Arif Virani

[Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act, May 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I am very proud to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-391. I want to begin by sincerely thanking the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing this very important issue before Parliament. I would also like to thank him for being so open about the prospect of amendments to this bill. That and the comments so far by other hon. members of this House from different parties show that we are all here to work together.

We believe that the government has an important leadership role to play in support of the repatriation of indigenous cultural property, which is critical to our work overall to promote reconciliation. We are supporting this bill, because it is a critical step in the right direction, in the direction of empowering indigenous persons; in the direction of ensuring a renewed relationship with all indigenous persons—first nations, Inuit, and Métis people; in the direction of respect; and, most important, in the direction of autonomy.

A new national strategy on the repatriation of indigenous cultural property is something I have heard about locally from advocates for reconciliation in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, but it is also something we have heard about nationally when consulting with indigenous leaders, literally from coast to coast to coast.

This is an idea whose time has clearly arrived, but we also believe that there are a number of ways in which this bill can and should be strengthened. I would pause to reflect on the comments made by members of the two opposition parties who just spoke to this bill. The government will indeed be seeking some amendments to this bill.

First, we have heard others refer to the importance of the repatriation of indigenous human remains, including in the comments by the member opposite. Indigenous communities themselves have shown that this is often the highest priority for them. It seems that some consider human remains to be part of what the bill calls “Aboriginal cultural property”, but that aspect is not clear. We feel that the bill should be explicit in stating that the proposed national strategy will focus on both cultural property and human remains.

Second, we have heard other hon. members voice concerns about the definition of aboriginal cultural property in the bill. Definitions are always tricky. We know that as parliamentarians. We do not believe this term should actually be defined in the legislation itself. It does not appear to be defined elsewhere in law, and it is not even defined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It would be much more appropriate, in our view, if the scope of the strategy and any necessary definitions were developed as part of the strategy itself, in co-operation with indigenous communities and the holders of collections. We should not define the term in legislation itself, because we may end up with something either too vague or too narrow, and we may inadvertently exclude something we may regret after the fact.

Third, and to the same point, the bill refers to cultural property where there is “a strong attachment”. By whom or how should this strong attachment be judged? In our view, this concept and the scope of the proposed mechanism are best left to be determined in consultation with all stakeholders during the development of the strategy Bill C-391 contemplates. The point is that we need to be very careful that the bill does not go too far in determining the details of the strategy in advance. To do so would restrict the ability of the government and all those who work with it, most importantly indigenous persons themselves, to come up with the best possible result.

Fourth, speaking of the development of the national strategy in co-operation with stakeholders, Bill C-391 makes reference to the role to be played by the provinces, but there is no mention of the territories, and that certainly is something that should be added.

One of the really innovative aspects of the bill is that it proposes the creation of a forum for the resolution of conflicting claims. We are assuming that this is meant to be a forum where, if more than one indigenous community or organization is claiming the same item, indigenous people would get together and decide whose claim should go forward. That is very important and should be highlighted. Sorting out something of this nature should not be the role of a museum facing competing claims, and it should not be the role of the government. It should be up to indigenous people themselves. That is the point of reconciliation. It is about ending the patterns and habits of colonialism, where too often, governments have told indigenous persons about policies that affect them, rather than working with indigenous persons to co-develop those policies in a respectful nation-to-nation or Inuit-crown or government-to-government relationship, in the context of the Métis.

Co-development is the method we are pursuing in tabling Canada's first-ever indigenous languages act, a project I have been privileged to work on as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That spirit of moving away from the old colonial ways of thinking to ensuring that decisions on competing claims to the same indigenous item rest with indigenous people is something that needs to be emphasized more clearly in this bill.

It also should not be a forum where the government adjudicates the claims between indigenous communities and holders of collections. I cannot stress enough that success in repatriation depends on direct dialogue between indigenous peoples and institutions. The government should not be trying to insert itself into the middle of that dialogue, but clearly has a role to play in facilitating that dialogue. It is also important to acknowledge that a single forum may not be appropriate. Separate forums may be needed for first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. We need to take what we call a “distinctions-based approach” and acknowledge the unique circumstances of each of these three groups.

There are two more amendments I would like to raise.

Fifth, given everything we have heard and everything that has been said here, it is clear that developing a national strategy will be neither simple nor easy. Two years is not enough time to do all this work, hold all the consultations, and make all the decisions that need to be made. If the minister has to come back before Parliament with a strategy within just two years, we worry that it will not be the best possible strategy.

The government will be seeking an amendment to extend the period for developing the strategy to three years. We agree with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester that a deadline is important to ensure that this repatriation work, which will support the reconciliation process, goes quickly.

Before I close, my sixth point relates to the report that the minister would provide after the first two years of the strategy's implementation. As the bill is drafted, that section of the report seems to suggest that success can only be measured by the number of objects returned. As parliamentarians, we know that is not the only form of positive outcomes of negotiations. We also know there would be some information, particularly on negotiations still under way, that would simply be too sensitive to be included in a report that becomes public. Therefore, some adjustment to how the report is described is needed, in our view. We fully support the need for a report and the accountability and transparency it would bring with respect to delivering on the national strategy.

None of the potential amendments I have mentioned would weaken Bill C-391, or change its fundamental objective of enabling more progress on repatriation, the honourable goal of the member for Cumberland—Colchester. We support what he is working to do. We want that progress to take place, and that is why our party and our government is supporting the bill.

We look forward to working on amendments that would increase the chance of successfully implementing a national strategy for the repatriation of indigenous cultural property.

[Justice, May 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation with the Barreau du Québec. Some organizations decided to take legal action, and that is their choice. As this matter is now before the courts, we have no further comment.

[Elections Modernization Act, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. We have the second-largest geographic territory on the planet to govern. It stretches across to three oceans. Administering an election between Newfoundland and Vancouver Island is difficult, and it always has been difficult.

However, in the digital era, in the era of social media, we recognize, and the previous government recognized it as well, that attempting to curtail people's freedom of expression, including discussing or communicating about voting results or voting likelihoods was difficult if not impossible. However, we can work on further ways that will address how voting is administered on election day to accommodate for that regionality and those time zones, such as structuring it so polling stations are open at different times on the west coast than on the east coast and in the centre of Canada. It is a challenge. We are up for the challenge.

The bill addresses the digital reality we are in right now, but there are other creative ways to address the problem my friend has raised.

[Elections Modernization Act, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will address that in two parts. There is no doubt that fixed election dates have been proven to demonstrate that when we pick a date that is more convenient to the masses, more people will come out to vote. I applaud that initiative. This bill retains that initiative. Fixed election dates will not go anywhere under Bill C-76.

For my hon. friend opposite, and this has come up in repeated instances in the chamber, the reason we had an unprecedented number of people voting in the 2015 election was not because of the legislative initiatives by the previous government; it was specifically in spite of those legislative initiatives. It was in spite of the actions of Mr. Harper that people came out to vote him and his party out of office.

[Elections Modernization Act, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Willowdale this morning.

I am proud to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-76, which would empower more Canadians to vote and would ensure that elections are protected from interference. This legislation would give more Canadians the opportunity to vote by reducing the number of barriers to casting a ballot and would limit interference by ensuring the integrity of our voting process.

I would like to take this occasion today to welcome back to the House the Minister of Democratic Institutions, who has just returned from maternity leave, and to offer my congratulations to the minister.

In terms of an overview, let us turn back the clock to 2014, the year Stephen Harper's Conservative government enacted the so-called Fair Elections Act. In a blatant attempt to secure re-election, the Harper government at the time sought to impede rather than enhance access to voting. That legislation made voting at the polls more difficult and, amazingly, even prohibited the Chief Electoral Officer of this country from educating Canadians about the importance of getting out to vote.

In addition to that, the Harper Conservative government made elections longer and more expensive, in a blatant attempt to crush opposing political parties by simply outspending them. The self-serving rules imposed by the previous government should not be tolerated by any member of the House regardless of their political stripe. This is the very reason we introduced Bill C-76.

Plainly, Mr. Harper's plan backfired. Rather than keeping voters away in 2015, they came out in droves to vote him and his party out of office. In doing so, they also sent a very clear message that affronts to our democracy should not and will not be tolerated.

I recall very specifically the campaign of 2015 when engaged citizens in my riding spoke to to me about what they called the “unfair elections act”. They demanded change. The folks in Parkdale—High Park said that loudly and clearly to me. I heard from those constituents and communicated their concerns here in Ottawa. Our government is responding today with Bill C-76, legislation that would enable Canadians to come out and vote and prevent the manipulation of our democracy.

There are two broad categories. The first category is about access. As a fundamental principle, our government believes in the notion of making it easier, not harder, for people to vote. Unlike the Conservatives, we do not regard a larger number of people participating in elections as a threat to democracy, but a manifestation of a healthy democracy. That means giving Canadians the tools to be able to participate in our voting system.

For all Canadians, regardless of their background or their station in life, a participatory democracy means giving every Canada an equal chance to obtain a ballot and to cast a vote. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, I take seriously the issue of access and inclusion, and I am most proud of the fact that Bill C-76 will increase the ability of diverse Canadians across a wide array of demographics to participate in our democratic process. Allow me to explain.

First, let us speak about low-income Canadians. For those who may not have the wherewithal to obtain government issued photo identification, Bill C-76 would allow them to use the voter information card as a legitimate form of identification at the polls. This will ensure that fewer voters are turned away at the polls, allowing more Canadians to exercise their democratic right to cast a ballot in federal elections, reversing one aspect of the unfair elections act.

Second, for Canadians who may not even have the wherewithal to possess a voter information card, we will reintroduce the old, pre-Harper system of vouching, which allows a registered voter to vouch for the identity of another person. Mr. Harper's legislation eliminated vouching and was strongly criticized at the time by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. In 2015, a whopping 172,000 people, particularly youth and indigenous persons, cited their lack of identification as the reason they did not vote. On this side of the House, we do not fear youth and indigenous voices; we encourage them. With this change in Bill C-76, we will re-enfranchise such people.

Third, we are taking significant steps to increase the access and participation of young Canadians. With this bill we will create a national list of pre-electors, so that Elections Canada can pre-register Canadian youth aged 14 to 17 to vote. Elections Canada will administer the list and sign up young people to receive information about voting until they reach voting age. The evidence has demonstrated clearly that once a person votes, they are more likely to continue to vote in subsequent elections. Our goal is to help, not impede, young people so that they make voting a lifelong habit.

Fourth, for Canadians with disabilities, we are taking vital steps to increase their access to and opportunity to cast a ballot. We currently have accommodations for persons with physical disabilities to vote from home.

Disabilities can be both physical and intellectual. To include more Canadians in the pool of potential voters, we are expanding the provisions for voting at home for any elector with a disability, irrespective of the nature or extent of his or her disability. The same concept would apply to transfer certificates. Right now, only a voter with a physical disability can apply to vote at a different accessible polling station. Under this bill, we will extend the same accommodation to those with intellectual disabilities. This is meaningful inclusion in action.

Bill C-76 goes even further. It provides funding for important initiatives so that Canadians with disabilities can vote. This bill encourages candidates and political parties to take specific measures to accommodate voters with disabilities and reduce the barriers to their participation in the democratic process by offering financial reimbursement for their efforts.

Fifth, for trans and non-binary Canadians, we are taking important steps to boost voter access and participation. Under Bill C-76, requirements to indicate a voters sex on the list of electors or other documents is being deleted. Trans and non-binary Canadians will no longer be required to explain or confirm their gender identity at the polls before they are given a ballot. This type of measure will ensure that all LGBTQ2 Canadians are welcomed at voting stations and encouraged to cast a ballot.

Sixth, for Canadians abroad, Bill C-76 would restore the access to the democratic process that Stephen Harper severed. Under the unfair elections act, Mr. Harper took away the right to vote from one million Canadians who had been living abroad for more than 5 years, a decision which prompted a charter challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The case was Frank v. Canada, which was heard on March 21 of this year.

Our government is not waiting for the court to render its decision about the charter-protected voting rights of Canadians abroad. We are acting now with this legislation to restore such rights. We are saying to the one million Canadians around the globe, in the 21st century, in an era of mobile work and mobile workers, that their right to have a say in the election of their national government should not be fettered by the international demands of their employment.

Seventh, as I said at the outset, our government does not fear citizen participation in the democratic process; we encourage it. That is why, in an effort to improve access of all Canadians, we are removing what was one of the most egregious instances of abuse on the part of Stephen Harper's previous government. Under that government's unfair elections act, it prohibited the Chief Electoral Officer of our country from educating adult Canadians about voting and the importance of casting a ballot.

Not discouraged, the Harper government prohibited the Chief Electoral Officer from doing his job, from building civic literacy and educating Canadians about why it was important to participate in our electoral system. I am as incredulous today as I was in 2014 when I first learned about this aspect of Stephen Harper's legislation. To prohibit a non-partisan officer like the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada from informing Canadians about the merits of casting a ballot in our system of government is nothing short of anti-democratic. It was at the very core of why Canadians responded so resoundingly against Mr. Harper in the 2015 election, and why we are restoring such a basic aspect of the Chief Electoral Officer's duties with Bill C-76.

My final point on access relates to indigenous persons. It is connected to the broad measures we are taking under this legislation to facilitate more people being able to cast a ballot.

The structural changes in Bill C-76 would make voting faster and less time consuming, thereby increasing the number of Canadians likely to cast a vote. The changes include being more flexible with where one can vote at a given polling station; enhancing the use of special ballots; keeping advance polls open longer; and using mobile polls more frequently to reach those in low density, remote, and isolated communities.

The impact on access will be tangible. Many indigenous persons in our country live in more remote and isolated communities. By making this important change, we are empowering indigenous persons' voices to be heard and counted within our democratic process.

With respect to the second category, it talks about the integrity of our democratic process. The bill speaks for itself with respect to placing important limits on things like the length of an electoral campaign and the power to enforce against breaches of the act and electoral fraud.

The previous unfair elections act passed under the Harper government impeded instead of improved access to the ballot box. As a government, we believe that when more Canadians vote our democracy is strengthened, not threatened. That is why we have tabled Bill C-76, legislation that would increase access for all Canadians of diverse backgrounds to the ballot box. That is why I will be voting in support of the bill. I urge all parliamentarians to do the same.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we know that according to the World Bank, 67 jurisdictions and counting around the planet now have a price on carbon.

Why are the Conservatives so keen to miss out on where the global economy is headed with respect to clean growth? Are they out of touch or will they simply get on the right side of history in about a decade, the same way it took them about a decade after the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage to change their official definition of marriage at a party convention?

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that last week Environment and Climate Change Canada produced a report indicating that by pricing pollution we would reduce emissions by up to 90 million tonnes, a huge part of meeting our Paris commitments. In a puzzling interview last week, the Leader of the Opposition claimed he knows how to meet our Paris targets without putting a price on pollution and without putting forward anything resembling a plan to tackle climate change.

Which is it? Does the party of the member opposite not understand what real action on climate change looks like, or do the Conservatives just not care about climate action?

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge was a banker by profession prior to politics, so I am going to put to him two economic statistics. According to the World Bank, 67 jurisdictions representing about half of the global economy and more than a quarter of global GHG emissions are putting a price on carbon, and the four provinces that have a price on carbon, B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, had the highest GDP growth and created the most jobs in Canada in 2017.

In the opinion of the member, why does that make this an appealing case for why a price on pollution should be put in place nationally?

[Aga Khan Diamond Jubilee, May 3rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday members of all parties welcomed His Highness the Aga Khan at Rideau Hall to celebrate his diamond jubilee after 60 years as the religious leader of 15 million Ismaili Muslims around the world.

The Aga Khan has had a strong relationship with Canada for six decades, beginning with Canada's decision to accept Ismaili refugees, like me and my family, who were fleeing persecution from Idi Amin.

Canada subsequently forged a strong working relationship with the Aga Khan Development Network, which provides critical humanitarian assistance in developing countries. Most recently, we bestowed honorary citizenship on the Aga Khan to recognize his commitment to the Canadian values of pluralism and diversity.

As an Ismaili Canadian member of the House of Commons, I am very proud of the Aga Khan's commitment to community service, as illustrated by Canada 150, when Ismaili Muslims gave this country over one million hours of volunteer service.

I thank His Highness for being an example to us all. On behalf of the Parliament of Canada, we all wish him “diamond jubilee mubarak”.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have three brief comments.

First, in the context of a robust debate, my response to the member for Peace River—Westlock is that it is precisely because of people like his constituents who are trying to privately sponsor Syrian refugees that we have quadrupled the amount of private sponsorship that is available in this country, as compared to the number that was put forward by the previous Conservative government under its tenure at the head of this file.

Second, I find it quite astounding that the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who moved this motion, has raised former immigration minister Jason Kenney as some sort of paragon of proper stewardship or administration of the immigration portfolio, a man under whose watch health care for refugees was cut, a man under whose watch refugee selection from the Middle East during the height of the Syrian refugee crisis was done on selective minority religious grounds only, and a man under whose watch processing times ballooned to the point where waiting times were two to three years.

Third, specifically for the member for Calgary Nose Hill, is with respect to the myth that her and her party continue to propagate in this House and outside of this House, which is that somehow inland asylum seekers are queue jumping. Clearly, there is a humanitarian category and there are separate categories for people who come here for permanent resident status under family reunification or economic migration. The two categories are distinct and disparate.

After two and a half years as the opposition critic, I would have thought the member for Calgary Nose Hill would have an understanding of that specific differentiation.