Adam Vaughan

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, being new to this chamber, it is a little odd not to have committees meeting and to have every budget circumvented. I am beginning to question what exactly this institution is supposed to be trying to achieve by not working. I do not think it is a question, necessarily, of defining people's personalities, but there is obstruction at play, and it concerns me.

The hon. member said, in representing this motion, that this was a budget tabled months earlier, that it is just housekeeping being tabled today, and that we are simply trying to be efficient.

However, there are measures in this process that were not tabled in the spring budget. I would like to know how those measures will be properly dealt with. Measures that were never announced in the budget are now being slipped into this process. How are we supposed to fully debate and understand those and represent our constituents' needs when those measures were not presented or tabled earlier?

[Housing, October 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, since coming to power the Conservative government has increased spending on outside consultants by almost $2 billion a year. A report that was released today on homelessness identifies that if they had spent that money on housing, they would have drastically and dramatically reduced homelessness in this country. Instead, they have hired their friends.

With respect to housing wait times, does the minister want some evidence? Housing wait times across this country are growing. In Vancouver, close to 5,000 people are waiting. In Montreal, it is close to 10,000. In Winnipeg, over 4,500 people are waiting for housing.

Instead of bringing consultants in-house, when is the government going to start building housing for Canadians who need housing now?

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is a significant concern. There is also the concern that as it is farmed out, and as it delegated or done by proxy, or that through this bill it is re-regulated, the very text we are quoting as being delegated to or made proxy to can change under our feet without our being notified or having any requirement of being notified. We would end up in a situation where laws are being changed in the absence of Canadian scrutiny. That is a concern.

The goal here is an admirable one. We understand the goal, and we understand the efficiency that is being sought. We all seek to create more efficient systems.

However, as I said, we build in inefficiencies when we delegate to authorities and chambers and bodies making decisions that we have no connection to, no relationship with, and in some cases have no reporting mechanism. We are referencing rules that could be changing, and as a result we are giving an unfair advantage to those entities outside the country to effectively use Canadian law against Canadians in a way that was not expected because the law is not changed and the ability to exploit those changes resides with entities outside the country. Therefore, we are granting them unfair practice and procedure inside our own courts system, and Canadians may be oblivious to this.

We do not need to refuse to pursue these agreements, to abdicate the opportunities that may be presented to knit together, on a global stage, treaties and agreements and trade deals. We need to do that. We understand that, and we live in that world. However, we need to do it in a way that respects the common law traditions, the practices of Parliament, and the Constitution of Canada, including the rights that the member has raised.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get too specific in the legislation only insofar as the colleague who asked me the question is a much more learned professor of law than I am.

The issue is that there is this handing off at arm's length and referencing at arm's length to other organizations. We understand why it happens. We understand that sections of existing laws get drafted into new laws, treaties or agreements. We understand how the law evolves and lives over time.

The trouble is that as we enter into a world where international law governs much of our trade, much of our economic activity and much of our obligations, and as we short-circuit the detail and definitions, we enter into areas where other legal practices, conventions and terminology start to enter into, and at times, confuse, contrast or even contradict very similarly phrased legal agreements. We start to look at some of the agreements that govern down into the provinces and into the municipal level around trade. The CETA agreement is one of those issues where these concerns are being raised.

We take a look at non-parallel situations that may exist in a continent such as Europe, where trade agreements have been put in place. We have the European Parliament governing it. We have individual nations governing it, and subregions, provinces, cities and other legal entities providing governance. When we start extrapolating all of the different variations that may exist around a certain set of regulations, customs, practices, and most importantly, laws, the opportunity for gaps in understanding, for clarity to be replaced by confusion, is a real and significant possibility.

Writing into and codifying directly into laws that govern and regulate Canadian practice needs to be done in the context of Canada. That means in both official languages simultaneously. It also means taking the time to make sure that the language is right, because language is at the root of law-making.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this. I note with irony that yesterday we spoke to a private member's motion that attempted to ban the practice of proxy marriages. We have here an attempt in some ways to provide regulation by proxy. If it is unacceptable to marry someone by proxy, it ought to be just as unacceptable to try and govern a country by proxy and distribute regulation and use proxy in this case to create a simplified legislative tool, but in fact complicate the regulatory regime.

There are significant issues with this legislation. We are profoundly concerned. They range across the legislation as it is presented, but they go to the heart of this issue. In trying to make things simple, sometimes we actually end up making them that much more complicated. In trying to be efficient, sometimes the efficiency creates confusion, legal challenges and complications that actually slow things down and make things less fair. Instead of creating accessible definitions, inaccessible procedures are created, and inaccessible and sometimes even costly regulations come into effect. It is the unintended consequences perhaps of good intention.

However, I return to the notion that if it is unacceptable to do marriages by proxy, why would we create legislation and regulation by proxy and simply choose to proceed in a quick way rather than in the right way?

For example, if an incorporated document is protected by copyright and that copyright document regulation is referenced in the legislation, it may actually cost people to get the information they need to comply. Willing individuals, willing corporations and willing institutions are prepared and attempting to participate properly and legally. Yet because of the way the legislation is constructed, they have to pay to get public information.

We have talked a great deal about the value of an open democracy and open government, but our regulations, our rules and our laws must also be just as open. When we short-circuit that process, as cumbersome as it may be, as rooted in tradition as it may be, it provides us with positive thought and in this case with cause for concern sufficient enough to stand in opposition.

Section 18.6 says:

A person is not liable to be found guilty of an offence or subjected to an administrative sanction for any contravention in respect of which a document, index, rate or number—that is incorporated by reference in a regulation—is relevant unless, at the time of the alleged contravention, it was accessible as required by section 18.3.

In other words, what it is saying is if the rate is done by proxy, or in this case defined in the way it is in this legislation, the numeric figures that must be complied with are suddenly just beyond the reach of someone acting within what they think are the bounds of the rules and regulations. In fact, because they have not had access to those exact data files, they actually do not know what rate they may be governed by.

Additionally crown corporations may have their rates changed. We have a situation where the details of the rules and regulations are hidden by the provisions in this document we are debating today.

This is critically important for a country that is bilingual. We have no guarantee that the proxy regulations, especially if they are overseas or outside the jurisdiction of Canada, are translated in real time into either official language. That is significant because under Canadian law, we have an obligation to treat both language groups equally and fairly. If outside organizations, which do not have an obligation to meet, are the ones having their rules and regulations referenced, that lag time between having equality of languages creates an unfair condition and such a troubling precedent in this country. It is again, something with which we really need to be concerned.

In a globalized world of complex trade agreements and trade treaties, in a world that wants to speed up and in a complex federal system, we understand the impulse of what is being proposed here. What we are doing, as I said, is circumventing the proper process, a good process and a sound process. We are substituting it with something that creates glaring inequities and gaps.

When we draft laws and knowingly draft laws that have these gaps, we are inviting court challenges and non-compliance, even through good intent. We are also opening the door to potential exploitation of that, which is perhaps the most serious of all of the concerns.

We are concerned to the point of opposition to Bill S-2, and the Liberal Party will not be supporting it.

[Petitions, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to table a petition from concerned Canadians with regard to the government's legislation for the Rouge national park.

The petitioners are very troubled about the government's current plan for the creation of the park because it ignores the ecological vision and policies approved for the Rouge Park plans and provincial greenbelt legislation. As well, it ignores the long-standing plans for a 600-plus metre wide forested Rouge Park main ecological corridor between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine.

[Multiculturalism, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, several candidates running in Monday's municipal election in Toronto have had their signs and campaign offices vandalized. They are being targeted because they are Muslim.

Today, a young candidate, Munira Abukar, was assaulted and pelted with garbage. Her brother is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

These attacks are unacceptable. They too are an attack on democracy. What steps is the government taking to assure Canadians that not only are individuals, mosques, and places of worship safe, but will Conservatives join us in condemning these attacks on Muslims?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, October 23rd, 2014]

The hon. member for Trinity--Spadina.

We are speaking about whether or not legal arrangements overseas are recognized here in this country. As I said, when a Rhodes scholar goes off to Oxford and his or her credentials are mocked, when somebody teaches at Harvard and his or her credentials are mocked, it is no wonder that people who come to this country with credentials from elsewhere, whether they are marriage certificates or university degrees, feel so alienated when they arrive in this country and have to take extreme measures to get their legal reality recognized. It is a shame.

Those of us whose parents come from other countries or have family members who were trained in other countries are appalled when the laws of this country are not applied evenly to all Canadian citizens and people are mocked for their international experience or the documents and information they bring to this country.

I would ask the members opposite to bring forward motions that are clear, that are named appropriately and that address the issue they are trying to bring resolution to because when they confuse us or mock us, they do not do a service to this House.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I wish to note as many members today have the deep gratitude we have in particular for the folks we affectionately call “the blue shirts”, the parliamentary precinct security guards with whom I spent most of the day yesterday in their lunchroom under lockdown. They were professional, courteous and in good spirits in very trying times and put themselves in harm's way with the bravery that all of us are indebted to and I would like to thank them and pay my respects personally from the floor of the House.

Our thoughts are also of course with the six-year-old boy whose father has been lost. The flags are at half-mast across the country in respect, but our hearts are held high and our love for that young child and our support for him remain as high as possible and stream straight into the night tonight as we remember a soldier who lost his life in the line of duty.

I now turn my attention to the motion in front of us. It is a confusing motion. It is a piece of legislation that comes forward with a name and intent to go in one direction, but it heads off completely in the opposite direction. It focuses its language around the issue of trying to prevent proxy marriages, but it really seeks to try to address the issue of forced marriages. It is this confusion that makes it a difficult motion to debate because we are not really sure what the intent of this private member's motion is. It would be much clearer if the government would simply bring forward legislation that changes our immigration act and changes our Criminal Code in a way that was much clearer, much more direct in its intent, but also sought to ban a practice that was not already illegal.

My question for the motion's sponsor indicates that proxy marriages in many provinces, in fact all provinces, are not recognized. Therefore, we are seeking to make illegal something that is already illegal and redundancy is at the heart of where our concern about this motion lies.

We understand and support moves to prevent forced marriages and to prevent forced marriages from being the pretext for immigration or any other legal follow-up in this country. We understand that and we are in total support of the concerns that have been raised by all members of the House in speaking to this issue about how seriously a forced marriage violates the principles of what we see as both a spiritual and a legal arrangement that deserves much greater respect.

We note that forced marriages have a disproportionate impact on young women, on women who have been subjected to violence. The evidence presented by the South Asian Legal Clinic is very clear on this. This is a concern that the House should be concerned with and the Canadian government and Canadian law should deal with and in fact does.

The issue of proxy marriages is what the motion seeks to sculpt and limit as a legal reality, and we have concerns there. Many members may know that I was a city councillor and as a city councillor one becomes a public notary while holding the office. I remember getting instructions from our city clerk's department but also in conversation with legal colleagues about the absolute importance to be present to witness all the documents. One is part of the legal process and must bear witness to the person signing and presenting the identification.

The same is true for marriage. It is very easy to understand it and see it as simply a spiritual or religious exercise, the joining of two families as an emotional or romantic conclusion to a courtship. It is also though fundamentally at its core a legal arrangement. When that legal arrangement is extended and blended with technology, problems start to arise, in particular, if forced marriage is involved. However, when we extend or use technology to record or codify or make legal that union, there are concerns that are raised. The idea of a marriage by fax is one of those areas where we share a concern, but we do not think this is going to deal with the pretext of the motion, which is about preventing forced marriages.

A fake marriage, a bad marriage, a marriage made out of convenience to do an end run or circumvent the laws of the country are a serious matter and we share those serious concerns. None of us want to see marriage or any legal arrangement used to circumvent laws. That is not appropriate.

This is an issue where we must also accommodate modern realities, where borders change quickly, where family situations and a profoundly dysfunctional immigration system in this country prevents people from being next to each other even when they are properly and legally married. It is a concern that we all share.

I will give members an example. Without naming names, there was a case that came into my constituency office of a Canadian citizen, a professor with a Ph.D., who was working overseas in one of the Commonwealth countries and married a colleague, another recipient of a Ph.D., another person with highly-prized skills. When she came back to Toronto to teach, her partner was told that he could wait two years before rejoining her or could come here for two years and not travel or work. That is absurd. This was a legal marriage that was not forced or done by proxy and nonetheless was not honoured here.

As I listened to some of the remarks that were being made here, I noted that the members opposite denigrate people with real credentials from somewhere else with great ease. No wonder foreign-trained professionals have such a difficult time getting recognition of their citizenship, their intelligence and their capacity in this country when people with degrees from Ivy League universities are joked at for having gone abroad to receive them. Shame on the members opposite. Shame.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, is the member opposite aware of any province that legally recognizes proxy marriages in Canada?