Arif Virani

[Asbestos, February 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member for Saskatoon West and her comments in the House, the issue of the health of Canadians is a fundamental priority for the government, as it should be for all parliamentarians.

Again, the regulatory approach we are taking to asbestos mining residues is consistent with the government announcement that was made in December 2016. At that time, we indicated that we would prohibit asbestos and products containing asbestos, but would allow the use of asbestos mining residues for the extraction of valuable minerals.

While the new regulations do not apply to asbestos mining residues, they do prohibit the sale of asbestos mining residues for use in construction and landscaping, unless authorized by the province in which that construction or landscaping occurs. The regulations also prohibit the use of asbestos mining residues to manufacture a product that contains asbestos.

[Asbestos, February 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made by the hon. member for Saskatoon West regarding asbestos. This is clearly an important issue, and her advocacy on this issue is important.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the environment and safeguarding the health of Canadians from toxic substances. That is clear.

The government recognizes that asbestos can cause life-threatening diseases and is proud to have taken action by banning asbestos and products containing asbestos. These regulations prohibit the import, sale and use of asbestos, as well as the manufacture, import, sale and use of asbestos-containing products, with a limited number of exclusions. Those were highlighted by the member for Saskatoon West.

These new regulations, along with existing provincial controls, will prohibit activities using asbestos mining residues that could pose health risks. During the development of the regulations that are now in place, the department held consultations with a wide variety of stakeholders, including industry, non-governmental groups, labour organizations, health and safety institutes, and provincial ministries and agencies.

The member can be assured that all the information and comments received in response to the proposed regulations were taken into consideration in the development of the final workup of the regulations. Through these consultations I just mentioned, it was determined, for example, that the Quebec government has controls in place to manage the risks associated with the use of asbestos mining residues. In addition, there are numerous regulations in place across Canada to protect the health and safety of all workers, including those working with asbestos mining residues.

While the new regulations do not generally apply to asbestos mining residues, they do prohibit certain activities, including the sale of asbestos mining residues for use in construction and landscaping, unless authorized by the province in which the construction or landscaping occurs. The regulations also prohibit the use of asbestos mining residues to manufacture a product that contains asbestos.

Allowing the extraction of valuable metals, such as magnesium, from asbestos mining residues is an important economic opportunity. Furthermore, allowing the use of asbestos mining residues for the rehabilitation of former mine sites will lead to a reduction in asbestos mining residues over time.

[Justice, February 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, there is a legal rule and a rule of convention called the sub judice rule, which restrains parliamentarians on statements made about ongoing legal proceedings, especially criminal cases before the courts. Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals, which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is 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. As the Supreme Court of Canada has stated, "It is a wise principle that the courts and Parliament strive to respect each other's role in the conduct of public affairs.”

[Justice, February 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, there are two reasons why the government must refrain from commenting on this matter.

First, it is important to respect the role of the director of public prosecutions and the independent prosecutor who reports to her. Second, according to the sub judice convention, it is inappropriate to discuss matters that are before the courts.

To begin with, it should be noted that the case in question is being prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which operates independently from the Department of Justice. Lawyers with the Attorney General of Canada are meeting all their obligations to the court regarding counsel's third party record applications. It is also important to remember that the matter currently before the Ontario Court of Justice is an application for third party records at a criminal trial.

Defence counsel seek to obtain relevant documents from certain government departments and entities. To be very clear, these are not the relevant documents provided to defence counsel in a criminal proceeding under first party disclosure obligations, which is known as Stinchcombe disclosure. What is now before the court is third party disclosure, meaning relevant documents that are not in the possession of the prosecutors and presumed to be in the possession or control of a third party.

Third party record applications are a two-step process. In the first step, the court must decide whether the requested records are relevant to the criminal proceedings. In the second step, the court must carefully examine the records and determine whether those that have been deemed relevant truly are relevant. Next, the court issues a ruling as to the public interest immunity versus confidentiality, striking a balance between those interests and the degree to which the records are needed to allow the accused to make a full answer and defence. The court ultimately determines whether the relevant records are held by a third party and, if so, whether to order that they be shared with the defence.

Witnesses in third party record applications are called to provide evidence in respect of the existence and availability of relevant records. Counsel for the defendant may ask a wide range of questions and raise a variety of allegations in the course of the examination. However, nothing has been proven or accepted by the court as a fact at that point. Such determinations are for the court to make at the appropriate stages of the proceedings.

I would reiterate that it is improper to speak on matters that are under active deliberation before the courts and that counsel to the Attorney General of Canada is clearly fulfilling all of their obligations before the court with respect to third party record applications.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon West for raising this important motion for debate today and for her advocacy on this file.

I thank the member for Essex for her advocacy in this chamber, not just on this issue but on other issues. I will be very candid. I share many of the concerns that she has articulated today. That is why I have been here listening to many of the speeches today.

I want to ask the member for Essex specifically about co-ops. I have five co-ops in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. It resonates with something that we heard earlier from a colleague in my party from Calgary who talked about co-ops and the fact that the issue is not just about a roof over one's head but about building a home. Co-ops take that home and build a community.

There was anxiety expressed to me at the time of the 2015 election by people who had rent subsidies. We ensured that they could maintain those rent subsidies at those federally subsidized co-ops. We have also put money on the table to ensure that co-ops cannot just survive but can actually thrive and potentially expand.

I want to ask the member for Essex this. Are co-ops a specific focus that she would like to see emphasized in terms of the work we are doing and the work that she would like this government to be doing, going forward in terms of the national housing strategy?

[Divorce Act, January 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to rise for the first time in this new House. I truly appreciated the speech and comments from the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, as I appreciate her participation in meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

She spoke at length about child poverty. I would like to talk about poverty among women, which is connected to child poverty.

I want to outline a couple of important statistics.

We know that two million people in Canada are living in divorced or separated families. We also know there are over a billion dollars arrears for income support payments after the result of divorce or separation. We know that 60% of that bucket is in enforcement proceedings. When we look at who is in enforcement, who is owing whom, 96% of the time it is a man who is owing money to a woman.

I want to ask the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her views on how a bill such as this, which has different aspects of government talking to one another and facilitates the payment of support will assist those women, particularly the women who are caring for children on their own, with respect to alleviating the poverty that she has mentioned, the poverty of women and children.

[Indigenous Affairs, December 7th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, we completely agree with the party opposite that the situation right now is completely unacceptable, not only to indigenous women, but also to all women in Canada.

As I said, the existing provisions in the Criminal Code capture a broad range of criminal behaviour, including this situation.

That includes the situation vis-à-vis coerced sterilization with respect to indigenous women, which has been highlighted, which needs to be addressed and will be addressed.

[Indigenous Affairs, December 7th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, forced sterilization of any woman is absolutely unacceptable. Our government believes firmly that everyone must receive culturally safe health services, no matter where they live.

The coerced sterilization of indigenous women is a serious violation of human rights and completely unacceptable. We are taking a public health approach to this issue, as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services. We are investing in public health approaches in indigenous communities. The existing provisions in the Criminal Code do capture a broad range of criminal behaviour, including coerced sterilization.

[Viola Desmond, December 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, like many in this chamber, I am a parent and I try diligently to read to my two young sons Zakir and Nitin whenever possible. However, I will confess that it is sometimes difficult to inculcate a love of books in young South Asian kids when they do not see themselves reflected in the novels around them.

People can imagine my delight when I stumbled upon a book by Jody Nyasha Warner about a strong, brave black woman who dared to fight against racial segregation in Nova Scotia in the 1940s, a black woman who refused to give up her seat in the whites-only section of a theatre.

In Viola Desmond Won't Be Budged, suddenly my kids can see a fellow racialized person not being stereotyped but being championed for her courage in fighting against injustice. Last week, I was more proud than ever to share with my two boys two crisp new $10 bills adorned with the image of none other than Viola Desmond herself.

Going forward, what is important is that Canadians do not need to consult a bookshelf to learn about this human rights champion. We will be carrying Viola and her message about the struggle for equality with us wherever we go.

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have two major points.

First, Bill C-337, presented by Rona Ambrose in this House, was supported by members on this side of the House. We look forward to its expeditious passage in the same way that the member for Durham does.

Second, the sanctimonious language that I have just heard, contributing to the debate with respect to charter statements, is incredible. The legacy of that party is seven consecutive defeats at the Supreme Court in respect of the charter. It is a legacy that had section 12 being applied to the denial of refugee health care in this country, an application that has never heretofore been done outside of a criminal context. It is a legacy that had the Chief Justice of Canada taking a public podium to renounce the allegations made by former prime minister Harper.

The very simple answer, to purport that a charter statement is somehow an effort to immunize us from litigation, is ridiculous on its face. We are the party that takes the charter seriously. That is why we are implementing charter statements.

Proof positive, for the member for Durham, if we were so afraid of constitutional litigation, why on earth would we ever have reinstated the court challenges program, which promotes and emancipates and empowers access to justice and constitutional litigation on the part of litigants? We are not afraid of the charter, nor are we afraid of constitutional litigation. That program was cut by the member opposite when he was a member of the cabinet.

Is it the member opposite's statement in this House that his party, if it was to ever return to power, God forbid, would retract the charter statements that are now a statutory duty, pursuant to the provisions of this legislation?