Arif Virani

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this evening with the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler. I appreciate the opportunity to stand this evening to speak on the urgent crisis facing the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.

I want to start by thanking the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for seeking this emergency debate. While we disagree on nearly all matters of policy and ideology, I have always respected my colleague's passion for the protection of minorities abroad. When that passion takes the form of a Conservative member on the opposite side standing to defend the rights of a Muslim minority, I take note and I think all members of this House should as well.

The focus of my speech this evening is primarily from my perspective as a former war crimes prosecutor who worked at the Rwanda genocide tribunal on behalf of the United Nations. That tribunal was established in 1997, three years after the Rwanda genocide. That experience taught me that even the best of intentions, if not carried out contemporaneously, will have limited effect.

That is why I was very proud to stand with my colleagues in this chamber about one year ago when we decided collectively as a Parliament to act quickly and decisively to aid Yazidis, not years after the fact but rather while their persecution at the hands of Daesh was ongoing.

Fast forward to now, and we know that the plight of Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State is desperate and that there is a complete absence of leadership on the part of the Myanmar leader to stop ethnic cleansing that is unfolding before our very eyes. A moral failure, as Prime Minister and the Subcommittee on International Human Rights have called it.

However, it is not just parliamentarians who are taking note. Everyday Canadians are as well. In my riding of Parkdale—High Park, I have heard from worshippers who attend at the Jami Mosque and the Hamza Mosque, but I have also heard from many others, Canadians of different faiths, backgrounds, races, and religions, all united by their horror at what they are witnessing and reading about in the media. They are seeking action.

I want to turn to the action taken thus far. I want to turn to some of the precise words used by the Prime Minister in his very terse letter to Aung Sang Suu Kyi. I appreciate this has been the matter of some of the debate this evening. In his letter dated September 18, the Prime Minister opened with:

It is with profound surprise, disappointment and dismay that your fellow Canadians have witnessed your continuing silence in the face of the brutal oppression of Myanmar's Rohingya Muslim people.

The Prime Minister then goes on to reference the Peace Prize that was bestowed on Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, and to quote her when she said:

...disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspirations of the common people.

Then the Prime Minister continues to say:

The situation in Rakhine State betrays these moral commitments. Since violence erupted on August 25, reports indicate that 415,000 refugees, 70% of whom are women and children, have fled to Bangladesh to date, with additional people internally displaced. Emblematic of longstanding discrimination and gross violations of human rights, reports cite the disproportionate use of force, extrajudicial killings and burning of villages by security forces.

The Prime Minister continues:

Landmines are allegedly being laid with systemic violations of international law, which, if established by a court of law, amount to crimes against humanity.

I concur in that. This is an aside by me as a war crimes prosecutor. I concur in that legal analysis.

The United Nations is denied access to investigate fully and international humanitarian agencies lack safe and unhindered access to help all those in need.

The Prime Minister then goes on to state that:

As...my Minister of Foreign Affairs [has stated], there is no escaping the conclusion reached by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights...that the “situation seems a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”

As he winds up the letter, he states that:

The responsibility for resolving this crisis falls squarely upon you [Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi] and upon the military leadership of Myanmar, including Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing.

I read that text verbatim because it is important to note in this chamber that the leadership and the position of the Government of Canada has been made clear by the Prime Minister. In this chamber just yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs herself was unequivocal when she stated:

...we are absolutely seized by the urgent question of the persecution of the Rohingya. Based on reports from the region, this is ethnic cleansing, and it is important for Canada to condemn it in the strongest possible terms and to act. It is important particularly to call on the military leadership to cease this horror.

Why are we debating this issue tonight? We have a motion that has been moved, but I would be keen to share with the House some important facts about what is happening on the ground in Myanmar.

While this issue was studied at length by the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I must take a moment to outline the most recent situation.

Since August 25, we understand that 3,000 Rohingya have been estimated to have been killed. Almost 480,000 Rohingya refugees have fled Myanmar to Bangladesh, with 190,000 in makeshift camps, 89,000 arrivals in host communities, and 201,000 arrivals in new spontaneous sites. Reports indicate that tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims remain stranded in northern Rakhine State without access to basic supplies such as food and water.

Amnesty International has also been clear in its assessment. It has reported that Myanmar security forces and vigilante mobs are burning down entire villages and shooting people at random as they try to flee. Amnesty's analysis shows how an “orchestrated campaign of systematic burnings” has targeted Rohingya villages across northern Rakhine State for almost three weeks. Amnesty's crisis response director has stated:

The evidence is irrefutable—the Myanmar security forces are setting northern Rakhine State ablaze in a targeted campaign to push the Rohingya people out of Myanmar. Make no mistake: this is ethnic cleansing.

She is also quoted as saying:

There is a clear and systematic pattern of abuse here. Security forces surround a village, shoot people fleeing in panic and then torch houses to the ground. In legal terms, these are crimes against humanity—systematic attacks and forcible deportation of civilians.

As stated previously, our government has been continuously engaged on this file and continues to be. For example, we have taken the following concrete actions. At the United Nations General Assembly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs engaged in bilateral meetings with the European Union, Indonesia, and Turkey on this very issue. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also spoken with the foreign ministers of Germany, Bangladesh, Norway, Sweden, and with Mr. Kofi Annan on what actions the international community can take to address this crisis. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken with Bangladesh's high commissioner in Canada and raised this issue.

The Prime Minister, in the letter I started reading to the House, has called on the Myanmar security forces “to end all violence and to hold all perpetrators of human rights violations accountable on the basis of independent and impartial investigation.”

The Prime Minister continues:

The Myanmar government must welcome publically the return of all Rohingya refugees and this must be accompanied by a firm commitment to address their citizenship, equality before the law and the realization of rights for all ethnic minorities. I also call on the government to provide full access to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and to facilitate safe and unimpeded international humanitarian access to provide life-saving assistance to all civilian population.

We have also made a request as a government that our ambassador be granted access to visit Rakhine State. Our government continues to support the Rohingya people through aid, providing $27.47 million in development assistance in 2015-16, through reputable third-party groups such as the Joint Peace Fund. That included $4.3 million in humanitarian assistance funding to meet the immediate needs of conflict-affected and displaced populations, including the Rohingya.

To date, in 2017, we have announced $9.18 million in humanitarian assistance to the region to address this crisis. This funding is for things like therapeutic feeding for pregnant women, clinical care, psychosocial counselling, emergency obstetric and newborn care, and child-friendly spaces.

We have not stopped there. We have taken actions, including sanctions against Myanmar. They include a freeze on assets in Canada of any designated Myanmar nationals and an arms embargo, including prohibitions on importing and exporting arms. While these actions are important, I strongly believe that we can and must do more in terms of additional concrete action.

I will return to what I said at the outset. My experience at the Rwandan war crimes tribunal taught me clearly that contemporaneous action is vital when horrific violations of human rights are unfolding before the very eyes of the international community. By concrete action, I mean taking steps to directly assist the Rohingya Muslim minority itself, the victims of the very ethnic cleansing that is unfolding.

We are working hard to restore Canada to a place of international engagement and international leadership. To my mind, international leadership means several things. It means building on the strong statements we have made and continuing to speak out. International leadership means building a coalition of like-minded nations, allies who believe in the importance of international human rights and the rule of law. International leadership means working creatively. If access to Rakhine State is not forthcoming thus far, it means working with allies like Bangladesh to put international observers in border states.

International leadership also has a domestic manifestation. It means empowering Canadians of all faiths, backgrounds, and races who are determined that the Rohingya not be forgotten, and aiding them in their efforts. International leadership means not shying away from solutions that can help desperate victims now, before it is too late.

To paraphrase our dear departed colleague and friend, international leadership means using our heads, but following our hearts.

[Portuguese Heritage Month, September 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House today in support of Motion No. 126, introduced by the member from Davenport. It seeks to have the House recognize the important contributions Canadian Portuguese have made to building Canada and to Canadian society. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the government are proud to support the motion.

The motion seeks to acknowledge the cultural diversity of the Portuguese communities in Canada, and the importance of educating and reflecting upon Portuguese heritage and culture for future generations by declaring June 10 as Portugal day and the month of June as Portuguese heritage month.

Our country has a long and proud tradition of opening its arms to newcomers from around the globe. Because of this, we have become one of the most diverse countries in the world. The presence of Portuguese individuals in Canada contributes to that tremendous diversity.

People from all corners of the globe choose to leave their homes, family, and friends to come to Canada. When they do so, they know they will become part of a welcoming society with a strong commitment to inclusion, grounded in a proud tradition of multiculturalism. As the parliamentary secretary for multiculturalism, I know personally that newcomers play a critical role in developing our cultural diversity and economic strength, and in contributing to the vitality of our communities.

In 1988, our country became the first nation to proclaim a multiculturalism act, an act that requires we preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of all Canadians. It also requires that we work to ensure that all Canadians are equal in our economic, social, cultural, and political life.

Our government is dedicated to preserving and enhancing the value of our Canadian diversity and strengthening our multicultural and pluralistic society. This commitment was clearly articulated in the Speech from the Throne, and is referenced in our cherished Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which includes a specific provision declaring that the charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

As Canadians, we can never take this commitment to diversity and inclusion for granted. Our society has prospered, and will continue to prosper, thanks to the strides we have all made to ensure Canada remains a welcoming society for people from all corners of the globe, of different faiths and cultural backgrounds, who can feel proud in calling this country their home.

Parliament's support for Portuguese heritage month and recognition of June 10 as Portugal day will be in line with our commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Celebrating the rich diversity of our many multicultural communities is nothing new in Canada. In my riding, just this past weekend, we concluded a weekend of celebrating both the Polish and Ukrainian diasporas that exist in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, communities that I am very proud to represent in Ottawa. Each year, celebrations such as those are held in communities across the country to honour and recognize an incredibly diverse range of communities that call our country home.

On a national level, we have the celebration of Black History Month in February and Asian Heritage Month in May. These are two significant examples of Canada's commitment to acknowledging and highlighting the vital contributions of Canada's many diverse communities to our society.

By seeking to recognize the unique contributions of Canadians of Portuguese heritage who live in my riding and ridings around the country, such as Davenport, and ridings in Montreal, what we are doing today with this motion is continuing this quintessentially Canadian tradition of respecting and nurturing the pluralism that continues to make Canada the envy of the world.

Motion No. 126 presents us with another important opportunity to appreciate the commonalities that unite us, while helping to dispel negative preconceptions that may divide us. In celebrating our diversity, we learn about our common struggles and our shared values.

Portuguese heritage month and Portugal day would provide an opportunity to celebrate our diversity and for Canada's Portuguese community to share its unique culture, history, and traditions with all Canadians.

There was a national household survey in 2011. It indicated that approximately 430,000 people in Canada reported their ethnic origin as Portuguese. Additionally, Portuguese was the tenth most spoken non-official language in our country, with approximately 225,000 Canadian households reporting it as their primary mother tongue in the 2011 census. For those people, obrigado.

Canadians of Portuguese heritage from coast to coast to coast should feel welcome and duly recognized through the motion brought forward by the member for Davenport. Recognition of Portuguese heritage month would be in keeping with the recognition already given in my home province of Ontario, with the largest population of Portuguese Canadians, which established June 10 as Portugal Day and June as Portuguese History and Heritage Month in 2001.

Ontario has an act called the Celebration of Portuguese Heritage Act, which points to the long-standing presence of Portuguese in this country that dates back over 500 years to the age of exploration and the seafaring of Portuguese navigators, such as Gaspar Corte-Real, who explored the northeast coast of Terra Nova, or Newfoundland, and named Conception Bay and Portugal Cove.

Government recognition will also be consistent with the fact that Portuguese heritage is also celebrated officially and unofficially throughout June in cities right across Canada. Toronto's Little Portugal neighbourhood, right next door to Parkdale—High Park, in the lovely constituency of Davenport, is home to a thriving and vibrant community of Canadians of Portuguese heritage who come together annually to celebrate the month of June, and June 10 is Portugal Day.

My constituents of Portuguese and non-Portugese descent attend that celebration to celebrate with their neighbours, but also to show their respect to the immense contributions of Portuguese to this country.

Portugal Day, which falls on June 10, is celebrated in honour of Luis de Camoes, who is one of Portugal's most revered poets and author of the most famous Portuguese epic poem, The Lusiads. Portugal Day is also officially recognized as a day to celebrate Portuguese communities around the world in recognition of the millions of people of Portuguese descent who reside outside of the homeland.

With this in mind, this motion is timely, given that Canada is home to one of the largest Portuguese diaspora communities in the entire world. The establishment of Portuguese heritage month would provide an opportunity for all Canadians to learn more about this tremendous community, and the many notable historic and current figures who have contributed to Canada in so many ways.

The list is immense, but I will cite just a few examples, such as the world-famous singer Nelly Furtado, and, no, I will not do a rendition; Canadian Olympic medalist, Meaghan Benfeito; and the hon. Maria T. Linhares de Sousa, who is a judge of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario; among many others.

Celebrations such as Portuguese heritage month are an expression of the vitality of our multiculturalism, which I started out referencing. Our hope is that Canadians of all backgrounds will view Portuguese heritage month as an opportunity to learn about Portuguese culture while celebrating our inclusive sense of Canadian identity.

I will conclude by reiterating our government's support for this motion, our government's support for the efforts being made by the member for Davenport, and highlighting that it is essential that Canadians celebrate, and acknowledge the various communities that have helped to make Canada one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world.

With this in mind, I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of Motion No. 126.

Obrigado.

[Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, June 13th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, today I rise proudly to speak in favour of Bill S-226, the Sergei Magnitsky legislation.

Our government supports this bill. Our support comes with amendments that will strengthen its implementation and its effectiveness and better align it with current Canadian sanctions and immigration policy and practice. These amendments will also align with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development recommendations that were issued on April 6, 2017.

My support for this bill comes for a few reasons that I will expand upon this evening. The first is my riding of Parkdale—High Park and the constituents within it. Second is my own background in practising constitutional and human rights law and prosecuting internationally with the UN. The third is that it resonates with the foreign policy objectives recently outlined by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

On the first point, as a prefatory comment, I want to talk about what Bill S-226 seeks to accomplish. It will create a legal mechanism to allow for the imposition of sanctions in response to gross violations of internationally recognized human rights as well as in response to acts of significant corruption. There is currently no Canadian law that authorizes the imposition of sanctions specifically for violations of international human rights obligations in a foreign state or for acts of corruption, including those in Russia, as highlighted in the case of Sergei Magnitsky. Bill S-226 will address this gap.

Furthermore, our government also supports expanding the scope under which sanctions measures can be enacted under the Special Economic Measures Act to include cases of gross violations of human rights and foreign corruption.

Let me turn now to the category that I talked about at the outset, my constituents, the people I represent. As the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, during my tenure and during the campaign two years ago, I have had literally hundreds of one-on-one conversations with constituents of both Polish and Ukrainian descent who live in my riding. The diaspora is very vibrant in my community. We are home to two pre-eminent festivals for both Polish Canadians and Ukrainian Canadians. Those representatives come with deep, passionate, interest in the affairs of Ukraine and of Poland.

This is communicated to me regularly by such stakeholders as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Canadian Polish Congress, as well as by individuals like Marcus Kolga of the Estonian Central Council in Canada. What they tell me is the same thing, over and over again: that eastern Europe is embattled because of Russian aggression. They talk to me about the illegal annexation of Crimea, which our government rejects. They talk to me about the ongoing aggression and military activity in the Donbass and the threat of an ever-expansionist Russia moving across eastern Europe. They also talk to me about the violation of human rights of those who dare to speak out in Russia itself.

It is in the effort to combat such human rights violations that this legislation was developed. By promoting respect for human rights, this legislation captures the sentiments expressed to me time and time again by my Ukrainian-Canadian and Polish-Canadian constituents, who desire respect for basic civil liberties in Russia and who want to curb Russian aggression and expansion in Europe.

The second aspect that I want to discuss this evening is the category of human rights violations. I come to this chamber as a lawyer who practised for 15 years, defending charter rights here in Canada and prosecuting international human rights violations abroad with the United Nations. We are lucky in this country to have many rights, freedoms, and privileges when others around the world face real and constant danger for simply opposing their government or daring to speak out.

I would like to take some time to outline the specific type of international human rights violations this bill will seek to curb or stop outright.

We have heard discussion about this, but the most important component is the case of Sergei Magnitsky himself. He was a Russian lawyer. He was tortured, beaten, and killed in a Moscow prison after uncovering a $230-million tax fraud and testifying against the Russian government officials involved. Despite overwhelming evidence incriminating these prison officials, the Russian government exonerated everyone involved.

As most people know, the people who killed Mr. Magnitsky did so for money. We know that criminals of this kind do not keep their ill-gotten gains in their country of origin. They do not keep it in places like Russia. They know all too well how easily it can be taken away from them. They keep their money in the west.

What will this legislation do to address the situation? For this, I turn to none other than Bill Browder, a well-known advocate for defending gross human rights violations abroad and an advocate for his own employee, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in this context.

Mr. Browder has said:

We realized that by preventing these people from storing and spending their money in the West, we could bring an end to the impunity they enjoyed in Russia. By freezing their assets and banning their visas, we could create direct, personal consequences for human-rights abusers, hitting them where it hurts the most — in their wallets. This was the genesis of Magnitsky sanctions — targeted visa bans and asset freezes imposed on individual human-rights abusers.

The Sergei Magnitsky case is not the only case. That is the most troubling aspect. There is the case of Alexander Perepilichny, who suddenly dropped dead in Britain after providing key evidence in the Magnitsky case. There is the case of Vladimir Kara-Murza, who campaigned for a Canadian version of the Magnitsky Law and was poisoned. There is the case of Boris Nemtsov, another Russian opposition politician who campaigned in this very capital for a Canadian Magnitsky piece of legislation in 2012 and was shot dead three years later. In March 21 of this very year, Nikolai Gorokhov, a lawyer for the Magnitsky family, fell four stories from his apartment in Moscow, the fall occurring the night before he was due to give new evidence in court concerning the government cover-up in the Magnitsky case.

What I want to emphasize is that the genius of this legislation is that it is global in reach, and it needs to be, because the problem it targets is indeed global in scope. We are talking about other nations. We are talking about examples such as Buzurgmehr Yorov, a fearless human rights lawyer and whistle-blower in Tajikistan. He was recently sentenced to 23 years of imprisonment simply for doing his job, when he took on the cases of several leaders of the opposition in Tajikistan, the very type of work that I have done here and that many people do around the planet.

Internationally, the global community has responded to these kinds of violations. In 2012 the United States was the first country to adopt such sanctions vis-à-vis Russia itself, passing global Magnitsky legislation and expanding the reach in 2016 with a global act that sanctions human rights abusers from around the planet. Forty-four people from around the world have been banned from the United States under that legislation.

The European Parliament followed suit in 2014. Last year, Estonia passed the first Magnitsky sanctions law in Europe. In Canada, a former Liberal MP, the Hon. Irwin Cotler, a man who was previously our colleague here, introduced in this chamber a Canadian version of the Magnitsky Act in 2011. As members can see, it is important in terms of our international obligations to our partners to enact this legislation and to take action on the underlying issues it seeks to address.

Let me turn to Canada's foreign policy objectives, which were recently announced by the minister. On June 6, the Minister of Foreign Affairs noted that there are:

...clear strategic threats to the liberal democratic world, including Canada. Our ability to act against such threats alone is limited. It requires co-operation with like-minded countries.

When human rights violations occur around the world, they are a threat to democratic values around the world. That is why we must implement legislation such as Bill S-226 in solidarity with other allies and members of the international community. It is only by acting in unison that we can hope to globally curb gross human rights violations and corruption.

In her speech, the Minister of Foreign Affairs also noted that one of the key tenets of our foreign policy has been the basic promotion of human rights at home and abroad. She said:

It is a Canadian, John Humphrey, who is generally credited as the principal author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. That was the first of what became a series of declarations to set international standards in this vital area.

I wholeheartedly concur with this sentiment. As a former war crimes prosecutor with the United Nations who tried cases on the Rwanda genocide tribunal, I can personally testify to the heavy involvement of Canadians at the UN and at that particular tribunal. Canadian involvement in the promotion and protection of human rights abroad is a long-standing tradition, and it is a key priority for our government and for our citizens.

The minister also noted:

These institutions may seem commonplace today. We may take them for granted. We should not. Seventy years ago, they were revolutionary....

Finally, the minister made a simple yet essential statement when she stated:

...our values include an unshakeable commitment to pluralism, human rights, and the rule of law.

That simple statement captures the essence of our democracy and, in my view, why it is only natural for us to pass this much-needed legislation.

To conclude, I support this legislation because it aligns with the beliefs and the convictions of my constituents, because it seeks to curb gross human-rights violations from being perpetrated on individuals around the world, and because it strongly aligns with our new foreign policy framework. I encourage all members of this House to support it as well.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would underscore, first, that Bill C-46 is the legislation that actually relates to the testing for being impaired by drugs that will be before this House.

However, the member opposite should rest assured that we will dedicate all the resources required to ensure that road safety is not jeopardized and that persons are not made more vulnerable by the legalization, regulation, and restriction of cannabis in this country under the legislation. The safety of Canadians is always of paramount concern for our government.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, and I would like to give him some answers.

Concerning the provinces and their jurisdiction here, it is clear that, constitutionally, some matters are under federal jurisdiction and others are under provincial jurisdiction. We set the legal age at 18. However, if provinces, such as Quebec, want to set the legal age at 20 or 21, that is up to them. It is also up to the provinces to oversee marijuana sales as they do for any other substance.

As for young people and others in the system getting criminal records, we have laws, and they must be obeyed. Once the laws are changed, we will be able to revisit these circumstances and my colleague's question.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member across the way.

I would like to say that legalizing cannabis for adults in Canada and the possibility of having a few plants at home will not put children in harm's way. On this side of the House, we want to give parents the responsibility of keeping these plants safe at home and educating their family and children, as any good, responsible parent should do. We believe that it is up to them to do what is right for their children.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-45, legislation that would legalize, regulate, and restrict access to cannabis. The objective of our government's bill is to protect our youth, to deter criminal activity, and to promote public health and safety.

Let me turn first to the issue of Canada's youth. Canadian youth use cannabis more than youth anywhere else in the entire world. In 2015, use among youth aged 15 to 19 was 21%. In many cases, accessing cannabis in our country is easier than getting a cigarette or buying a bottle of beer, so clearly, the current system is not working.

Confronted with this reality, our government has two options: continue the zero tolerance policies that have been proven to fail, or adopt a policy of harm reduction. We have chosen the latter. We have chosen to recognize that people, including young people, are using cannabis, and the best way to address the situation is by accepting this fact and taking positive, proactive steps to educate youth about the dangers of cannabis use while simultaneously penalizing those who would seek to encourage cannabis use among youth.

For example, we know that cannabis has the potential to cause short- and long-term mental health and physical health effects and that it poses greater overall health risks in developing brains. It is because of this that our government would provide funding toward public awareness campaigns, which would inform our youth about the risks of cannabis.

We also propose to get tough on those who target youth. Similar to the restrictions on the promotion of tobacco products, under Bill C-45 there would be comprehensive restrictions applied to advertising and promoting cannabis and its related products by any means, including sponsorships and branding that can be deemed to be appealing to children. There would be prohibitions on self-service displays or vending machines. False, misleading, deceptive testimonies or endorsements that could entice young people to use cannabis would also be prohibited. A violation of these prohibitions would mean a fine of up to $5 million, or up to three years in jail.

We are also aggressively penalizing those who would target youth for cannabis sales. Our government has introduced two new criminal offences, and an up to 14-year prison sentence for those who would give or sell cannabis to our youth or use a youth to distribute cannabis.

I want to turn to my second point in relation to the criminal justice system. Our government also accepts another clear reality, that the current policies of zero tolerance have failed to deter criminal activity. In fact, to the contrary, zero tolerance has actually permitted the illicit market to flourish, padding the pockets of organized crime and street gangs.

In Canada alone, the illegal trade of marijuana reaps an estimated $7 billion in profits annually for organized crime. Again, as a government, we have a choice: to continue failed policies or to choose the route of legalization and regulation, a route that would take money out of the hands of criminals and thereby keep Canadians safer.

At present, Canada is an exporter of cannabis for global markets, and organized criminal groups have reaped large profits from the cannabis cultivation and trafficking. These are individuals who operate complex organized criminal enterprises, who engage in violence, and pose a constant threat to the public safety and well-being of all Canadians. By taking money out of the hands of such groups, we would be deterring crime in this country.

The approach of Bill C-45 has another important impact on criminal justice in Canada; that is, reducing backlogs. This is a situation with which I am very familiar, as an individual who spent 15 years as a lawyer in practice prior to being elected, the majority of that time being with the ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario. As crown counsel, I saw repeatedly the limited resources available to prosecutors, police, and the judiciary to administer criminal justice, which was exacerbated by the number of charges clogging up the system.

In 2015, cannabis simple possession offences accounted for more than half of all police reported drug charges, some 49,577 charges out of a total of 96,423 charges being laid. By removing charges for simple possession of small amounts of cannabis, the bill would permit limited court and crown resources to be applied directly to more serious drug related crimes, and to more serious criminals, the actual persons who pose a direct threat to the safety and well-being of Canadians. It would allow law enforcement officials to concentrate their efforts on significant criminal activity, thereby improving their ability to keep Canadian communities safe.

We have addressed how public safety would be strengthened through the new regime ushered in under Bill C-45, so now allow me to turn to my third point.

Bill C-45 would promote public health. Public health professionals are among the various groups and individuals who were consulted in the development of this legislation.

First, the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation heard from professionals, advocates, front-line workers, decision-makers and public servants, as well as expert panels, patients, citizens, and informed employers. They were all driven to develop a sound cannabis strategy in the interest of all Canadians.

The task force held a series of round table discussions across the country in order to consult experts from a wide range of disciplines as well as researchers and academics, patients and their advocates, cannabis users, police chiefs and fire chiefs, other municipal and local representatives, and various industry associations and health care professionals.

The Liberal Party promised Canadians in the 2015 election that we would make policy decisions based on science, facts, and evidence. Bill C-45 does just that by incorporating the recommendations of this important task force. Among the recommendations, recognizing that cannabis use is occurring in my riding of Parkdale—High Park and around the country, was permitting adults to make informed choices about using small amounts of cannabis recreationally, without fear of criminal sanction.

The task force also highlighted, as a guiding principle, the notion that the law should demonstrate compassion for vulnerable members of society and patients in need of medical cannabis. However, it recognized that from a health perspective, one of the biggest dangers remaining for cannabis users is not knowing the content or the quality of the cannabis being taken. It is precisely this unknown, driven by the presence of the illegal market, that makes cannabis use so dangerous currently.

Bill C-45 would address this public health risk head on. It would protect and promote public health by strictly regulating cannabis production, distribution, and sales. Rules would be implemented for adults to access quality-controlled cannabis, while a new tightly regulated supply chain was created, ensuring product safety for Canadians so that Canadians who chose to use cannabis were able to do so knowing that they were not endangering themselves. This would, once again, be putting harm reduction, as an operating principle, to work.

This global shift toward harm reduction for cannabis use has led to legalization in Uruguay, along with several European and Latin American countries that have decriminalized the personal possession of cannabis, followed by some American states, representing more than 20% of the total U.S. population, which have voted to legalize and regulate cannabis for non-medical purposes.

Important lessons would undoubtedly arise from Canada's experience in the coming years, ones that would be valuable for advancing the global dialogue on innovative strategies for drug control. I am confident that Canada would remain a committed international partner by monitoring and evaluating our evolving cannabis policy and sharing these important lessons with national and international stakeholders.

Overall, I am very confident that the framework proposed in Bill C-45 is the best approach going forward for Canadians. It recognizes the failure of zero tolerance and the merits of pursuing harm reduction as the guiding principle to inform public policy. It is a balanced approach designed to protect Canadians, especially our youth, by providing regulated access to legal cannabis for adults while restricting access by youth.

It would put in place strict safeguards to protect youth from being encouraged to use cannabis and would create new offences for those adults who either provide cannabis to youth or use youth to commit cannabis-related offences. It would also help focus limited police and crown resources where they are most needed: in prosecuting serious drug criminals who make our communities less safe.

Bill C-45 would promote public health through increased education and awareness and by ensuring a safe supply of cannabis for those who chose to use small amounts recreationally.

I would encourage all members to support Bill C-45. We must all act now to make our communities safer by legalizing, restricting, and strictly regulating cannabis to keep it out of the hands of Canadian youth and to keep the profits out of the hands of organized criminals.

[Pride Month, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, June is Pride Month in Toronto. Events will be taking place all month to raise awareness and show solidarity with the LGBTQ2 community, culminating with the Pride parade. I am proud that our Prime Minister was the first-ever sitting leader to march at Pride and is a party leader with the courage and conviction to voice unequivocal support for the LGBTQ2 community in Canada. I am also proud that our government has introduced Bill C-16, to make targeted acts against the trans community a hate crime, and Bill C-32, which makes the age of sexual consent equal for heterosexual and homosexual young couples.

I am most proud of the residents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, who despite a climate of rising intolerance both internationally and here at home, remain steadfast champions in the fight against homophobia and transphobia, constituents who believe, as I do, in equality for all, regardless of how we identify or whom we love.

This month I urge all members to show their pride and their solidarity.

[Official Languages, May 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we thank the committee for its report.

Our two official languages form the very core of who we are. One of our top priorities is to promote their use across the country and ensure the vitality of our official language minority communities.

We plan to examine the report's recommendations and we will work with the Minister of Innovation to address them.

[Government Appointments, May 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our two official languages are at the heart of who we are as Canadians, but so is redefining the process by which we select highly qualified Canadians to fulfill important government appointments.

We have revised that process to make it more rigorous, more open, more transparent, and more merit-based for all public appointments. We are proud to have appointed Canadians of the highest quality across all levels of government, thus far, through this process.

The official languages commissioner has a very important role, and we will ensure that the recommended person meets that high qualification standard.