Ali Ehsassi

[Science, January 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, genomics and precision research have the potential to create new breakthroughs that will reshape medical care and lead to improvements in the lives of Canadians. Last week, the Minister of Science announced new funding for genomics and precision medicine research projects at institutions across the country.

Could the minister provide an update to the House on our government's support for this significant initiative?

[Human Rights, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the international community marked two solemn events: the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and UN Human Rights Day. Both occasions serve to underscore the entrenchment and advancement of global norms and laws regarding human rights, human security, and human dignity, a process of which Canada has always stood at the forefront.

As chair of the all-party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, I urge all members to join me in marking these twin occasions by celebrating the important strides we have made, while also recognizing important work remains to be done to safeguard human rights across the globe.

[Criminal Code, December 11th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I do not recall us having being pressured. We were quite willing to hear from various groups and organizations. Once they appeared before our committee and raised concerns, as I said before, we took a sober look at it and realized that they had a very good point and thought that the legislation would be very much strengthened by addressing the concerns they had come forward with.

As I said, there was no pressure. It was a collegial atmosphere, and we were quite adamant to get the legislation right, and we made the necessary changes.

[Criminal Code, December 11th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, section 176 was an issue that came to our committee. Obviously, in the draft, we were not sensitive to some of the implications of section 176. However, after having had a chance to consider it, we focused on it. Of course, one of the important things for any committee is to be receptive to things that are brought to its attention and for it to think long and hard about what the implications of any proposed changes would be. In this instance, after having heard from various constituents who were concerned, we all took a sober look at it. I am happy to say that all parties were quite collegial in our approach to this issue. We realized that perhaps they had raised a significant point, and we made those necessary changes.

[Criminal Code, December 11th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington.

It is a great honour and privilege for me to fellow in the footsteps of my learned friend from Victoria and the chair of our committee, the member for Mount Royal.

I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to speak about Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. I was honoured to study and vote for Bill C-51 at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The bill would strengthen the Criminal Code and other related legislation to ensure that laws are clear, up to date, show fairness to victims, and are in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our government is committed to making progress on addressing sexual assault and gender-based violence. I am very proud that Bill C-51 is an important part of our effort to attain that goal.

Sexual assault and gender-based violence are a tragic reality for Canadian women and men, and we need our laws and criminal justice system to be responsive and to treat victims with respect and compassion. There have been major reforms to sexual offences in the Criminal Code ever since the 1970s, and the changes in Bill C-51 are logical next steps on that critical path.

At committee we heard from women's groups and members of the legal community that the current legal framework under the Criminal Code could be strengthened, especially on the question of consent. Bill C-51 would add clarification to existing law that no consent can be obtained if a complainant is unconscious, as outlined in the Supreme Court decision in J.A. This does not mean that someone just short of unconsciousness is able to consent, even though the person is otherwise incapacitated. Bill C-51 makes it clear that an inability to consent can be for reasons other than being unconscious. The committee also adopted an amendment proposed by one of my Liberal colleagues to further codify the J.A. decision in Bill C-51 by clarifying that consent cannot be given in advance and that it can be withdrawn at any time. As our understanding of consent changes, our laws obviously have to keep pace.

Bill C-51 also proposes to strengthen consent in the Criminal Code by codifying aspects of the Supreme Court's decision in Ewanchuk, notably that an accused is not able to rely on the defence of an honest but mistaken belief in consent if said belief was based on the passivity of the complainant. It is vital that the Criminal Code is clear, to avoid any misapplications of the law.

The witnesses at committee also spoke at length about how a sexual assault trial can be very difficult for the complainant and how unfortunate stereotypes and myths about sexual assault victims continue to pervade our society. Bill C-51 would make important changes in the safeguarding of the privacy of victims. To ensure that the justice system does not perpetuate such stereotypes, the bill would strengthen the rape shield provisions that protect complainants.

Clarity is paramount for any criminal code to be fair, accessible, and comprehensible. From time to time, we must clean up the code to remove provisions deemed redundant, obsolete, or indeed unconstitutional. In the committee's study of the bill, we had numerous legal scholars and experts voice their support for the government's repeal of sections of the Criminal Code that are no longer necessary. In a modern Criminal Code, there is no need for an obsolete provision such as the offence of fraudulently pretending to practice witchcraft. Likewise, we heard from witnesses such as Greg Oliver, of the Canadian Secular Alliance, that Canada's blasphemy law is obsolete and potentially in violation of the charter guarantee of freedom of expression. I was honoured to have sponsored the petition started by Mr. Oliver on this issue and am gratified to see that Bill C-51 would repeal section 296 of the Criminal Code, the prohibition on publishing blasphemous libel.

Although Bill C-51 proposed the repeal of section 176, given that it is rarely used and that other areas of the Criminal Code cover the relevant offences, the committee listened to the concerns of religious groups and constituents. They told us that they believed that this provision was important to send a clear message about Canada's commitment to the protection of religious freedom. For this reason, the committee adopted an amendment put forward by a Liberal member to reinstate section 176. This amendment would also change the language to make it inclusive of all religious and spiritual faiths and to make it gender neutral. Our laws must make sure that all Canadians, regardless of their religious affiliation or gender identity, are free to practise their faith.

During the committee's study of Bill C-51, I was also pleased to support the bill's proposed changes to the Department of Justice Act that would create a new requirement for charter statements. This new section would mandate that the Minister of Justice table a statement outlining the potential effects of all government bills on charter-protected rights and freedoms. The charter is the most fundamental way in which the basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians are enshrined in law. It is imperative that proposed laws are clear in their relationship to these basic rights and freedoms. I applaud the government for taking this pivotal step to ensure transparency and respect for our charter.

I am proud to have participated in the study of Bill C-51 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is clear to me that this bill would strengthen sexual assault law. It would also modernize the Criminal Code and make it clear and accessible, while also placing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the centre of our focus when crafting new laws.

[Iran-Iraq Earthquake, November 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the global community was saddened to hear of the deadly earthquake in the Iran-Iraq border region. With over 500 dead, thousands injured, and thousands more rendered homeless, the 7.3 magnitude earthquake represents one of the deadliest natural disasters in the past year.

As is always the case when faced with unspeakable tragedy, Canadians, including countless individuals in my riding of Willowdale, have responded with compassion and generosity.

For Canadians still looking to contribute toward humanitarian assistance and relief efforts, please contact the Canadian Red Cross, Paradise Charity Group, IDRF Canada, and Action Against Hunger for more details on how to help.

I would ask everyone to give generously in this time of need.

[Warren Allmand, October 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today in recognition of a truly remarkable Canadian, the late Warren Allmand.

Mr. Allmand, as we all know, was a member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce from 1965 to 1997 and served under the late Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau as minister of consumer and corporate affairs, minister of Indian affairs and northern development, and solicitor general. As solicitor general, Mr. Allmand cemented his legacy as a tireless defender of human rights, both in Canada and abroad, and played a key role in the landmark abolition of the death penalty in Canada in 1976.

In remembrance of his untimely death last year, I invite all members of this esteemed House to join the Allmand family this evening at a reception in the Wellington Building to celebrate the life and legacy of this remarkable Canadian.

[Parliament Hill Events, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for one of Canada's most diverse ridings, I deeply appreciate the immense contributions that generations of Asian Canadians have made to our great country. In that spirit, I am proud to rise today in celebration of two wonderful events taking place on Parliament Hill this week.

This evening, I am pleased to welcome Korean Canadians from across Canada to a joint celebration of Canada's 150th anniversary and Korea's National Foundation Day. In addition, on Wednesday it will be my honour to co-host a mid-autumn festival on the Hill in celebration of the upcoming harvest.

[Member spoke in Korean]

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for once again speaking out much more eloquently on this issue then I could ever do. Yes, as the member is aware, but other members are not, there is a distinction between signing and ratifying.

For the members of the loyal opposition to pretend that the U.S. has not signed the treaty would simply add more confusion to this issue and mislead Canadians. Therefore, I would ask them to correct the record, and inform Canadians that it has been signed by the U.S.A.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to correct the record. The reality of the matter is that this particular treaty represents an international consensus. For the record, every country actually agreed to the terms of this treaty. The three countries that did not represent the mainstream support of this particular bill were Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea.

The member should know that even the previous government did support the principles contained in this agreement. Therefore, why, all of a sudden, is the member trying to pretend that this would not do good or enhance global co-operation to deal with a very significant issue? It is truly mind-boggling.