Debates of Sept. 18th, 2023

(Return tabled)

Question No.1689—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

With regard to the government’s engagements with the World Economic Forum (WEF): (a) what are the details of all contracts, transfer payments, memoranda of understanding, letters of intent, charters, accords, projects, and associations between the government and the WEF since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of engagement (e.g., contract, memoranda of understanding, project, association), (iii) name or title, (iv) duration, (v) departments engaged, (vi) purpose, (vii) summary of the terms, (viii) description of deliverables, (ix) cost to the taxpayer, (x) achieved or anticipated outcomes; and (b) what is the total dollar amount transferred to the WEF by the government since November 4, 2015, in total and broken down by year?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1690—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

With regard to the ArriveCan application: (a) what risks did the government identify with regard to the ongoing use and potential broadened use of the application; (b) which international health organizations and their institutions did the government identify to submit Canadians’ personal information to, as noted in the original version of the application’s privacy notice; (c) did the government submit Canadians’ personal data that it received through the ArriveCAN application to any international organization, and, if so, what information was shared and with whom; (d) what were the specific reasons for authorizing the sharing Canadians’ information with the organizations in (b); and (e) what are the details of all memoranda or other documents received by either the Minister of Public Safety, his office, his senior officials or by senior executives at the Canada Border Services Agency, related to the ArriveCAN application that contain reference to the “Known Traveller Digital Identity” program, or the “Digital Identity Program”, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) sender, (iv) title, (v) type of document, (vi) summary, (vii) subject matter, (viii) file number?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1692—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

With regard to the legislative review of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act: (a) what are the details of all written submissions received, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender’s name, title, and organization, (iii) type of document, (iv) title, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number; (b) what are the details of all meetings conducted in the course of the review, including, for each, (i) the names and titles of individuals in attendance, (ii) the date, (iii) the location, (iv) whether the meeting was in person, virtual, or hybrid, (v) the agenda items, (vi) the minutes of meeting or summary of event; (c) of the $8.6 billion in private and institutional capital attracted by the Canada Infrastructure Bank to date, how much of that capital is from (i) pension funds, (ii) labour unions, (iii) provincial or federal Crown corporations; and (d) why was (i) the Lake Erie Connector Project, (ii) other unsuccessful projects, not mentioned in the legislative review?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1693—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

With regard to the government responses to Order Paper questions (OPQ) and the information contained in the package released by Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) to Access to Information Request A-2022-00489: (a) since January 1, 2016 what instructions, definitions, directives, or other advice has the Privy Council Office (PCO) provided any departments, including those sent through the Parliamentary Returns Control Assistance System with the use or the development of (i) so-called “high-level limitation language”, a term used throughout Access to Information Request A-2022-00489, (ii) other means of not directly responding to each part of a question, and what are the details of each instance, including for each, the (A) date, (B) instruction, directive, or advice, (C) recipient, (D) relevant OPQ numbers; (b) are communications risks considered when departments develop responses to OPQs, and, if so, (i) what is the protocol, (ii) what measures are in place to ensure that Parliamentarians who submit OPQs receive responses that are complete and are not politically manipulated; (c) since January 1, 2016, what government-wide practices, protocols, or procedures have been developed to provide justification for not directly responding to each part of a question; (d) when the term “inherent risk” is used in relation to the use of so-called “high-level limitation language” or other means of not answering a question, what type of risk is being assessed; (e) on which other responses to OPQs in the 44th Parliament did (i) NRCAN, (ii) any other department or agency, strategize on how or if to use “high-level limitation language” or otherwise non-responsive language in a response to an OPQ; (f) for each instance where so-called “high-level limitation language” was used to avoid answering each part of a question, what was the reason for the non-answer, broken down by OPQ number; (g) did the Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns in the PCO authorize NRCAN to use “high-level limitation language” to avoid directly answering any OPQs, and, if so, who authorized such as response, broken down by each question where such a non-answer was given; (h) what did Kyle Harrietha, the former Minister of Natural Resources’ Deputy Chief of Staff, mean when he wrote that the Speaker of the House of Commons is going to “tut tut”; (i) how was the “high-level limitation language” used in the government’s response to Q-974 arrived at, including who came up with the language that was used; (j) who decides when NRCAN uses “high-level limitation language” to avoid directly answering a question; (k) was the Minister of Natural Resources informed that he was signing an incomplete response prior to him signing the response to Q-974, and, if so, why did he sign the response; (l) what is NRCAN’s explanation for how multiple departments come up with identical language when using “high-level limitation language”; (m) who in the PCO, the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was involved in the development of the template and language used in the response to Q-974; and (n) what was the rationale for using “high-level limitation language” in the response to Q-974 as opposed to directly answering the question?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question specifically about the widespread support for this bill.

We are seeing premiers from throughout the country, all of them as a matter of fact, applaud this legislation. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition himself say that he would waste absolutely no time in seeing this become law. We know that countless organizations out there, from chiefs of police to police associations, are all in favour of this legislation.

Can the parliamentary secretary provide insight into how quickly he thinks this bill should be able to move through the committee stage, back to the House and to the Senate so we can get this into law?

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

Madam Speaker, it is really important that all of us know and recognize that, at the end of the day, Bill C-48 would make our communities safer. That is the reason we have all sorts of jurisdictions; politicians, whether provincial, municipal and obviously federal; and law enforcement agencies coming out and saying that this particular legislation is good, sound legislation. The reason for that is that it is going to make our communities safer. That is why I am hopeful that, through the support of all members of the House, we will see it pass quickly to committee stage.

The leader of the official opposition made that very clear not that long ago when he said we should get the bill before us and that if we, in essence, stay until midnight, we will get the legislation passed. I would suggest to the Conservative members that if they really want to get this legislation passed today, they will find that the government, the Bloc opposition and the NDP are very receptive. It is up to the Conservatives to get it passed today.

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

Madam Speaker, some of the reverse onus provisions in this bill apply only to violent offences with a weapon. I wonder why the government did not include other violent offences where a weapon was not used. Does the member believe that these crimes are less serious? Conservatives have been calling for a total repeal of Bill C-75. Why did the government not do that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, whether it is firearms, knives or bear spray, and the reverse onus as applying to those in certain situations through this legislation, it is not the first time there is a reverse onus with respect to acts that are committed.

If the member has more specifics, as I suggested in my comments to the previous question, nothing prevents us from doing what it is the member's own leader was recommending not that long ago, which is to pass this legislation through. In getting it to committee stage, if the member has an idea that he would like to bring forward with respect to this legislation, I would encourage him to do so.

What I am suggesting is that there seems to be a will to see this legislation pass that goes far beyond even the House of Commons. Ultimately, standing committees can do good work when working with the minister, who I know is committed to working with the different stakeholders who are out there. If there is a way in which it can be improved upon, I am open to it. Let us see it go to committee.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees with me that this piece of legislation is not the only solution. The provinces and territories have also devised their own legislation in this regard and have worked jointly, because our justice system is complex and we need all levels of government to work together.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Judicial jurisdiction in our courts and our laws is actually shared between Ottawa and provincial and territorial governments, so it is important we all work together at advancing and improving community safety. What is so good about Bill C-48 is that the background work was done. This is good, solid legislation that would make a positive difference in terms of safety in our communities.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Agriculture and Agri-Food; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this first day of the new parliamentary session.

I would start by saying that the role of debate is to separate the wheat from the chaff, to use our experience, intelligence, discretion and insight to pinpoint what is really going on as opposed to what we think is going on, which can be influenced by the rush to easy assumptions and various biases, personal and societal, and so on.

The point of intelligent and informed debate, that is, of reasoned democratic discourse, is to safeguard against the kind of populism that appeals to simple intuition or, to use the new Conservative code word, simple common sense. Common sense sounds so right, so good. Who could object to it? Common sense is a deceptively appealing slogan, but there is a difference between common sense and good sense.

There is a distinction to be made between good sense and common sense. Good sense that is thoughtful, nuanced and based on facts and rigorous analysis is an excellent thing. On the other hand, what is referred to as “common sense” can be reductionist and simplistic, a populist trope designed to get the public to buy into easy solutions that serve narrow ideologies and well-established political agendas.

“Common sense” is a catchphrase that seeks to oversimplify and to get the buy-in of the public for simple solutions to complex problems, solutions that are not always the best but that serve an ideological agenda like cost cutting or rolling back environmental protections. I believe there is such a thing as collective wisdom that offers up time-tested notions, like the difference between good and evil, the need for caution in the face of too much rapid change or the value of preserving order in society. However, age-old collective wisdom cannot always guide us in dealing with technically and legally complex matters of contemporary public policy. So-called common sense can be off the mark.

So-called common sense can lead us down the wrong path. It can actually lead us right off the road.

With respect to bail reform, this seems to be the Conservative common-sense approach or belief: Those apprehended and accused of a crime are guilty and therefore should remain in jail while awaiting trial. However, in our justice system, the product of centuries of accumulated wisdom and reason, in law one is, thankfully, innocent until proven guilty.

Traditional small c conservatives are supposed to put faith in accumulated wisdom and the organic evolution of thought, laws and institutions, as opposed to promoting reactive solutions. Canada's bail system is the product of English common law dating back hundreds of years.

Let me be clear: One murder because someone is out on bail who should not have been is one death too many. It is a tragedy and we should not stand for it. There is not a single person in this House who disagrees. However, to claim, as the opposition does daily, that the streets are being overrun by murderers on automatic bail in a revolving-door justice system is, I believe, demagoguery.

How does the bail system work, versus the opposition's truncated version of it? Namely, it is up to police and prosecutors in provincial jurisdiction to make the case against granting bail to an individual. In other words, the onus is on the state to justify why someone who has not yet been found guilty should have to remain behind bars while awaiting trial. However, something not generally understood is that when it comes to charges of murder and certain other offences, the onus is actually reversed. The accused must convince the court why they should be released while awaiting trial.

In 2019, Parliament adopted Bill C-75, which extended the reverse onus to repeat offenders charged with an offence against an intimate partner, or what we call intimate partner violence. Again, this will be news to many listening today. The burden of proof is also on the accused for certain firearms offences, including weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, illegal importation or exportation of a weapon, discharging a firearm with intent, discharging a firearm with recklessness and the following offences committed with a firearm: attempted murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion. Again, that is a far cry from a revolving door. Furthermore, the law is already clear that detention without bail is justified when deemed necessary by a judge to protect the safety of the public.

When someone is granted bail, they typically are required to have a surety, that is, one or more people who commit to supervising the behaviour of the accused and who will pay a certain sum if the accused breaches their bail conditions. There are many reasons bail can be denied: the accused has a criminal record or failed to comply with past bail conditions; or, as mentioned, the accused is thought to pose a risk to the public; or the accused lacks a surety or place to live, which is a problem that more often afflicts members of disadvantaged groups.

Here is a news flash that will come as a surprise to many people listening today: In 2020, 77% of people in Ontario's jails were in custody awaiting trial. In other words, we are not a lenient country, contrary to the Conservative populist narrative. To quote Queen's University professor Nicole Myers, “We've had more people in pretrial detention than in sentence provincial custody since 2004.”

All that said, we do need bail reform, and Liberals are reformers by nature.

How do we reconcile the need to protect the public while at the same time preserving the central tenet of our criminal justice system, which is “innocent until proven guilty”? The answer is Bill C-48. The bill would add a reverse onus for an accused person charged with a serious offence involving violence that was used, threatened or attempted, and the use of a weapon such as a knife, where the person was previously convicted, namely within the previous five years. This makes sense because a previous offence is an indication of risk. A serious offence would be defined as an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, such as assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The bill also expands the list of firearms offences that would trigger a reverse onus. These offences include unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking or entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm. Currently, there is a reverse onus when the person is subject to a weapons prohibition order and violates it. The new law would clarify to include prohibition orders made at bail.

Bill C-48 would also broaden the reverse onus for repeat offenders of intimate partner violence to those who have received a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code, or, in other words, where the offence no longer appears on a criminal record.

Finally, Bill C-48 would require courts to consider an accused person's history of convictions for violence as well as concern for community safety. As OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique told The Globe and Mail recently, the changes in Bill C-48 “go a long way to help eliminate and prevent harm and senseless tragedies in our communities”.

We need to keep in mind that indigenous people are denied bail more often than others, while Black people in Ontario spend longer in custody while awaiting trial than white people for the same offences. This is because courts use police reports to decide on bail, and police reports can contain racial bias. Another reason is that members of disadvantaged groups often have trouble finding sureties or bail money. It is worth noting that the longer someone is detained without bail, the greater the probability of a plea bargain or that the person will plead guilty despite having a viable defence. Either way, justice is compromised.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, accused persons in Canada have the right to bail unless there is a very compelling reason to keep them in custody. This is constitutional law, whether Conservatives like it or not.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the data, which says that 70% of incarcerated people in provincial jails are in pretrial detention. They have not even been tried or convicted yet. He says that in his opinion, this counters the false narrative that the Canadian judicial system is lenient. However, maybe it is evidence that our courts and Crown prosecutors are under-resourced. Accused people have the right to a speedy trial, and maybe people are just languishing in pretrial because our courts and Crown prosecutors are under-resourced.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the percentage I quoted was 77%, which is extremely high. Yes, of course the system is under-resourced and that could affect this figure, no doubt, but it is such an overwhelming figure that I think it is compelling in its own right.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I note that the member, at the beginning of his speech, talked quite a bit about this new-found slogan that the Conservatives are using, which is the “common sense” talk. As an Ontarian, the first thing I thought of was Mike Harris's “Common Sense Revolution”, which led to widespread cuts, the selling off of government organizations that were actually making money and, of course, the neglect to ensure that we had safe drinking water, which was due to cuts to the various agencies that oversaw healthy drinking water.

The member touched on this a bit, but I am curious if he could comment as to what the idea of this “common sense“ approach really means in terms of the impact it would have on Canadians, as we saw in Ontario in the nineties.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I was trying to bring out was the distinction between common sense and good sense. Easy slogans like “common sense” can hide a lot from the public. They can hide issues that need to be explored in greater detail. I think the distinction between common sense and good sense is important because it underscores the notion that, yes, things have to make sense but solutions have to be well-grounded.

I think a lot can be done in the service of an ideology while hiding behind an easy slogan that appeals to people. Let us face it. We all believe in common sense. A lot can go on behind this slogan that is, in some ways, deceptive.