Arif Virani

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue the excellent commencement to this debate in this 20-minute segment by carrying on from the comments that were made by the member who just spoke.

I am rising in the chamber to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. This bill continues our government's commitment to put forward a progressive and positive agenda for all Canadians.

This budget has received praise from numerous sources. I have heard about it from the engaged and informed constituents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, some of whom are here observing the proceedings today. Welcome, Mr. Van Dam.

This legislation will fund important initiatives in relationship to the environment, in relationship to anti-racism, in relationship to support for places of worship, indigenous languages, students, the LGBTQ2 community, infrastructure, health initiatives, social finance and so much more.

During my remarks today I will detail the highlights of this budget that relate to Bill C-97, which will improve the lives of my constituents in Parkdale—Hyde Park as well as Canadians right across the country.

First, it is important to thank the many stakeholders and individual Canadians for their hard work in advocating for various causes and issues raised in the budget by presenting their submissions to the Minister of Finance and the finance committee.

I want to begin my substantive remarks with one of the most important priorities for our country and for the world at large, as was just touched upon in the previous statements. It is the issue of climate change and its impact on our environment.

I agree wholeheartedly with the question that was posed by the NDP heritage critic about this issue needing to be a pan-governmental issue and a nonpartisan issue. Unfortunately, to date it has not been.

As many Canadians know, our government has placed a price on pollution, and it came into full force on April 1 of this year. This is a historic tool that will ensure that pollution is no longer free, and it reflects what I hear from my constituents and people right around this country: that climate change is absolutely real and that we must take action now.

In budget 2019 and through this very bill, we are taking steps in our plan to protect the environment and at the same time grow a clean economy while making life more affordable for Canadians.

This budget implementation legislation would implement a few additional measures, such as our $1-billion plan for investments in energy efficiency, which includes our new home retrofit program to help Canadians lower their electricity and energy bills.

It also includes a new $5,000 subsidy for Canadians investing in zero-emission vehicles. Those are Canadians in my riding of Parkdale—High Park and Canadians in every riding of this country. The bill will also support zero-emission vehicle manufacturing right here in Canada.

This is how we are making meaningful progress on fighting climate change now.

Next is an issue that touches all of us in this country, including residents in Parkdale—High Park in Toronto: the cost of housing.

Everyone deserves an affordable place to call home, but far too often Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. This bill would implement housing investments from budget 2019 that we are making to address housing affordability.

An important initiative is the first-time homebuyers incentive, which will allow first-time homebuyers to reduce their monthly insured mortgage payments by way of a shared equity mortgage from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, which would not have to be paid off until the unit is eventually resold. The shared equity mortgage could be up to 10% for a new build or up to 5% for a repurchase.

We are also allowing Canadians to withdraw, without penalty, an additional $10,000 from their RRSPs for the purpose of buying a home.

As well, we are increasing the funds for the rental construction financing initiative, which will help to build thousands of new, well-priced units right around country. That is important, because we have heard constantly that in order to address housing, we have to address the supply.

Bill C-97 would also implement our plan to modernize the Canada homebuyers' plan. This plan is intended to assist Canadians with their down payment and, by extension, the costs of purchasing a home. With this legislation, we are increasing the homebuyers' plan withdrawal limit from $25,000 to $35,000, which will make it more flexible to adapt to changing familial circumstances. That is in reference to the RRSP notion that I raised earlier.

This is on top of our overall $40-billion national housing strategy that now exceeds $50 billion when we combine previous budgetary allocations with the allocations currently being made. This national housing strategy has already been a tremendous success right around the country.

How does it affect my riding? I will explain how. It will affect my riding in two concrete ways.

First, we have five federally subsidized co-ops in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. Every single one of the tenants who has a rent-geared-to-income subsidy provided by the federal government will have that subsidy renewed by virtue of this budget and by virtue of our policies on housing.

Second, we have made a historic announcement of $1.3 billion for the national housing strategy that will come directly to Toronto to help those who are in social housing. It will come to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. This is the single largest investment in Canadian history that is dedicated directly to municipalities, and 58,000 units will be affected. It will help to renovate, maintain and repair the housing stock, ensuring that the housing stock remains on the market so that people are appropriately housed. That is what a housing strategy does. That is what I am proud to defend here as a government member.

Our infrastructure investments do not stop there. Once again, we are stepping up while governments like the provincial government of Doug Ford are stepping out. In particular, we are investing $2.2 billion into the federal gas tax fund. That gas tax transfer is being doubled this year through this budget so that municipalities can commence much-needed infrastructure repair. This is how we will ensure that infrastructure funding gets exactly where it needs to go, and more importantly, it will go to those who have the ability to actually get the projects done, meaning local and municipal governments and grassroots community organizations.

Why are we taking this step? It is because it was asked for by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Those municipalities have expressed their absolute frustration with governments like the one in Ontario led by Premier Ford, which has stubbornly refused to get moving on much-needed infrastructure repairs purely because of partisan considerations. What we are doing is going directly to those municipalities to address their needs.

This budget implementation bill would also implement Canada's first ever poverty reduction strategy by entrenching an official poverty line and the national advisory council on poverty into law. This is in addition to the incredible news this year that the poverty initiatives implemented by our government are indeed working. Statistics released earlier this year show that 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty and that we are three years ahead of the targets we set as a government. Thanks to federal initiatives, poverty has fallen 20% since 2015. A hallmark of that initiative is the Canada child benefit and its targeted, means-tested approach.

We are continuing with the other important commitments we have made. We are entrenching pay transparency with this bill. As we well know, currently women in Canada earn approximately 87¢ on the dollar compared to men. This is absolutely unacceptable. Last year's budget introduced pay equity measures, and in order to reduce the wage gap, this year's budget will introduce new pay transparency measures in Canada for federally regulated employers. With this legislation, we will require employers to include new salary data in their annual reports to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in order to ensure total pay transparency. This is important because it will have an impact on Canadians.

I want to pick up on a question that was asked to the previous member, who spoke about indigenous reconciliation and how it is vested in this budget. It is vested in two critically important ways.

The first is in providing supports of over $300 million for indigenous language maintenance, protection and revitalization. I was very proud to have worked on the development of Bill C-91, which would revitalize, protect and promote indigenous languages during my time as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We are now coupling that statutory instrument with the financial resources to make it a reality. This is something that has been lauded by indigenous leaders, and rightly so, because it puts money to the commitments we have made to reconcile with indigenous peoples through promoting their language faculties.

Second, it needs to be stated over and over again that the situation of boil water advisories on reserves is deplorable, but we are making active changes to that situation. Thus far, we have lifted 81 boil water advisories around Canada. We are on track to lift all of them by March 2021. To demonstrate our commitment to this goal, we have dedicated an additional $733 million in this year's budget to that very important goal to ensure that no person in Canada, particularly no indigenous person, has to boil their water in order to drink safe water.

Those are the kinds of commitments that people have talked about to me in my riding. Those are the kinds of commitments toward housing, to reconciliation, to poverty elimination, to women, to addressing economic circumstances and job creation that people prioritize. This is a budget that I am proud to stand behind, and I urge every member of this chamber to do exactly the same.

[Justice, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that is an absolute misconstruction of what is actually taking place. There is a court that is dealing with a third party records application. We have heard the court order. We are co-operating with that court order, as any government would. We provided the documents. It is now for a judge in the Ontario court to decide whether our co-operation has been sufficient or is deficient. It is for a judge to determine this matter. It is not to be debated in the House of Commons nor is it to be determined by a political actor. That is what the independence of the rule of law is all about. That is what I would urge the Conservatives to respect.

[Public Services and Procurement, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I feel I should make it clear that we are following the rule of law in the Norman case. We are complying with all of the judge's orders and co-operating fully. I would emphatically reiterate that it is important to let the Ontario judge play her role independently. Interfering in this matter, as the Conservatives are now urging us to do, would be a clear violation of the rule of law. We want to obey the law, as every parliamentarian must.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is unable to provide a response as the department has an active litigation inventory of more than 35,000 cases. An extensive manual search through our records would be required and is not possible within the time allotted. An aggregate amount of the expenditures related to legal services to government programs can be found online in the Department of Justice’s public accounts: https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2018/vol2/justice/index-eng.html.

The vast majority of the legal proceedings involving the Government of Canada are handled by Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals who are salaried public servants. For cost recovery purposes the Department of Justice records the number of hours of work performed on each file and multiplies the hours by differential hourly rates by level of counsel, notary or paralegal. It also records whether the work is performed by regional employees, for which the department pays rent to Public Services and Procurement Canada, or headquarters employees in client premises, for which the client bears the costs of rent. Recovery from different clients varies according to a range of reductions applied based upon, among other things, the different amounts of historical resources within the Department of Justice dedicated to each client. As well, many legal proceedings and litigation files have multiple clients who share the cost recoveries from the Department of Justice.

[Criminal Code, April 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which was introduced in the Senate on December 11, 2015, by the Hon. Senator Lillian Dyck. The bill's objective is to provide greater protection to indigenous women from certain violent offences.

I wish to note at the outset that this critical issue is currently being studied in the context of the National Inquiry into missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which is examining institutional policies and practices that have been put in place as a response to violence, including those that have been effective in reducing violence and increasing the safety of women and girls.

As many of the constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park have indicated to me, indigenous women are disproportionately impacted by violent crime. Therefore, I know that we all support the pressing objective that Bill S-215 identifies.

Bill S-215 seeks to achieve its objective through new provisions that would require a sentencing judge to treat the fact that a victim is an aboriginal woman as an aggravating factor when sentencing an offender for certain specific offences, including murder, assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm and sexual assault. If a judge determines that an aggravating factor is present in a given case, a higher sentence is expected to be imposed.

Denouncing and deterring violent offences against indigenous women is critical. However, after significant reflection, it is incumbent upon us to express the government's concerns about the potential effectiveness of the bill's reforms in achieving the important objective which it targets.

Specifically, Bill S-215's proposed reforms may duplicate or conflict with existing sentencing provisions and may be under-inclusive in terms of protecting indigenous women, as well as similarly vulnerable victims, from all violent crimes.

Notably, the Criminal Code already requires sentencing judges to treat as aggravating factors the fact that an offence was motivated by hate based on gender or race or the fact that the offender abused a spouse, common-law partner or child. That is covered in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, the Gladue principle, which is entrenched in the Criminal Code as a sentencing principle at paragraph 718.2(e), requires sentencing judges to consider the unique systemic and background factors that contributed to the commission of the offence, as well as all reasonable alternatives to imprisonment, when sentencing indigenous offenders.

Bill S-215's proposed aggravating factor may complicate the application of the Gladue principle. For example, in cases involving a female indigenous victim and an indigenous offender, a sentencing judge would be required both to lengthen the sentence for an indigenous offender's criminal conduct against an indigenous woman and, at the same time, to consider alternatives to incarceration, particularly in cases involving less serious types of offences, such as simple assault.

Assault is one of the most common offences charged in the context of intimate partner violence, and we know that this type of violence occurs in all cultures.

Although interpersonal violence is always a serious matter, we must keep in mind that Canada's definition of assault is broad and applies to any intentional and non-consensual application of force. ln some cases, especially those involving less serious forms of offending, incarceration may not always be the most appropriate response. Nor may it be the response supported by the victim, for example, in the context of intimate partner violence where the offender provides financial support to his family or takes care of the children while the spouse does so.

I am also concerned that the proposed aggravating factor may be too narrowly construed. Allow me to explain. For example, it would apply only to offenders sentenced for specific violent offences, such as uttering threats, assault, sexual assault and murder, but not to other types of offenders, such as those sentenced for human trafficking or other serious offences for which indigenous women and girls are overrepresented as victims.

These types of offenders are generally not indigenous themselves; rather, they may specifically target indigenous women because of their gender and ethnicity. For example, we know that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately represented among the vulnerable people who are sexually exploited in Canada. For that we can refer to the Department of Justice's 2014 technical paper on what was then Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.

We also know that indigenous women and girls are targeted for this type of exploitation precisely because of their vulnerability such that applying the proposed aggravating factor to simple assault, but not to human trafficking, seems incongruous in this context.

Bill S-215's aggravating factors would also not apply to offenders sentenced for violent crimes committed against non-indigenous female victims, some of whom may be similarly marginalized and vulnerable to predation. My specific concern here is that this type of approach could create an unintended “hierarchy” of victimization. It is important to point that out.

Also, in certain types of cases, aggravating factors may be inapplicable or apply only in the determination of the period of parole ineligibility. For example, first degree murder, as well as second degree murder where the offender was previously convicted of murder, is punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until 25 years has been served. Otherwise, second degree murder is punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until at least 10 years and up to 25 years has been served.

Therefore, in murder cases, aggravating factors can only be taken into account in determining the period of parole ineligibility, i.e., 10 to 25 years, for an offender sentenced for second degree murder, as long as the offender was not previously convicted of murder.

For all these reasons, there are concerns about the potential effectiveness of Bill S-215's proposed reforms in achieving the bill's objectives. ln certain situations, the proposed reforms may even create results that are inconsistent with their objectives. Therefore, I suggest that the bill's objectives and proposed reforms be further studied with a view to determining whether there are other ways to achieve its objectives, while avoiding the potential unintended consequences that I have just described.

Examining the impact of criminal legislation on indigenous persons is a critical part of ensuring that legislation responds appropriately to the unique lived realities, which are the result of a long history involving many different forms of abuse stemming from colonization.

ln particular, indigenous persons are overrepresented as both victims and offenders. A piecemeal approach to law reform, given this complex social context, could have unforeseen and undesirable consequences.

The complexity of these issues is reflected in the January 2016 FPT framework to address violence against indigenous women and girls, which identifies principles and priorities to assist in improving how the justice system prevents and responds to this type of violence. The framework concludes with a poignant statement on the multi-sectoral response that is required:

Violence against Indigenous women and girls is a serious concern in this country. The causes of the violence are complex, but closely linked to historical government policies, which led to current conditions of low socio-economic status and vulnerability to violence. There is no simple or singular solution to this issue. Stopping the violence will require the combined efforts of multiple sectors and stakeholders.

I therefore stress the importance of taking into consideration all of the complexities of this issue when analyzing what can be done to improve the protection of indigenous women from violent victimization. Significantly, the missing and murdered indigenous women inquiry's report, which is expected to be released this spring, will provide important recommendations for concrete and effective action that can be taken to remove systemic causes of violence and increase the safety of indigenous women and girls.

[Business of Supply, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from across the House. I will try to continue speaking in French, the language of Molière.

We agree that this is a criminal proceeding; that is clear. This is the first step in the legal process. It is the preliminary proceeding. We are at the preliminary hearing stage dealing with the documents that will serve as the basis or foundation of the evidence, that the judge will review in this particular case. We are not at the point where the judge decides whether the defendant is guilty or not, but this is nevertheless an important step.

I want to emphasize as part of this debate that we are participating in the process. We are following all the rules and guidelines set out by the judge. What we are not doing and what we would never do is intervene or interfere politically, which would undermine the independence of our judicial system and our Attorney General.

What we will not do is interfere in a political manner to disturb the independence of the public prosecution process.

What I would return to is the exact statement made by Madam Kathleen Roussel, the head of the Public Prosecutions Service, who said, “[we have] not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.”

That is a good thing, and that is exactly what we want to remain the case in this case.

[Business of Supply, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, those are a couple of important points, and I think they bear some explanation. I am glad the member opposite raised them.

The issue before the court right now, as I have mentioned, is a third-party records application. It is for the evidence and documents to support, in a preliminary manner, what will eventually become the evidentiary base in the trial. That is what is before the court right now. That is what the court is deliberating upon.

The member opposite raised the issue of government compliance with court orders. This government, any government in Canada, thankfully, complies with court orders. That is what the rule of law means. We continue to do so.

Second, on the issue of the government's participation in the process, justice department lawyers are participating equally and at the same time as Vice-Admiral Norman's lawyers.

On the issue of the payment of legal expenses, what the member opposite should know is that we are applying a Treasury Board policy that has been in place since, I believe, 2006. That policy was put in place by the previous government. It is a good policy, and it is a policy that addresses the needs of people who find themselves facing litigation. That is the policy that is being applied and is being enforced in this case.

[Business of Supply, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has a lot of experience in this chamber, and I absolutely underscore the comments he just made.

Obviously, we come from different parties, and sometimes we have very strong positions and opposition to one another on different matters, but on this point, he is absolutely correct. The very terms of this motion call for, in subsection (b), to “provide Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s defence with all records relating to his prosecution, including but not limited to”, then it lists a long list of items.

That very issue is before the Ontario Court of Justice right now. What the opposition is doing in presenting this motion is effectively trying to subvert and leap over the ongoing judicial process and dictate to a sitting judge in this country what should and should not be disclosed. It is for the judge to make that determination based on the submissions and evidence he receives and for the judge to make that determination based on the privilege that is sought to be applied. That is what the rule of law means in this country. That is what must be respected by all parliamentarians in this chamber.

[Business of Supply, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, if you can indulge me very briefly, I am very happy that the canola question is being raised in the context of debate. Surely we could have more questions about such important and pressing economic and agricultural matters in this country.

The connection the member opposite was trying to make is that rule-of-law concerns permeate many aspects of what is taking place in this country right now with respect to Vice-Admiral Norman's trial. In response to that question, I will reiterate that the rule of law remains intact. The evidence before the justice committee from the former attorney general in the SNC-Lavalin matter underscores this, and the statements of the director of public prosecutions reiterate it.

To reiterate, I quote again that “The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.”

That statement affirms the fact that the rule of law remains intact, which has implications around the country in various matters, including the canola matter just raised by the member opposite.

[Business of Supply, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, as I was stating prior to question period, the Government of Canada has had no inappropriate involvement in the case in question. Allegations of political interference in the prosecution of the case are absolutely false and without merit.

As the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has made clear, “The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.”

The director of public prosecutions, Ms. Kathleen Roussel, went on to say that “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

The sub judice convention exists to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a critical element in maintaining the fairness of the criminal trial process before the court. To protect and maintain fairness, the rule restrains parliamentarians on statements made about ongoing legal proceedings, especially criminal cases, before the courts. For this very important reason, members of Parliament are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts.

In respect of Vice-Admiral Norman’s legal expenses, the government’s policy on legal assistance and indemnification establishes the framework to provide legal assistance and indemnification to Crown servants and matters greatly for the protection of the Crown’s interest, the fair treatment of its employees and the effective management of an organization. Where an individual makes an application to the government for assistance and indemnification under the policy, the application receives fair consideration and a decision is made, as was the case in respect of the vice-admiral.

For the rest of my time, I would like to once again address an issue that has come up several times over the course of this debate.

That concerns the issue of sub judice. We have heard this repeated over and over again in the context of this debate and in today's question period.

There is no better encapsulation of this than the one provided by the Hon. Peter Van Loan in the House on May 11, 2015, when he was a member of the previous government. Quoting House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 504, he said:

...Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. ... It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister, in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is [before the courts].

The position to invoke the sub judice rule was taken by the Harper government on no fewer than 300 different occasions in this country. It is important to note this, because people need to understand that what is being asked here is that we directly intervene.

I will end by noting that I find it highly ironic that the opposition, through this motion, is demanding that our government politically interfere in an independent prosecution that is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.