Arif Virani

[Official Languages, June 19th, 2018]

Our goal is always to support both official languages across Canada. As for the question raised by the member about the media, I can assure him that we are there for local media, print media, and media that serve francophone communities.

In addition to providing official language minority communities with money in key areas such as community development, culture, immigration, and early childhood, our government is also planning initiatives to further promote both official languages.

Furthermore, we will invest $3 million to enable Statistics Canada to meet the official language data needs of communities and of all orders of government. This intervention will allow for enhanced data-driven decision-making and the improved assessment of the results of our actions.

[Official Languages, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the work we accomplished after consulting Canadians, especially official language minority communities. The result was the new action plan for official languages 2018-23, which meets the needs of our communities. The action plan provides a historic investment of nearly $2.7 billion to strengthen our communities, strengthen access to services, and promote a bilingual Canada.

Leadership, governance, and coordination in the area of official languages are important matters which our government takes very seriously. We have shown a great deal of leadership in the area of official languages since the fall of 2015, and the concrete actions we have taken are a testament to that very commitment.

We have made it a priority to regularly meet with official language stakeholders to listen to their concerns and understand their needs and priorities. This deepened dialogue paved the way to key commitments upon which the action plan for official languages 2018-23 rests: strengthening collaboration with official language stakeholders and communities; extending new funding for official languages to address key challenges and trends, some of which were outlined by the member opposite; favouring evidence-based and grassroots-driven policy decisions; and demonstrating greater transparency and accountability in government funding. These commitments will continue to guide our approach, which fundamentally and above all things is focused on community-driven results.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage will continue to improve the coordination of official languages issues in co-operation with the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Department of Justice. As well, the Prime Minister has announced that we will be modernizing the Official Languages Act.

With regard to governance, the government can count on a high-level committee, the Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages, currently being co-chaired by representatives from Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board Secretariat, Justice Canada, and the Privy Council Office. This committee helps promote concerted government action on official languages. It opens the way to sharing best practices in a spirit of inter-departmental collaboration.

The committee's mandate was recently broadened to include three priorities, the horizontal federal strategies on official languages, including the action plan, language of work in the federal public service, and managing other issues related to the Official Languages Act.

[Employment, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments by my friend opposite, I will reiterate that what we are doing is enhancing the program. We are providing more funding for more jobs right around the country, as compared to the record of the previous government, which drove down youth employment. What I would say to the member opposite is that if the Conservatives are so concerned about jobs for Canadian youth, then why did he and his caucus colleagues vote against the youth employment strategy, student work, integrated learning, and apprenticeship grants in the votes that took place just on Thursday evening of last week?

Again, it would be abhorrent for any government to try to purport to dictate to a religious or a cultural group what they should believe or what tenets or doctrine they should believe in. What we are doing with this program is simply indicating that when they run a program and they are seeking governmental funding to employ students, they must do so in an inclusive manner, such as the example that I gave earlier: when they run a camp or a soup kitchen, God bless them for running it, and running it out of a synagogue, church, temple, or mosque, but when they do so they must make those jobs available for employment to include people like LGBTQ youth.

[Employment, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's robust contributions today and indeed on many days in this House.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak about a program, the Canada summer jobs program, that our government has indeed doubled, creating 70,000 paid-work experiences for Canadian youth. The Canada summer jobs program is an integral part of our plan to support Canada's young people so they can get the education and experience they need to get a quality job. It helps young people start off on the right foot toward building their careers, and it helps keep our economy growing and our middle class thriving.

The program benefits students and employers alike, and it helps move our economy forward.

Unlike the previous Conservative government, whose policies drove youth unemployment to its highest rates since the nineties, we on this side of the House are investing in young people. Budget 2018 invests an additional $448.5 million over five years to support our youth employment strategy. This funding will help to continue to double the number of job placements funded under the Canada summer jobs program in 2019-20.

On the issue of freedom of conscience and religion raised by my colleague, we have had many robust discussions about this both in this House and outside of this House. Let me be very clear. The changes we have made are not at all, in any way, about excluding faith-based groups. My friend raised the issue of the charter protections. As a constitutional lawyer, I will advise him, but also he will know quite clearly, that subsection 2(a) protects freedom of conscience and religion under the Canadian Constitution put in place by Pierre Trudeau when he was then prime minister of this country.

More importantly, the attestation clause, as has been discussed at length in this chamber, is not about changing doctrine, ideology, or belief with respect to any faith-based group. We recognize the important work that faith-based groups do around this country on a daily basis. We are saying if a Catholic church, a synagogue, a mosque, or a Hindu temple runs a soup kitchen, God bless them for running the soup kitchen. However, if in running that soup kitchen they say that an LGBTQ2+ youth cannot be employed working in that soup kitchen, that is an exclusive policy, and not something that we will fund as a government. That is what the attestation clause is meant to do.

I do not think we see differently on either side of this House. We believe clearly in freedom of conscience on both sides, but we also believe in inclusion on both sides of the House, and “inclusion” means ensuring that people such as an LGBTQ2+ youth have the ability to work in an inclusive environment, including one being run by a faith-based institution.

We are not here to dictate the faith or tenets of various faith groups around this country. As the parliamentary secretary for multiculturalism, who works under the Minister of Canadian Heritage in promoting those very faith-based groups, religious groups, and diverse cultural groups that make up this country, it would be abhorrent for us to even purport to do so.

What we are trying to do is ensure that government funding addresses the needs of Canadians, addresses young people, and gets them employed in jobs that are related to the careers that they are seeking to pursue, but doing so in a manner that protects that fundamental founding document, which is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the rights contained therein. It is a critical facet. Employers continue to understand this. They have applied in record numbers. There are 3,000 first-time funding recipients for this program. That is why we are proud of the implementation of the Canada summer jobs program. We are proud of the fact that we expanded the program and the funding, and that tens of thousands of young people are currently employed.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oakville North—Burlington for her advocacy and her work on the committee studying this very bill.

The no-fly list has become a very contentious issue. Speaking as a Muslim Canadian member of Parliament, at one time I thought this was a pernicious issue that affected my community and other people similarly situated around Canada. We have learned that it touches Canadians of every stripe, every demographic, and every background. One of the critical factors of the no-fly list is the lack of a domestic redress mechanism. We have heard from people who have told us point blank that there is a better redress system in the United States than there is in Canada.

We have funded the ability to resource and invest in a redress mechanism, but absent a legislative authority to implement the redress mechanism, the funding simply cannot be spent efficaciously. This is so important and has touched the constituents of all members of the House. What this bill would do is allow us to couple that funding with the legislative instrument to implement a redress mechanism that would allow people, from children all the way to octogenarians, to address the unfairness of being challenged and having their dignity impugned by virtue of simply sharing a name with a person who has done extremely bad actions in some other part of the world.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the stance on torture, obviously my stance, as well as that of my party and our government, is unequivocal: We stand against torture.

I would reiterate for the member opposite what I mentioned in my speech. One of the launch pads for our discussion and, indeed, the passage of this bill was the Maher Arar inquiry, which looked at one of the most cited instances of the tragedy that can unfortunately occur when a person whose rights are violated is rendered or subjected to torture, and the incredible human rights pitfalls that arise therefrom. We have looked closely at the recommendations of the Arar inquiry and implemented some of those recommendations, as I mentioned in my speech, in the context of this very bill.

I would also reiterate that the bedrock foundation that protects against torture is the very instrument that we are having a very lively discussion about, which is the Charter of Rights itself. In section 12, within our Constitution, there is protection against cruel and unusual punishment. As a bedrock, that protects against the types of treatment and behaviours that both the member opposite and I will agree are abhorrent in Canada.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington this evening.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-59. With this bill, our government is entrenching our commitment to balancing the primacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with protecting our national security. We are enhancing accountability and transparency. We are correcting the most problematic elements of the Harper government's old Bill C-51.

Our government conducted an unprecedented level of public consultation with Canadians about our national security in order to effectively develop the bill. Canadians told us loudly and clearly that they wanted a transparent, accountable, and effective national security framework. That is exactly what we will accomplish with Bill C-59.

The minister took the rare step of referring Bill C-59 to the Standing Committee on Public Safety after first reading, underscoring our government's commitment to Canadians to ensure that we got this important legislation right. Prior to the bill returning to this chamber, it underwent an extensive four-month study, hearing from nearly 100 witnesses. I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their hard work in studying the bill extensively and for their comprehensive report.

Fundamental to our promise to bring our national security framework into the 21st century, we are fixing the very flawed elements of the old Bill C-51, which I heard so much about from my constituents in Parkdale—High Park during the 2015 electoral campaign.

I am proud to support this evidence-based, balanced legislation, and I am reassured to see positive reactions from legal and national security experts right around the country, including none other than Professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, two of the foremost legal academics in Canada who have been at the centre of concerns about the overreach of the Harper government's old Bill C-51.

Professors Forcese and Roach have said, “Bill C-59 is the biggest overhaul in Canadian national security since the creation of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1984—and it gets a lot of things right."

Bill C-59 builds on our commitment to enhance accountability, which started with our government's introduction of Bill C-22 in 2016. Bill C-22, which has received royal assent established an all-party committee of parliamentarians, representatives elected by the Canadian public, to review and critically analyze security and intelligence activities. For the first time in history, a multi-party group of members of this chamber as well as the Senate are now holding Canada's security apparatus to account.

We are building on Bill C-22 with the current bill, Bill C-59, which would establish a national security and intelligence review agency. The NSIRA, as it would be known, would function as a new expert review body with jurisdiction across the entire government to complement the efforts of the recently established parliamentary oversight committee, which I just mentioned. This feature would incorporate one of the important recommendations of the Maher Arar inquiry, which called on the government to, and I am citing recommendation 16 from the Maher Arar inquiry, “develop a protocol to provide for coordination and coherence across government in addressing issues that arise” respecting national security.

With the establishment of a parliamentary oversight committee in Bill C-22, and a new arm's-length review body in Bill C-59, we would be addressing the glaring gap that exists in our review bodies for national security agencies. Currently, some agencies do not have a review body or are in charge of reviewing themselves. We cannot allow the lack of such fundamental oversight to continue, especially with regard to the safety and security of Canadians.

As Professors Forcese and Roach have observed, with respect to Bill C-59:

the government is finally redressing the imbalance between security service powers and those of the review bodies that are supposed to hold them to account. Bill C-59 quite properly supplements the parliamentary review committee...with a reformed expert watchdog entity. Expert review will be liberated from its silos as the new review agency has a whole-of-government mandate.

This is a critical piece in our government's work, providing my constituents in Parkdale—High Park and indeed Canadians right around this country, with a comprehensive and responsible national security framework.

In addition to establishing the NSIRA, Bill C-59 calls for increased and improved communication between this organization and other relevant review bodies, such as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This will not only boost efficiency and avoid duplication and unnecessary use of resources, but also promote a more holistic approach to protecting privacy and security at the federal level.

While speaking with the residents of Parkdale—High Park in 2015, I heard about the Harper government's old Bill C-51 over and over again at the doors. The major concern the residents expressed to me was about the threat posed by the previous government's Bill C-51 to their constitutional rights and freedoms. The residents of my community are an intelligent and engaged group of citizens, and they were on to something. The federal government, under the guise of “public security”, cannot be permitted to infringe on the rights and freedoms that are fundamental to our very society, to what it means to be Canadian.

Yes, ensuring public safety is the pre-eminent responsibility of any government, but it is simply not acceptable to pursue security at any cost. My constituents, and indeed all Canadians, expect a government that respects fundamental constitutional rights, a government that will put in place mechanisms and safeguards to protect those rights.

That is precisely what Bill C-59 would achieve. How? First, it would tighten the definition of what constitutes “terrorist propaganda”. The narrower and more targeted definition would ensure that the sacrosanct protection of freedom of expression under section 2(b) of our charter is observed, and that our security laws in Canada are not so overreaching as to limit legitimate critique and debate.

Second, as a corollary to this point, Bill C-59 would also protect the right of all Canadians to legitimate protest and advocacy. One of the most searing criticisms of the Harper government's old Bill C-51 was that bona fide protestors who dared to disagree with the government of the day could be caught up in a web of security sweeps, all in the name of public safety.

That is not how our Liberal government operates. We respect the charter and the right of all Canadians to engage in legitimate protest and advocacy, whether they represent a group with charitable status that opposes a government policy, or a gathering of students on a university campus who take up the call for more aggressive investment of federal funds to support the expansion of women's rights internationally.

That kind of advocacy is not a threat to our public security. To the contrary, it is an enhancement of our democracy. It is civil society groups and public citizens doing exactly what they do best, challenging government to do, and to be, better.

In Bill C-59, we recognize this principle. We are saying to Canadians that they have constitutional rights to free speech and protest, and that we are going to affirm and protect those rights by correcting the balance between protecting safety and respecting the charter.

Third, Bill C-59 would also upgrade procedures as they relate to the no-fly list. We know that the no-fly list is an important international mechanism for keeping people safe, but its use has expanded to the point of encroaching on Canadians' rights. In Bill C-59, we are determined to address this imbalance.

Our changes to the no-fly list regime would do the following. They would require the destruction of information provided to the minister about a person who was, or was expected to be, on board an aircraft within seven days following the departure or cancellation of the flight. It would also authorize the minister to collect information from individuals for the purpose of issuing a unique identifier to them to assist with pre-flight verification of their identity.

This is a critical step that would provide us with the legislative tools needed to develop a domestic redress mechanism. The funding for a domestic redress mechanism was delivered by our government this year, specifically $81.4 million in budget 2018. However, in order to start investing this money in a way that would allow Canadians, including children, who are false positives on the no-fly list to seek redress, we need legislative authority. Bill C-59 would provide that legislative authority.

Finally, with Bill C-59 we would re-establish the paramountcy of the charter. I speak now as a constitutional lawyer who practised in this area for 15 years prior to being elected. It is unfortunate that the paramountcy of the Constitution needs to be entrenched in law. As a lawyer, I know, and we should all know, that the Constitution is always the paramount document against which all other laws are measured. Nevertheless, the previous government's disdain for the charter has made this important step necessary.

Through Bill C-59, we would entrench, in black and white, that any unilateral action by CSIS to collect data in a manner that might infringe on the Constitution is no longer permitted. Instead, under Bill C-59, any such proposals would have to come before a judge, who must evaluate the application in accordance with the law, where protecting charter rights would be the paramount concern. Our party helped establish the charter in 1982, and our government stands behind that document and all the values and rights it protects.

As I and many others have said before in the House, the task is to balance rights and freedoms while upholding our duty to protect the safety of Canadians. That is not an easy task, but I am confident that Bill C-59, in partnership with Bill C-22, would provide a comprehensive and balanced approach to national security. It is respectful of the charter and our Constitution. That is why I support this bill, and I ask all members to do the same.

[Petitions, June 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present a petition created through the hard work of Amy Stocking and students at St. Cecilia Catholic Elementary School in my riding of Parkdale—High Park.

The petitioners urge us to further support important work surrounding international development and women working for peace. It is a true pleasure to present this duly certified petition by the aspiring young minds at St. Cecilia, who are clearly acting locally and thinking globally.

[Tibetan Canadian Community, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, tashi delek. The year 2018 is being celebrated worldwide by Tibetans as the year of gratitude.

Dr. Lobsang Sangay, Sikyong of the Central Tibetan Administration, along with Tibetan community members from across the country, are here with us today to thank Canada. They thank the government for making Tibetans the first non-European group of government-assisted refugees to be welcomed to Canada in 1971, and they thank Canada for our continued support of the Tibetan people and for bestowing honorary Canadian citizenship on His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 2006. Today, I wear with pride in this chamber the khatak, or scarf, given to me by His Holiness.

As the MP for Parkdale—High Park, the home to the largest Tibetan diaspora in North America, I actually say that the thanks are all ours. To Tibetan Canadians, I say a heartfelt thuk-je-che. I thank them for teaching us about the Middle Way, for strengthening our understanding of Tibetan Buddhism, and most of all for contributing so much to the multicultural fabric of our diverse country.

[Latin American Heritage Month Act, June 6th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, gracias and obrigado. I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-218, an act respecting Latin American heritage month. This bill recognizes the contributions of the Latin American community to Canada and seeks to establish the month of October as Latin American heritage month.

Canadians of Latin American origin have been foundational in communities across our country going back to the early 1970s. The government supports Bill S-218 as a meaningful way to reflect on and celebrate the significant contributions that Latin American Canadians have made, and continue to make, to the social, economic, and political fabric of this country. It also gives a unique opportunity for all Canadians to celebrate Latin American culture and its traditions.

Before going into further details about the important contributions of this community to Canadian society, let me begin by outlining the principles that support the fabric of Canada.

As was stated in the 2015 Speech from the Throne:

As a country, we are strengthened in many ways: by our shared experiences, by the diversity that inspires both Canada and the world, and by the way that we treat each other.

Given the strong and growing presence of individuals of Latin American ancestry, formal recognition of Latin American heritage month will provide us with a terrific opportunity to recognize the contribution of this community in celebration of our diversity and our inclusive society here in Canada.

It is important to note that the term "Latin American" can be used to refer to communities from the parts of the Americas where Spanish or Portuguese is the main language, and it refers to all people originating from the geographic area of Latin America. This includes Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking communities, as well as francophone communities and the indigenous peoples of the region.

The “Latin American” reference was the one preferred by the late Senator Tobias Enverga, who introduced Bill S-218 in the Senate in 2016. We thank him for that contribution to Canadian parliamentary business and for the legacy he is leaving with this bill. Senator Enverga explained that he consulted members of the communities and the public and gave consideration to taking on a more inclusive framing or terminology to the commemoration.

That is why the bill refers to “Latin America”, which includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, as well as Puerto Rico, the French West Indies, and other islands.

As we all know, immigration has played, and will continue to play, a key role in the development of our country. Canada offers a way of life that attracts thousands of newcomers every year.

The first wave of Latin American immigrants arrived in Canada in the early 1970s, with the arrival of about 68,000 people.

I will digress for a moment to say that I personally had the privilege to work with dozens of persons of Latin American heritage as a young student in 1995, in my first year of law school at the University of Toronto. As a law student, I was working with an entity called the Centre for Spanish-Speaking Peoples, on Bathurst Street, just south of Dupont in downtown Toronto. The CSSP was a small clinic, but it was vital for Latin Americans, primarily refugee applicants, who confronted challenges with navigating the legal system and our immigration laws. That experience was extremely formative for me in many ways, not just in terms of my development and training as a young lawyer, but also in terms of my knowledge, understanding, and exposure to Latino culture.

Canadians of Latin American heritage continue to make major contributions to Canadian society in ways that build a strong and prosperous nation. Noting this continued credit to Canada, let me say a few words about some prominent Canadians of Latin American heritage.

In terms of academics, Professor Alejandro Adem, a Latin American Canadian of Mexican descent, has made important contributions to the field of mathematics. Professor Adem has been a professor in the department of mathematics at the University of British Columbia since 2005 and holds a Canada Research Chair. He is currently the CEO and scientific director of Mitacs, Canada.

With respect to sport, Mauro Biello, born in Montreal and of Latin American heritage, was the head coach and director of player personnel for the Montreal Impact professional soccer team for eight years. Prior to joining the Impact’s coaching staff, Mr. Biello had a 19-year professional playing career, including 16 seasons in Montreal. In 389 career games played with the Montreal Impact, Mr. Biello scored 77 goals and 67 assists for 221 points during the regular season, playoffs, and championship games.

I would note for the record that I have had the pleasure of personally observing the passion of the Latin American community for football in the city of Montreal, when I watched a match with a colleague, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. We watched the Toronto team, TFC, take on Montreal Impact two years ago during the elimination matches. Although, as the member for Parkdale—High Park, I was cheering for my local squad, I was extremely impressed with the engagement of the 60,000 people who filled the Big O in Montreal for that match. The passion they showed for those players, many of whom were Latin American, was palpable.

I could go on and on about the contributions of Latin Americans to the sport and to the beautiful game. One need only think of the Spaniards, their European championships in 2008 and 2012, and their victory in Mondial 2010. We think of Cristiano Ronaldo and the Portuguese victory in 2016. There is Lionel Messi, from Argentina. As a specific fan of No. 10 for the Argentinian squad and for FC Barcelona, of course I need to recognize the significant contributions of Messi. The list of contributions of Latin Americans to athleticism, culture, and academics goes on and on.

Over the years, Latin American communities have brought their rich and vibrant culture to our country. Several Spanish-language newspapers, magazines, and newsletters are published in Canada, such as the Toronto-based El Popular. Theatre presentations, poetry recitals, and art exhibitions are common in larger communities, such as those across the city of Toronto, including Parkdale—High Park, where we have a strong and vibrant Latin American community. Indeed, dance and music groups are active throughout Canada and throughout our urban centres. Latin American writers, poets, painters, singers, chefs, and journalists have become well known in Canada.

I would be remiss not to mention the reference that was made to the Chief Government Whip and the contributions of Latin American culture to the fine art of dance. I, too, appreciate the finer aspects of Latin American dance. It is with great pride that I declare that I, in fact, met my wife at a salsa class, so clearly Latin American culture brings people together. This August, we will have been married for 13 years.

Different groups, associations, and festivals promote and share Latin American culture in major Canadian cities, such as Toronto, which has been recognized as the most multicultural city on the planet. For example, Latin American-Canadian Art Projects is a Toronto-based not-for-profit arts organization dedicated to the implementation of arts projects, promoting Latin American art in Canada with an emphasis on artistic excellence.

The Confédération des associations latino-américaines de Québec, a not-for-profit organization, supports members of the Latin American community in the Québec City area and organizes various cultural activities. I could name many other examples in other parts of the country. Canada is recognized worldwide for its successful approach to multiculturalism. We are succeeding culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity.

Let me reinforce the fact that Canada's multicultural heritage and identity are more than just a commitment to welcoming diverse people from around the world. It is a commitment to the principles of equality and freedom, grounded in human rights and enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and the Multiculturalism Act. That act's predecessor was the adoption of multiculturalism policy by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1971, a gesture whose statutory manifestation, the Multiculturalism Act, is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. What better year to declare October Latin American heritage month in Canada to celebrate that community and its vast contributions in Canada toward diversity, which is truly our greatest strength.