Alistair MacGregor

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, with respect, I just need a simple yes or no answer from the minister.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, does the minister agree with me that Canada has a duty to act within its jurisdiction with respect to the subject of illegal Israeli settlements?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, I want to change the subject now. I have a quick question for the minister. Does he agree with me that the illegality of Israeli settlements is one of the most firmly established issues in modern international law?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, could the minister correctly inform me, through the committee of the whole, that the November deadline will be met?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, I want to turn to the subject of criminal records. Twice the Liberal government has been asked, and twice it has not answered, whether and how it will meet its legal requirement to sequester the criminal records for simple possession of drugs for more than 250,000 Canadians. The legal deadline is coming this November, and Canadians are rightly asking whether they will be notified that their records have indeed been sequestered.

I do not need to remind the House that these kinds of records for offences that are no longer offences impact the ability of people to seek employment or housing, or to travel abroad to visit loved ones. The records also disproportionately impact indigenous and racialized Canadians and those living in poverty.

Could the minister please inform me as to how the government will meet the legal November deadline and inform the Canadians affected as to how they would know their criminal records have been sequestered?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, could the minister commit, with those figures he just cited, to making sure they are going to be a new floor and not a ceiling in the future?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, I wish to notify the Chair that I am going to be using my 15 minutes to delve right into questions. I appreciate having this opportunity to speak with the minister at the committee of the whole regarding the estimates for the department.

I want to get started on a question regarding legal aid. I note that in these main estimates, the contributions for criminal legal aid would decrease by $57 million, from $193.8 million to $136.8 million. One of the biggest barriers to justice in this country is being able to afford legal representation. Too often, the most vulnerable Canadians do not have access to competent legal assistance in an already overburdened justice system. While legal aid is primarily the responsibility of provincial governments, there is a role for the federal government in providing funding.

Can the minister explain why the amounts allocated to contributions for criminal legal aid are being reduced in such a substantial way?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the member for Winnipeg North stand in this place to loudly proclaim his support for the important programs of pharmacare and dental care. This is even more so due to the fact that, in the 43rd Parliament, when it came to Bill C-213, introduced by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and a motion on dental care, which was introduced by former MP Jack Harris, that member and the entire Liberal caucus voted against those measures. They voted against pharmacare and against dental care.

I am glad to see that, on the road to Damascus, the Liberals have arrived at their conversion. I just want to know what changed. What led the Liberals to suddenly have this vision that these were, in fact, the right programs to put in place now? Could it be that the New Democrats forced them to do it?

[Food and Drugs Act, May 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-368. I would like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for bringing it forward for the House's consideration.

The reason I am very pleased is that the issue of natural health products has garnered a lot of attention in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have had a lot of constituents and local businesses approach me concerning this issue in particular. I am pleased to be able to stand here, as their elected representative, and let my constituents know that I will be supporting the bill at second reading.

I was also very pleased to be able to add my name as a joint seconder to the bill. To fulfill the wishes of my constituents, I will be voting to send it to committee for further study.

What are we talking about when we say “natural health products”? I have always thought it a weird thing that they are regulated under a statute such as the Food and Drugs Act. They are not really a food, nor are they a drug. They occupy a special place for many people. We must face that humans have had relationships with natural health products dating back thousands of years. Many of these products have a very special place in human history, and a lot of cultures have very long relationships with them.

Today, in the modern world, natural health products often come in a variety of forms, such as tablets, capsules, tinctures, solutions, creams, ointments and drops. There is quite a large variety for people to pick and choose from. They are often made from plants, but they can also come from animals, from micro-organisms and from marine sources. They include vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines, traditional medicines, probiotics and other products, such as amino acids and essential fatty acids. They are found in many everyday consumer products.

Let us come to the bill in question, Bill C-368. As shown in the summary, it would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of that act and, therefore, are not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs.

Before we get into the substance, we need to take a little history lesson on how we arrived here. I want to say that both Conservatives and Liberals have run into trouble when trying to regulate natural health products. In fact, the previous government, under Harper, learned this lesson very quickly back in 2008 when it introduced Bill C-51. That was also an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Under Bill C-51, the term “therapeutic products” encompassed a range of products sold for therapeutic purposes, including drugs, medical devices, biologics and natural health products. In the end, because of an election, that bill was never adopted. However, I believe the Harper government at that time learned its lesson because of the uproar that came in response to Bill C-51, and it did not attempt to change Canada's regulations for natural health products again while in government.

What the Harper government did do, in 2014, was introduce Bill C-17 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It was also known as Vanessa's Law. This introduced a definition for the term “therapeutic product”, but what was different this time was that the definition was worded in such a way that it did not include natural health products, within the meaning of the natural health products regulations.

We then fast-forward to the present Liberal government and Bill C-47. That bill, in a clause buried deep within a budget implementation act, again amended the term “therapeutic product” to make sure that the exemption from the natural health products regulations was actually removed. This has caused much of the uproar we see today.

I want to point out, as I said in my intro, that natural health products have a long history of use in Canada as low-risk, affordable methods of promoting well-being. It is very important that I stand here today and say unequivocally that they must remain accessible to all Canadians. I am proud to be a member of a caucus, the NDP caucus, that has long supported an appropriate regulatory category for natural health products to certify their safety and efficacy based on sound evidence, as well as to ensure that they are widely available for those who use and value them.

It is unacceptable that the changes to the regulatory regime under the Food and Drugs Act was snuck into a budget omnibus bill, because it did not allow for proper study. I am glad to see that, because Bill C-368 is a stand-alone, quite simple and easy-to-read piece of legislation, from reading the room, it should have enough votes to send it to committee. We can then have the proper study; hear from Canadians and businesses that sell natural health products, the practitioners involved in this every day; and, finally, get the proper scrutiny that this issue so richly deserves.

I do not want to spend too much longer speaking to the bill, but I want to talk a bit about the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who took the time to write to my office, phone me personally and come into my office. In particular, I want to recognize a few of the local businesses. Essential Remedies, Benoit and Associates Health Education, some holistic health practitioners, the Community Farm Store, Botanical Bliss, a certified homeopathic practitioner, a naturopathic physician and Lynn's Vitamin Gallery all took the time in the summer of 2023 to come into my office. We had a great round table discussion. It lasted well over an hour. It was really enlightening for me, as their member of Parliament, to hear their views on this subject and learn a little more about why it is so important.

Yes, my immediate family definitely uses natural health products, and I know that many friends and relatives in my immediate vicinity also use them. However, to hear from professionals who work with clients every day about why this issue is so important was particularly enlightening for me. It is also important to note that 71% of Canadians, which is a very big number, have used natural health products, such as vitamins and minerals, herbal products and homeopathic medicines. Therefore, it is important that, when the NHP community speaks to their elected representatives, it represents a very clear majority of Canadians. Based on a proper cross-sampling of the correspondence that I, like many other members, have received, I know that they want their elected representatives to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves and give the bill full scrutiny.

Finally, I want to congratulate the NHP community and industry, which have been very actively engaged on this issue through their work. I really want to single out the local businesses in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the constituents who live on Vancouver Island. I congratulate them for their advocacy, for stepping up to the plate and for engaging me as their elected representative, because it has worked. I am proud to say that, in this place, as their elected representative, I will be pleased to vote to send Bill C-368 to committee.

[Protection against Extortion Act, May 21st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being able to stand in the House today to give my comments with respect to Bill C-381 as the NDP's public safety and national security critic.

The bill is brought in by a Conservative MP. It does seek to amend the Criminal Code by adding mandatory minimum penalties in relation to the offence of extortion. This would include when the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization. The bill would also add arson as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing when a person is convicted of extortion.

It is important to note that the bill before us is actually seeking to reinstate a mandatory minimum penalty that was repealed by Bill C-5 in this very same Parliament. In fact, that bill passed third reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 206 to 117 on June 15, 2022. It had the New Democrats', the Bloc Québécois' and the Liberals' support, so it did pass with overwhelming support. It received royal assent later that year. Therefore, this is a Conservative attempt to try to address an issue which was already decided on by the House in the current Parliament.

It is important also to make mention of the fact that there is an important clause in Bill C-5, which was passed in 2022. Section 21 of the bill stated that a review of the provisions in the bill was to happen by the fourth anniversary of the bill's coming into force. We have not yet even met that part of the original Bill C-5. There has been no review of Bill C-5 and its provisions.

Essentially, Bill C-381, as a consequence, would be jumping the gun before any such review. We have not had the chance to look at how the provisions are acting in Canadian society. We have not had a committee call forth witnesses to find out testimony. It would also be going back on something to which the House has already given due consideration.

With all due respect to the member who introduced the legislation, I have to say that I get the sense that every time I see a Conservative private member's bill dealing with the Criminal Code, it is “Here we go again.” I have to say that it is a fairly weak effort at writing legislation, because I again am reminded of the fact that many of these bills seem to be all style with no substance. There is a lot of flavour to them and they make a big impact. They get a lot of people all riled up. However, when we look at what they would actually accomplish, there is really not much there.

When I see these kinds of bills brought forward by the Conservative Party, I am often reminded of an undergraduate student who wrote their term paper the night before it was due and then handed it in. If I were the teacher grading that paper, I would ask the person to show their sources. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, whenever it comes to these kinds of bills, especially when they are trying to talk about mandatory minimum penalties, when we ask them to show their sources, they are unable to do so.

If Conservatives actually did their homework instead of using the sloganeering that is often associated with these types of bills, they would realize a few things. Number one is that mandatory minimum penalties do not work as a deterrent. There is no evidence. I will give a case in point. When criminals are out there committing crimes, they are not thinking of the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code as a deterrent. No, what they are actually wondering is what the chances are that they are going to get caught while committing the offence. The bigger deterrent is having increased police resources and more intelligence gathering so we can disrupt attempts and not have an after-the-fact solution.

Furthermore, on a statement of principle, as New Democrats we remain opposed to the use of mandatory minimum penalties. I do acknowledge that there are some that exist in the Criminal Code as presently written, but there is cold, hard evidence that their use has disproportionately affected indigenous, racialized and poor Canadians. One need only look at Canada's prison population and at the number of racialized Canadians who are inmates there, and then look at their percentages as a part of the general Canadian population. They will see just how disproportionate the statistics are.

I also want to say that I firmly believe in the ability of our judges to render appropriate sentencing by taking the existing Criminal Code and case law into account when making their decisions. I will refer members again, as I have with other pieces of legislation that deal with similar subject matters, to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. This part of the Criminal Code contains sentencing principles that inform a judge on aggravating factors or mitigating circumstances that they can then use when looking at the defendant standing before them to increase or reduce a sentence based on the circumstances of the individual. A mandatory minimum sentence takes all that away.

I will point out that the sentence can be increased or reduced for a number of things, such as if there is “evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin”, and a whole host of factors that, if the crime was committed with those in mind, can lead to an increase of the sentence.

There is also a point in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code that, if there is “evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization”, that is an aggravating factor.

Again, with respect to the bill we have before us, Bill C-381, not only has the House of Commons already voiced its opinion on this matter, but the bill is redundant.

One thing I learned as the NDP's justice critic back in 2017 is that the existing Criminal Code is littered with redundancies. It is one of the most inefficient pieces of federal legislation that exists, and many efforts have been made over the years to try to clean it up. There are clauses in the Criminal Code that exist for crimes that are not committed anymore, and there is a terrible amount of redundancy, often because we have bills such as this attempting to amend certain sections of it.

On another point, when focusing our efforts on the Criminal Code, it is important for us to understand that it is primarily a reactive instrument. It comes into play after the fact. As a legislator, a policy-maker and a representative of the proud people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I am more interested in tackling the crime before it happens, putting in effective policies, and making sure that people are not enticed into joining gangs and committing crimes on their behalf. I am interested in making sure our police have the right kind of tools at their disposal and can gather important intelligence, so they can break up these criminal elements, which are often preying on the most vulnerable people in our communities.

It is also important, again speaking of the Criminal Code, to note that it already has a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-time extortionists who use a restricted or prohibited firearm or any type of gun on behalf of a criminal organization. Therefore, this is a completely redundant and unnecessary bill.

In conclusion, I want to underline that I understand the concerns of communities throughout Canada on the issue of extortion and the rise of organized crime. I support reversing the cuts that were made to the RCMP organized crime units, which were mandated by the previous Conservative government and have not yet been reversed by the Liberals. The lack of resources has resulted in the rise of the crimes we are witnessing today. We need to provide not only local but also national law enforcement with the resources they need to keep Canadians safe. I prefer that we bolster those resources in organized crime to make sure that crucial intelligence allows them to really confront this problem in a meaningful way.

It is very clear that our police services are facing a rise in extortion-related crimes across the country. However, new sentences and laws are not what is needed to tackle this very important issue; rather, police services need the resources to investigate and apprehend those who are committing the offences. We do not need virtue signalling in another Conservative criminal justice bill to do that.