this Parliament and previous Parliaments for approaching 15 years. The petitioners are hopeful that this Parliament will be the one that finally gets this done.

Falun Gong

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.

Falun Gong practitioners have been victims of forced organ harvesting and trafficking, as well as various other forms of persecution. The petitioners note the reports done by David Kilgour and David Matas, for example, that reveal this horrific, ongoing campaign whereby people are killed for their organs and those organs are given to others.

The petitioners call on the Canadian Parliament and the government to establish measures to stop the Chinese government's mass murder of innocent people for their organs, including but not limited to introducing legislation to ban organ tourism and criminalize those involved. The petitioners also want to see the government take every opportunity to call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

Military Chaplaincy

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I am going to table today raises concern about a report from the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination, which produced its final report in early 2022.

It is an ironically named panel, because some of its recommendations, in fact, involve discrimination against religious clergy who have views that the government deems politically incorrect. The report called for clergy from religions that have a different view on gender and sexuality in the Department of National Defence to be banned as Canadian Armed Forces chaplains. Petitioners were certainly horrified to see this kind of incitement to religious discrimination from the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel.

Petitioners call on the House of Commons to reject the recommendation on chaplaincy in the Canadian Armed Forces in the final report of the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination, and to affirm the right of all Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces chaplains, to freedom of religion.

I commend these petitions to the consideration of the House.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Division for Vote on Bill C‑27

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding government Bill C-27, an act to enact the consumer privacy protection act, the personal information and data protection tribunal act and the artificial intelligence and data act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Standing Order 69.1 states the following:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

You will find that, in the case of Bill C-27, the bill enacts three new laws and amends several other existing laws.

Bill C-27 enacts the consumer privacy protection act and the personal information and data protection tribunal act.

These two acts were at the core of the former Bill C-11 in the 43rd Parliament, a bill that was introduced in November 2020 and died on the Order Paper a year later, without ever having been voted on at second reading.

Here is the purpose of part 1 of Bill C-27, as described in the text of the bill:

The purpose of this Act is to establish — in an era in which data is constantly flowing across borders and geographical boundaries and significant economic activity relies on the analysis, circulation and exchange of personal information — rules to govern the protection of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.

Part 2 of the bill sets up the personal information and data protection tribunal, which would have jurisdiction with respect to appeals made under different sections of the consumer privacy protection act. The link between part 1 and part 2 of Bill C-27 is clear, and I am not putting it into question in this appeal at all.

Where we have an issue, however, is with the third part of the bill.

Bill C‑27 also enacts the artificial intelligence and data act, which was not part of Bill C‑11, the previous version of this bill.

The purpose of part 3 of Bill C‑27, which enacts the artificial intelligence and data act, is as follows:

The purposes of this Act are:

(a) to regulate international and interprovincial trade and commerce in artificial intelligence systems by establishing common requirements, applicable across Canada, for the design, development and use of those systems; and

(b) to prohibit certain conduct in relation to artificial intelligence systems that may result in serious harm to individuals or harm to their interests.

During his second reading speech on Bill C‑27, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said that the new artificial intelligence act would “set a foundation for regulating the design, development, deployment and operations of AI systems”.

The development of artificial intelligence systems in the past decade has led to profound changes in the way we do things. Regulating AI systems is something we believe must be done. However, it seems odd to add these regulations to a bill that has to do with privacy protection and with the analysis, circulation and exchange of personal information. Artificial intelligence is its own beast in a way, and it should be studied and treated separately.

In a ruling by Speaker Regan on March 1, 2018, he said the following.

The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they each apply to a specific field.

The House leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for La Prairie will remember this, since it is from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec.

The Speaker continued as follows:

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

We find ourselves in a similar situation here. While some of the measures in Bill C-27 relate to digital technology, part 1 and part 2 have nothing in common with part 3.

Therefore, it would certainly be appropriate to divide this bill for the vote. The Speaker has that authority, and that would make it possible for members to thoroughly study this legislative measure and better represent their constituents by voting separately on these bills, which are quite different from one another.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to thank the hon. member for his intervention.

I assure the member that I will take it under advisement and return to the House should I find it necessary.

The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The last time the House debated this bill, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia had seven minutes left for her speech.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matana—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there were a few minutes left in my speech on November 3 just before the Deputy Prime Minister took the floor to present her economic update.

Members will remember that, at the time, the House of Commons was all abuzz and everyone was eager to hear the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech, so I have a feeling that not many members heard what I had to say.

I will take this opportunity to review certain points that explain the Bloc Québécois’s position on Bill C-20. I began by announcing that the government had our support for the first reading of the bill. This is a second attempt for me in my speech today, but it is the third attempt for the government in its introduction of the bill.

In fact, the government has been trying to legislate on this issue for several years. Members will remember Bill C-3, introduced in the 43rd legislature, and Bill C-98, introduced in the 42nd legislature. I hope that the third time is the charm, and that Bill C-20 will be able to survive the entire democratic parliamentary process so that we can provide the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP with a truly independent external review commission.

The community has been asking for this for many years now. More than 18 years ago, in 2004, Justice O’Connor recommended the creation of an independent process to manage public complaints against the CBSA. The CBSA is the only Canadian public safety agency that has no external commission enabling the general public to file a complaint if they suffer any harm.

We know that this has happened in recent years. Many newspaper articles have reported on the fact that Canadian citizens returning home or leaving the country have suffered abuse by border services officers. Obviously, the point of my speech is not to put border services officers on trial. They usually do a very good job but, as in every organization, there are cases of abuse. We therefore need to enable the public to file complaints and allow these complaints to go through the necessary process to see whether anything can be done and whether these complaints should be reviewed.

Of course, there is a complaint process within the CBSA, but we know that self-investigation is never particularly effective. When complaints are dealt with internally, we often need to make access to information requests to find out what was the outcome of these complaints. Moreover, we know what happens with access to information requests these days. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières mentioned, the government “is so transparent that we can see right through the pages”. That is what he said about the 225 blank pages sent by Health Canada in response to an access to information request.

It would be a very good thing to have this process finally in place. As I said earlier, the community has been asking for this for many years. The Customs and Immigration Union gave its opinion on the bill. It asks that the review commission deal with not only misconduct by officers, but also any systemic problem that might come from higher up in the chain of command. That way, the problem could be investigated and complaints could be filed against managers and not just officers. The union really wants the entire chain of command to be looked at and, if there is a problem, officers should not be the only ones who are reprimanded for complaints filed with the commission.

What is also interesting about the bill is that it requires the minister of public safety to present an annual report informing the House and Canadians of what public safety agencies have done to implement the recommendations made by the public complaints and review commission. The commission would be able to issue recommendations to the department, and the minister would be accountable to the public and to complainants.

I mentioned earlier that border services officers have great power. They can detain and search Canadians and even deport people.

The legislative summary of Bill C-20 mentions the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian Canadian citizen who was deported, imprisoned and tortured in Syria. This was the result of a communication problem between Canadian and U.S. border services. Mr. Arar was questioned by the FBI. We realized that there might be a problem and that complaints were not being followed up on. That might have prevented this sort of thing from happening.

The number of investigations rose in 2020 compared to 2019. I do not have the figures for 2021 or 2022. Some 250 investigations of officers were conducted by the Canada Border Services Agency following complaints. For example, it appears that some officers interfered in the immigration process, while others attempted to assist immigration lawyers by illegally removing items that might raise questions from certain files. Still others apparently made disparaging comments about clients or inappropriate comments about colleagues. Some are said to have abused their authority. There were also complaints about harassment and sexual assault. These complaints are serious, and they demonstrate the need to create a thorough, independent complaint process. This will allow people who have been harmed by border services officers to have some recourse and keep informed.

Once again, the government can count on our support to improve this bill and pass it as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member's comment with regard to the importance of legislation of this nature, which puts into place, I believe, a process that assists us in building confidence among the public.

That is a very critical point, when we think of justice and policing in general. The public needs to have confidence in those authorities. With the passage of this legislation, what we would do, at least in part, is ensure that this level of confidence continues to be there for our border control officers and the RCMP. In fact, for border control officers this would be for the first time.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

I think this sends the right message to the public. It is a message that might restore public confidence in the country's institutions. We know that, both for the Canada Border Services Agency and for institutions in general, the public has lost confidence in public safety institutions and agencies in Canada, and even in elected officials.

Bill C‑20 will bring in mechanisms that will enable people to follow the complaint process and see the results. It is all well and good to file a complaint, but if it is never mentioned again and nothing comes out of it, then it serves no real purpose, and that does not show that people have been heard. I think this sends a rather positive message.

This could have been introduced sooner, but we are glad it is before us today.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy serving with my Bloc colleague on the public safety committee. Our committee produced a very substantial report on systemic racism in policing in Canada.

One of the clear recommendations in that report was that the government appoint indigenous, Black and other racialized people to the commission because, often, they are the ones who have suffered the most at the hands of police interactions. Because of the way that the bill is currently written, it allows for some discretion on the part of the government.

Does she see any room for an amendment to the bill at committee stage, which might codify the inclusion of those specific groups. Does she have any ideas on how this bill could be improved to include meaningful participation from indigenous, Black and other racialized people?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom it is a pleasure to work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

What an excellent proposal. I believe it is important that all bodies be representative. We often hear that our parliaments should reflect the people they represent, that there should be as many women as men, that there should be a lot of young people and members of minority groups. It is therefore important that the people representing us reflect the population.

I think that the same principle applies here. If there are certain categories of people more likely to be affected, they should be represented on the commission. As I was saying earlier, when agencies investigate themselves, we rarely get results. If we can appoint anyone we want to the commission, we will end up with a flawed process. It would be interesting to propose an amendment that would allow some of the more affected groups to sit on the commission.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

To my hon. colleague, as I understand it, this bill was first proposed in the 42nd Parliament and reintroduced in the 43rd Parliament. Here we are about 14 or 15 months after the last election. I wonder if the lag in the amount of time the government has had to put this bill forward, which was previously drafted, speaks to whether it views it as a priority. Could I have her input on that, please?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who raises a very good point.

As I was saying, this is our third attempt. Let us hope this is the one. In the past, the government tried to legislate on this issue, but the bill always died on the Order Paper because it was never given priority. There were always more important bills to be debated. That is unfortunate.

Let us hope that, this time, it will be given priority. We hope to be able to adopt this bill. Justice O'Connor's decision that proposed the creation of the commission was handed down 18 years ago. The Liberals have been in power for seven years, which was obviously more than enough time to legislate. That being said, if we look at the time frames, the Conservatives were also there for a few years when Justice O'Connor made his ruling.

I think everyone shares the blame. Let us hope that the House will agree to legislate on this issue quickly, which appears to be the case. There appears to be a certain consistency in the parties' positions. However, the government still has to decide to keep the bill on the agenda so that it can be quickly studied in committee.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Among other things, Bill C-20 seeks to ensure that all Canadians are treated fairly and equitably. The bill provides for the collection of data to address systemic racism.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that these measures will indeed help to combat systemic racism.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope so.

I do not have the figures or the details about the complaints filed in recent years, but I imagine that the degrading comments made about certain people involved gender or nationality. We want to avoid this at all costs.

Once again, I do not want to put border services officers, who do an extraordinary job, on trial. There is a shortage of officers right now, and I think they are doing their best, but that does not give them the right to go places we do not want them to go. That does not give them the right to make degrading comments or abuse their power, which has happened in recent years.

Let us hope that the bill will help resolve these issues. Let us make sure that the commission remains independent, and that the complaint process goes smoothly. If it takes people months or years to get a response after they file a complaint, we may find that the commission is not doing much good after all, so let us ensure that it is truly useful for Canadians.