Bill Blair

[Foreign Affairs, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am not aware of all the issues examined or the events that were under consideration by those who compiled the index. However, it is reasonably safe to conclude that most recent events, in particular the allegations concerning the activities of two major police services in Canada in their actions and dealings with journalists, may have had an impact on that index. As the member opposite has already acknowledged, it can go up and down in response to recent events. I would be reluctant to speculate, frankly, without further information on why that might happen.

I reiterate for the member and for this House that freedom of the press is essential to the preservation of an open and democratic society. I believe Canada has an outstanding record of resolutely supporting the right of journalists to pursue and share information.

As the member is well aware, there are rare occasions when we place reasonable limits on freedom of the press, particularly where public safety may be at risk. Nonetheless, I am very proud to reiterate our government's commitment to the values of protecting the safety and security of Canadians while respecting our rights and freedoms under the charter.

I hope that is a satisfactory response to the member's inquiry.

[Foreign Affairs, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this issue and to do my very best to respond to the concerns and issues raised by my friend across the hall.

First, I would like to emphasize for the House how important this issue is to our government and to all Canadians. As the member opposite surely knows, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is celebrating its 35th anniversary this year. One of its most important guarantees is the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media expression.

Freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value protected by our charter. It is also recognized in some of the core international instruments which are binding upon Canada, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man.

Our government has and will defend this right assiduously, as well as the underlying values of truth seeking, democratic debate, and personal freedom. Our commitment to openness and transparency is informed by these values.

I would also like to mention that the core role of the media in promoting freedom of expression is not only recognized by our government and our charter, but it is recognized throughout all our federal laws and programs. A specific example of this can be found in our Criminal Code, where courts have recognized the core role of the media in the context of police search powers. In exercising their discretion whether to issue a search warrant, there is clear legal authority requiring justices to consider the fundamental nature of the freedom of the press. These considerations are a natural extension of the value Canadians place on this important freedom.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, media play a vital role in the functioning of a democratic society, and freedom to publish the news necessarily involves a freedom to gather the news. Because the media advance the search for truth and make vital contributions to the democratic debate on matters of public importance, a free press is essential for promoting the core values contained in the charter.

Of course, I am not talking only about freedom of expression, but also numerous other rights, such as freedom of assembly, association, and of course our democratic rights as citizens.

As we are all aware, section 1 of the charter guarantees charter rights subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Although reasonable limits of freedom of the press are justifiable under section 1, our courts will scrutinize any such limits carefully, in recognition of the crucial role played by the media in Canadian society.

Our government is aware of the most recent complaints that have been raised against the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal and the Sûreté du Québec with respect to journalists. We look forward to hearing details about these specific instances during the hearings and from the report that will be issued by the Chamberland commission, when its important work begins this week.

At the same time, I want to be perfectly clear for the member opposite and for the House that both the RCMP commissioner and the CSIS director have publicly confirmed that such practices are not taking place at the federal level.

We are reviewing the safeguards that exist federally to ensure they are appropriate and sufficient to protect the fundamental Canadian value of freedom of the press.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise and speak to the motion concerning Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding passive detection devices. The motion proposes to accept the recent report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that Bill C-247 not proceed further. Although I applaud and agree with the intent of Bill C-247, I want to advise the House that I intend to vote in support of the motion.

In particular, I agree with the concerns expressed by the standing committee that the bill may not achieve its intended effect, and I will not go over the very comprehensive explanation provided by my colleagues on the opposite side of the House. I also want to advise the House that the standing committee, as part of its report, recommended that the government ensure that there be a comprehensive solution to the issues under consideration and that the government should therefore consider introducing legislation to provide for that comprehensive response to the issue of impaired driving. I share this view.

Our government is best placed to consider all of the challenges with the legal framework surrounding the investigation of impaired driving. That is why the Minister of Justice intends to introduce new comprehensive legislation this spring, which will carefully address both drug- and alcohol-impaired driving. The new legislation will take a thorough and strategic approach, having regard to the minister's overall mandate with respect to criminal justice reform. In this way, our government is working to keep our communities safe, protect victims, and hold offenders to account. I very sincerely look forward to working with the members on the justice committee as we go forward with this important work. We all agree that we have a responsibility in the House to do everything possible to keep our communities safe and to protect our citizens.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the member for bringing this important issue forward. I would like to thank the standing committee for its thoughtful consideration of this bill. The members of the committee invested extensively of their time, attention, and expertise in considering the merits of the proposed bill, and I am grateful to them for their efforts.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee who shared their experience and expertise, and in particular those witnesses who spoke about their personal experience with the devastating impact of impaired driving. I want to thank them for their courage and their support.

[Criminal Code, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-230.

I would like to begin by expressing my very sincere appreciation to the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska for sponsoring this bill in the House to bring impaired driving to the attention of members for this important discussion. I would also like to express my respect and gratitude to the senator for Mille Isles, who sponsored the bill in the other place.

We can all agree that drug-impaired driving is a serious and growing problem. Like alcohol and driving, drug driving is present in all age groups and socio-economic groups. It is seen particularly, but not exclusively, in young males in their twenties who are driving after smoking cannabis. Frequently, they combine this activity with the consumption of alcohol. The scientific evidence indicates this to be significantly more dangerous than driving after consuming alcohol alone or cannabis alone.

Impaired driving, whether by drugs or alcohol, is a serious crime. We are all too aware of the cases of death, injury, and property damage resulting from people who make the decision to drive while impaired. This is not a victimless crime but a crime that can quickly victimize other drivers on the road and the innocent without warning. The difficulty is that too many people seem to think that this will not happen to them and they go ahead and drive while impaired by a drug, or alcohol, or both. We need to become a society in which the attitude is to never drive while impaired by a drug or alcohol.

On that note, I am pleased to advise that our government is firmly committed to strengthening appropriate laws and enforcement measures to deter and punish serious offenders on the road.

While we support the intentions behind the Senate public bill, I know my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford will be pleased to hear that the government will be bringing forward its own comprehensive response to the issue of drug-impaired driving as part of its approach to the legalization and strict regulation of cannabis, which we will bring forward in the spring of 2017.

The issues to be resolved in developing a comprehensive strategy to combat drug-impaired driving are complex, and it is far too difficult to address through amendments to the non-government Senate public bill.

On that note, the Department of Justice has requested the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, which is its scientific adviser on drug-impaired driving, to assess the validity of oral fluid drug screening technology. The drugs and driving committee has reported that the technology reliably detects tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in cannabis, as well as for cocaine, methamphetamines, and several opioids. The DDC is in the process of establishing evaluation standards that would be used to evaluate drug screening equipment submitted by manufacturers for the approval of the Attorney General of Canada for use by police across the country. The DDC's research and advice will help guide the government in designing a system of regulation built upon evidence-based policies and science.

However, oral fluid drug screeners alone are not a sufficient response, and Bill S-230 is simply not sufficiently comprehensive to address the very complex drug driving problem in a significant way. The final report of the federal Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation indicated that drug-impaired driving was a major concern for witnesses who appeared before the task force and suggested that the government address the matter of a cannabis “legal limit” for driving.

The difficulty is that Bill S-230 only proposes authorization for police to use an oral fluid drug screener at the roadside as a tool to investigate the existing crime of driving while impaired by a drug or a drug-alcohol combination.

Currently, there is no legal limit in the Criminal Code for a drug other than alcohol, and Bill S-230 proposes no drug legal limit offence. If enacted, this bill would provide police with a new drug screening tool that would only be used to investigate the existing offence of driving while impaired by a drug.

It is quite understandable that this bill, in its limitations, does not propose any drug legal limits for driving. The Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation itself chose to defer to the work being done by the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science.

Therefore, I respectfully question the sense of Bill S-230 proposing oral fluid drug screeners without proposing some mechanism to create legal limit offences for drugs, at least for the most prevalent drugs found in drivers, which of course includes THC, the psychoactive ingredient that is present in cannabis.

The drug screener has a disposable, oral fluid collection kit and an analyzer phase. It checks for the presence of particular drugs in the oral fluid and not for impairment. The oral fluid drug screener would be used by police at the roadside under Bill S-230 for the sole and limited purpose of investigating the current drug-impaired driving offence.

By contrast, in 2016 the United Kingdom adopted legislation that created legal limits for drugs and introduced oral fluid drug screeners at the same time that would aid in the investigation of the THC and cocaine legal limit offences. The media have reported that drug driving charges in the U.K. have increased about tenfold in the year following the implementation of that far more comprehensive and effective legislation.

In the U.K., as implied earlier, only two drugs are in the panel of drugs searched for by the oral fluid drug screener. They are THC, which is the active chemical in cannabis, and cocaine. These are the two drugs most prevalent as impairing drugs found in drivers.

Even if THC or cocaine is detected by the oral fluid drug screen, there is no criminal charge based on that evidence alone. What happens is that the U.K. police will demand a blood sample from the driver and it will be analyzed in a laboratory for drug concentration levels, including some drugs that are not detected by the drug screener. Only if blood analysis shows that the driver exceeded a U.K. drug “legal limit” will there be a “legal limit” charge.

Now, we all know that there is a vast array of other impairing drugs besides tetrahydrocannabinol and cocaine. Therefore, other investigative methods are needed for the drugs that are not searched for by the drug screener.

In Canada, Parliament enacted its Criminal Code reforms in 2008, which gave police a roadside drug screening tool that was used to investigate the offence of driving while impaired by a drug. If police officers have a reasonable suspicion of a drug in a driver's body, they may demand that the driver participate in standardized field sobriety testing, or SFST. This is physical testing and includes, for example, walking a line, turning, and doing a one-leg stand at the roadside.

After the SFST, if the driver has performed poorly, the police have reasonable grounds to believe that the driver committed the offence of driving while impaired by a drug, or a drug-alcohol combination. The police can then demand that the driver participate in a drug recognition evaluation, or DRE as it is commonly referred to in our country, conducted by a specially trained evaluating officer.

This officer checks vital signs, performance of physical tests, observations of eye movement and pupil size, and an alcohol breath test on an approved instrument. When I say approved instrument, that is approved and listed in regulations approved by the drugs and driving committee. If the evaluating officer identifies a class of drug as causing impairment, the driver is then given a demand to provide a bodily substance to be analyzed in a laboratory for the presence of a drug, either blood or urine.

Bill S-230 has an aspect that parallels the SFST because a positive result on the drug screener could lead to a demand that the driver participate in DRE at the police station. However, I do not believe that enacting authority for police to use a drug screener is sufficient, by itself, to address adequately the very serious problem of drug-impaired driving. It would be far more effective if coupled with legal limits of drugs in the system.

Hence, the government is firmly committed to bringing forward a comprehensive response to drug-impaired driving. I think we can all agree that Canadians would be better protected from impaired drivers, including those impaired by drugs, by this more comprehensive approach.

Unfortunately, Bill S-230, though well-intentioned, does not provide a workable, new, legal framework to address drug-impaired driving. Therefore, l would encourage all members to await the introduction of that more comprehensive bill, so this Parliament can bring forward a more adequate response.

In my experience, and I have considerable experience in keeping our roadways safe in the policing community, what the police and our prosecutors need is the legislation, technology, training, and resources necessary to keep our roads safe. We need to invest as well in greater public education so all our citizens can make safer and more socially responsible choices not to drink or use drugs and drive.

[Criminal Code, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is very clear that Canada has the highest rates of cannabis use among its young people of any country in the world. Drug-impaired driving has been an issue in our country for literally decades, and certainly now as we do the important work of turning our attention to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have not only the technology but the legislation, the tools, training and the resources they need to keep our roads safe.

I wonder if the member has any comment or wants to expand on what additional things he believes law enforcement and our prosecutors will need, and the public will need, in order to make more socially responsible and safe decisions with respect to this very important issue, which has been with us for decades but is one that I think public safety requires that we address in a very urgent way.

Does he have any comments on not just the legislation before us today for discussion, but other things that might appropriately be provided to the police, to our courts, and to the public?

[Bangladesh, March 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on March 26, Bangladeshi Canadians across Canada will mark the 46th anniversary of the independence of Bangladesh. Canada was one of the first countries to diplomatically recognize Bangladesh in 1972, and we have enjoyed a bond of friendship that has only grown stronger over the years.

Our two countries are not only linked by a strong trade relationship, but Canada is home to over 100,000 people of Bangladeshi heritage, many of whom, I am proud to say, live in my riding, Scarborough Southwest.

From community work to business initiatives and more, the contributions of Bangladeshi Canadians play a significant role in making our communities great places to live, work, and raise a family.

I invite all my colleagues in the House to join me in offering our best wishes to the Bangladeshi community on this important milestone and look forward to many celebrations to come.

Shuvo Shadhinota Dibosh.

[Ethics, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the issue the member raised is with respect to the legalization of cannabis. I have responded to his concerns about the way in which this government operates.

I have great pride in the way in which our government has endeavoured to be open and transparent with all Canadians, and in creating opportunities for all Canadians to participate in Canada's celebration of its 150th anniversary. It is an enormous opportunity for Canadians from coast to coast, in every community and in every riding, to celebrate this great anniversary. We are committed to doing that in a way which is fair, equitable, open, and transparent for all Canadians.

[Ethics, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond to the member for Lévis—Lotbinière's inquiry.

It would appear that the member opposite is relying almost entirely on something he read in the newspaper. There is a very old saying that those who do not read the newspaper may be uninformed, but those who do read the newspaper may be misinformed. I think this is a situation where for the member opposite there was perhaps a misunderstanding, and I would like to offer him some clarification.

As we have stated on a number of occasions, our government is committed to legalizing and strictly regulating cannabis in order to restrict access to young people, to keep it out of the hands of our kids, and also to keep the profits out of the hands of criminals. To that end, our government is committed to developing policy based on the best advice of experts and on the evidence in order to achieve those very important public purpose aims.

In June 2016, we appointed a task force composed of nine eminently qualified Canadians to conduct an inquiry on our behalf, and to report back to the government with recommendations based on the best advice and the best evidence. Those nine Canadians represented the fields of public safety, public health, justice, and problematic substance use. The task force was led by the eminently qualified, and I think widely respected, Anne McLellan, a former minister of this House. The task force received over 30,000 online submissions from Canadians from coast to coast. The task force also met with experts from jurisdictions that have taken steps to legalize cannabis in their jurisdiction, such as Colorado and Washington. It sought the views of a diverse community of experts, professionals, advocates, front-line workers, law enforcement, citizens, and employers.

In response to all of the information that it gathered, on November 30, 2016, the task force submitted its report to the government. It advised at that time that its report would be translated and subsequently provided to all parliamentarians and the public once it was available in both official languages.

On December 13, 2016, the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation provided its report to the ministers of justice, health, and public safety and emergency preparedness. At that time, the report was made available to the public, and at the same time, was made available to all members of this House through Health Canada's website. That report contains information on how to promote and protect public health and safety, particularly among young Canadians.

The government will introduce legislation, as we have promised, in the spring. It will bring about the strict regulation of access to cannabis. It will be effective in keeping it out of the hands of our kids. It will help us keep the profits out of the hands of criminals, and it will enable us to protect the health of our citizens.

With respect to the unfounded allegations opined by the members opposite, I will reiterate that the report was made available to all Canadians on December 13, 2016, not a single day sooner, and any suggestion to the contrary is based on conjecture and baseless suspicion.

As we know, capital markets in Canada are strictly regulated. The regulating authority for the Toronto Stock Exchange is the Ontario Securities Commission. The Ontario Securities Commission is an independent body responsible for looking into any evidence of market irregularities. The securities commission will continue to ensure the integrity of capital markets and stocks listed on the stock exchange, including any investigation that it may see fit to conduct.

[Justice, February 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government is very committed to ensuring that we do the right thing to protect victims and to combat human trafficking, the victims of which are among society's most vulnerable.

The bill introduced by the Minister of Justice yesterday would give law enforcement and prosecutors new tools to investigate and prosecute certain human trafficking offences that could be particularly difficult to prove. It would also strengthen Canada's criminal law and respond to trafficking of persons in a manner that would be consistent with the charter.

Bill C-38 would bring into force private member's Bill C-452, with amendments, to better protect victims, while at the same time ensuring consistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Criminal Code, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to join in the second reading debate of Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mischief, which was introduced in the House on September 27 by the member for Nepean.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Nepean for bringing this important issue before the chamber to give this Parliament an opportunity to speak to it.

I also want to thank and commend the member for Victoria and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for their remarks, which were very timely and appropriate as well.

We have been tragically reminded of the impact that hate in all of its manifestations can have on our society. The horrific attack on the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec on Sunday night, the hate-inspired acts of terror which occurred that evening taking six of our fellow citizens' lives, injuring so many, and tragically traumatizing a community and a nation must deepen our resolve to confront and prevent hate in all of its manifestations.

In my experience, the issue of hate does not immediately manifest itself in acts of terror and murder, but far more often is expressed in acts of mischief. Our failure as a society to confront and deal appropriately with these acts, to denounce them in our strongest forms, and to resolve them through appropriate serious consequence can have the effect of encouraging them through complacency. We are reminded of the importance of dealing with this issue.

As parliamentarians I believe we could all agree that hate crimes in all of their forms cannot be tolerated in our country. They are a fundamental attack on our values and our principles and on each and every one of our citizens. A crime of hate against any Canadian citizen is a crime of hate against all Canadian citizens.

Our charter of rights and freedoms guarantees that everyone in Canada has a right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and our government is committed to protecting that right. The amendments proposed by this bill would strengthen the message that hate crime will not be tolerated in Canada.

I would now like to turn briefly to where the current law stands in Canada. Currently, there is a specific hate crime of mischief committed against property primarily used for religious worship which is found in subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, mischief relating to religious property. It is a hate crime because the offence is only committed when such mischief is committed out of bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The maximum punishment for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment. Subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code was enacted as part of the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, which was also known at that time as Bill C-36.

Today, hate crime is restricted to property that is primarily used for religious worship, such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, and also includes cemeteries. However, during the committee hearings on Bill C-36, some witnesses, while approving of the creation of a specific hate crime of mischief, argued that the crime should be broader in scope, and if I may, I will cite some examples.

David Matas, lead counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, in his testimony at that time, argued that sex should be added to the list of hate motivations and also that the crime should be expanded to cover schools, organizational buildings, and cemeteries.

As well, on November 6, 2001, before the same committee, Mr. Ed Morgan, who was at that time chair of the Ontario region of the Canadian Jewish Congress, testified that all religious property should be protected by the hate crime mischief offence. He said:

Not just sanctuaries, not just synagogues or churches, but all religious structures, religious centres, religious schools, religious community centres, cemeteries—which are a particular target for hate crimes and desecration—ought to be covered as well.

He also argued at that time, and again I quote from his testimony:

...the grounds of group identification ought to be expanded to include, for example, hate crimes against groups identified by sexual orientation or gender. Gay-bashing is a hate crime, as would be an attack on a women's centre, every bit as much as on a religious community centre.

As a result, subsection 430(4.1) was amended by the House of Commons committee to add cemeteries to the list of properties primarily used for religious worship, but not the other kinds of properties that had been cited in the testimony, such as schools or community centres.

As well, a proposed amendment to add sex as a ground of hate motivation was rejected at that time, because it was seen as not relating logically back to the purpose of the hate crime mischief offence, which was to protect places of religious worship, unlike other hate motivations of race, colour, religion, or ethnic or national origin.

Bill C-305 proposes to add to this mischief offence additional kinds of property. These are buildings or structures used for educational purposes, for administrative, social, cultural, or sports activities or events, or as residences for seniors. As well, the list of hate-motivating criteria would be expanded by adding two new ones: sexual orientation and gender identity.

I wholeheartedly support the principles behind the bill that our criminal law should clearly denounce all hate-motivated mischief. However, it does bring forward some questions about the potentially broad scope of the proposed crimes in this section, which were previously discussed during the first hour of second reading by my colleague and the member for Charlottetown.

The private member's bill in its current form could potentially capture numerous unintended buildings and spaces such as sports arenas or coffee shops. These buildings or structures are currently protected by the general offence of mischief. Additionally, in order to ensure consistency with the existing hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code as well as those amendments proposed under Bill C-16, gender identity, which is currently before the Senate, we need to look more closely at this proposed legislation.

Therefore, the government will support Bill C-305 with a view to amendments to address the potential overbreadth and consistency with other provisions of the Criminal Code. We believe that Bill C-305 should receive second reading and be sent to committee for further study.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank the member for Nepean for his commitment in bringing this matter forward. It is a timely piece of legislation. It is work that demands our closest attention.