Brent Rathgeber

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North will be happy to know that with respect to the provisions of Bill C-10 that deal with amendments to victims of terrorism and state immunity, there would be no costs to the government.

With respect to his broader question, members of the opposition are fond of talking about the costs of implementing our safe streets and safe communities agenda. They fail to realize the cost of crime which is borne by victims. Victims bear the majority, I think it is 80% of the estimated $100 billion, of the cost of crime to Canadians annually. Those costs are in terms of increased insurance premiums, lost wages, lost property, and of course the immeasurable damages when an individual loses his or her life. The costs of crime are much broader than simply the cost to the justice system. The portions of the cost of crime that are borne by the victims are often lost on the opposition.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Air India disaster was a black mark not only in Canadian history but also in global history. In many ways, as I indicated in my opening comments, the resulting inquiry into the Air India incident formed the impetus for the part of Bill C-10 with respect to victims of terrorism. As the hon. member will know from his review of the legislation, this bill gives victims of terrorism a cause of action against terrorists that they can prove caused the damage and losses to their family. This type of legislation would have been of great value to victims of terrorism such as those who suffered severe losses in the Air India incident.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-10 at report stage, a bill that I have become quite familiar with as a member of the justice committee. As the House knows, the justice committee vetted the bill for many hours in the last few weeks.

I am pleased to speak specifically with respect to the supporting the victims of terrorism aspects of Bill C-10.

However, before I talk about a couple of amendments at the committee stage, I would like to review the essential thrust of the bill as it relates to victims of terrorism.

Reducing domestic crime is important and is part of the strong mandate that Canadians gave to our government. However, in our desire to keep our streets and communities safe from criminals, we must not overlook the need to protect Canadians from the dangers of terrorism. Those dangers are very real.

A few months ago, Canadians observed the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, when 24 Canadians lost their lives on that terrible day that will live on infamy. Suddenly, terrorism had struck close to home. It was no longer a distant threat that could be ignored. Yet the reality is that terrorism has never been far away. Let us not forget that the plot that took the lives of 329 passengers on Air India Flight 182 was planned and executed in Canada. Therefore, we are not immune from terrorists, nor have we ever been.

We must always stay vigilant of the threats lapping at our shores. That is why our government carefully studied the commission of inquiry's final report into the Air India bombing. In response to that report, the government released the Air India inquiry action plan last December. This plan will help us address the outstanding security issues highlighted by the commission.

Certainly, the commission of inquiry illustrated that time did not diminish the demand for justice. The victims of terror and their families need to see that justice is served. They need to know that terrorists cannot pursue their radical goals with impugnity.

The notion of accountability lies at the very heart of Bill C-10. To put the proposed amendments in context, let me highlight the provisions that relate specifically to the fight against terrorism.

First, the proposed legislation will give victims of terror a greater voice. By their very nature, acts of terrorism often have victims feeling powerless. All too often, they are effectively silenced. Our government is determined to give victims back their voice.

Bill C-10 would empower victims to take the perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters to court. In practical terms, this would mean victims could file a civil suit against those who committed terrorism. This would include individuals, terrorist entities listed under the Criminal Code, or listed states that supported a terrorist act.

If the act of terrorism has taken place outside Canada, victims would either need to be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident or would need to demonstrate a real and substantial connection between the incident and Canada.

In support of this provision, the bill would amend the State Immunity Act to create a list of states that support terrorism. Lifting the immunity of a state is a serious matter. The bill proposes a robust process, whereby the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety will have to satisfy the Governor-in-Council that the state should be listed as a supporter of terrorism. Furthermore, the state's alleged support for terrorism must be in relation to a listed entity pursuant to our Criminal Code. The evidence must be weighed carefully and set against the diplomatic consequences that may come from lifting an immunity.

At the same time, the list should always be a work in progress. Every two years, the two aforementioned ministers would examine the list to carefully determine if new states ought to be listed.

By the same token, if listed states can show that they have ended their support for terrorism, then we should remove them from that list. However, if a state is removed from the list while litigation is ongoing, the state would not benefit from the immunity in such case.

It is not enough to give victims their day in court. Nor is it enough to enable victims to become successful plaintiffs. If the court's judgment is against a foreign state, then the plaintiffs need additional support to ensure that justice is served. For that reason, Bill C-10 would empower the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to help identify and locate the property of that foreign state.

To sum up, Bill C-10 would give the victims of terrorists back their voice. It would support legal redress against terrorist entities. It would offer support to successful plaintiffs. At the same time, it would weigh the consequences of these actions carefully to protect Canada's relations in the global community.

I would now like to direct members' attention to the two amendments made at committee which I referenced at the beginning of my remarks. I would suggest to the House that the amendments made at committee will make this bill even stronger. Members will know that our government has already passed these amendments related to the justice for victims of terrorism act.

The first amendment our government passed will help to lighten the burden of victims of terrorism. Defendants would be presumed to be liable if they supported a listed entity that caused or contributed to the loss or damage subject to a cause of action. The defendant could always refute the claim.

The second amendment passed at committee will make it possible for a court to hear a matter based solely on the plaintiff's Canadian citizenship or permanent residency. This would hold true even in cases where there is not a real and substantial connection between the action and Canada.

It is the government's hope that this bill will be passed at report stage, that the amendments made at committee can be approved by the House and, in so doing, all parts of Bill C-10, including the justice for victims of terrorism act, the offences with respect to organized crime, sexual predators and drug offences can be passed. My constituents, police officers and all Canadians have asked for this type of legislation to be part of the toolbox in the ongoing fight against crime.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of Bill C-304, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom).

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right enjoyed in all free and democratic societies.

I have listened carefully to the three members opposite who have expressed concern about my friend's bill, the sponsor from Westlock—St. Paul. Parliamentarians enjoy unfettered freedom of speech. In fact, Parliament is derived from the French world “parler”, meaning to speak. In this chamber and in its committees, we parliamentarians and any witnesses who appear before those committees have unfettered freedom of speech. It seems to me somewhat hypocritical that we would not offer to society, to people who write, to blogs and websites on the Internet, which falls under federal regulation, the same rights and privileges that we here enjoy in the Parliament of Canada.

My friend from Mount Royal, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is correct when he says that there are limits to freedom of speech.

There is no doubt that members are aware of the already workable remedies and workable limits with respect to freedom of speech. There are laws against perjury, the torts of libel and slander and, most important and most germane to this debate, sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code. Those are all real hate speech protections.

A distinction must be drawn between hate speech and hurt speech or the so-called counterfeit right of hurt feelings. One does not have a right against having his or her feelings hurt. I am sorry but that is not a right that exists in common law and it is not a right that exists in free and democratic societies.

The Criminal Code sanctions regarding free speech found in sections 318 to 320 require something more than hurt feelings. They require real and actionable hatred. If a person advocates genocide, destruction of a group's property or harm or damage to the person of that group, then that person has fallen offside the hate provisions of the Criminal Code, and, I would submit, rightfully so. However, that is something quite different than the so-called freedom not to be offended, or what my friend referred to as hurt speech.

Free speech, if it is to exist, cannot be subject to some bureaucracy. There is no such thing as government regulated free speech. Either there is free speech or there is not.

It is the very offensive speech that requires legal protection. This debate probably would not be occurring if there were not situations where individuals have said things that were truly politically correct, offensive and sometimes abhorrently so, but individuals have attempted to avail themselves to the charter protected rights in section 2(b) of freedom of expression. I would submit that it is that very offensive speech that requires protection.

Everything in life that is provocative is controversial. If we were to get into an intelligent debate about religion, Christianity versus Islamism, abortion, gay rights or even climate change, it would be impossible to have a thorough and meaningful debate without running the risk of offending somebody somewhere along that process.

A free society requires freedom of speech so that we can have a fluid marketplace of ideas, so that we can have give and take and exchange. Some of the ideas in that marketplace of ideas will not be popular and they will not be politically correct but they are important to further the debate. Society is actually moved forward over time because of freedom of speech.

Some things were politically incorrect in their time. For example, hundreds of years ago, when Galileo opined that the world was round, that was thought of as heresy at the time. However, he said it, people debated it and argued it and eventually they proved it.

It is because of the very freedom of speech that we are fighting for today by repealing section 13 of the human rights code that society can enhance itself with respect to enlightenment and with respect to determining truth that may not appear to be true at the present time.

So the very human rights commission that--

[Natural Resources, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, two NDP MPs are in Washington, DC, today, undermining the Canadian economy and attacking good jobs in Canada. That is just wrong.

Canadians gave our Conservative government a strong mandate to stay focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. As we have consistently said, the Keystone XL pipeline will create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic growth on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.

The NDP opposes creating jobs and is attacking Canada abroad. New Democrats chose to side with a small group of radical environmental activists protesting against our energy resources. They are too willing to abandon Canada's interests and sacrifice over 622,000 jobs in the process across Canada.

The oil sands are a proven strategic resource for Canada that create jobs and economic opportunity for Canadians in all provinces and regions of our great country. Undermining the economy and attacking Canadian jobs are yet more worrying examples that the ineffective and disunited NDP is unfit to govern Canada.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak in favour of private member's Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).

At present, the Criminal Code only authorizes a province or territory to conduct betting on the outcome of multiple sporting events. That form of betting is sometimes called “parlay betting”. By way of contrast, a province or territory may not currently conduct betting on the outcome of a single game.

Private member's Bill C-290, as sponsored by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, would modernize section 207 of the Criminal Code, which is the “lottery scheme” provision by authorizing a province or a territory to conduct, within its jurisdiction, betting on a single sporting event, such as a single hockey game.

Bill C-290 would leave it to each province or territory to decide whether or not to offer single sporting events betting and if so, whether to operate the betting by telephone, Internet and/or in land-based locations. Such provincial-territorial decision-making is precisely what now exists in section 207 of the Criminal Code with respect to provincial and territorial choices for other forms of lottery schemes, such as VLTs, video lottery terminals, and slot machines.

Under the lottery scheme provisions of the Criminal Code, only a provincial or territorial government may conduct a lottery scheme that is operated on or through a computer, slot machine or video device. A province or territory may not license others to do so.

Some provinces currently place video lottery terminals and slot machines in a land-based location, such as a casino or a race track, or in a lounge or pub. Similarly, under Bill C-290, a province or territory could place a single sport event betting operation in a casino, a race track or any other location that it might deem appropriate.

Currently under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a province or territory may also conduct a “lottery scheme” in co-operation with another province. We know that provinces and territories using this authorization have worked together to offer such national ticket lottery schemes, such as Lotto 6/49. Similar inter-jurisdictional co-operation would be possible under the amendments proposed in Bill C-290 for single event sports betting. A province or territory could choose to work co-operatively with any other province or territory.

Similarly, it would be up to the provinces or territories to ensure that they consult with the sport organizations to ensure the integrity of the game on which the single sport event betting is being offered. Similarly, it would be up to the provinces and territories to consult with problem gambling service providers to ensure that single sport event betters gamble responsibly.

I have been talking today about single sport event betting that would be conducted by a province or territory as a lottery scheme under the authority of section 207 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is worth remembering that section 204 of the Criminal Code already authorizes any bet, so long as it is done between persons who are not in any way engaged in the business of betting. In Canada we are free to spend our money on a bet if we so choose, so long as we are betting with another private individual who is not in any way engaged in the business of betting.

Historically Parliament has not been concerned with betting between private individuals, but rather with illegal bookmakers who entice betters with credit and who charge exorbitant rates of interest on any debt. Parliament should maintain that concern for illegal bookmaking which has links to organized crime, as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has correctly pointed out.

If a province or territory chooses to operate a lottery scheme under the amendment proposed in Bill C-290, there would be a benefit to betters who wish to bet on a single game, but have difficulty finding another person to take the opposite side of the proposed bet. Also, in provinces and territories that choose to operate single sport event betting, betters who currently bet with illegal bookmakers would have the opportunity to bet with a legal operation conducted by their province or territory. The profits from legal single sport event betting would support provincial programs and services rather than being channeled by illegal bookmakers into organized crime.

Provinces and territories have had many years' experience in conducting a broad range of lottery schemes. It makes sense that the range of lottery schemes that they are authorized to conduct be expanded to include single sport event betting.

Finally, it also makes a lot of sense to keep Canadian gambling dollars within a province or territory rather than sending the money to illegal bookmakers in Canada or elsewhere, or to offshore Internet betting sites that poach Canadian bettors regardless of whether those offshore sites are legal or illegal in the host country. Bill C-290 would be a step in correcting this and a step in the right direction.

For all those reasons, I support Bill C-290 and will be voting in favour of it.

Provinces and territories have the experience to offer this form of betting if that is what their the electorate wants. On the other hand, if a province or territory chooses not to go there, that again is the province's decision to make, and it falls within the province's constitutional jurisdiction.

I support this private member's bill. I see it as responding to a growing demand for the modernization of the Criminal Code “lottery scheme” provision. It reflects our circumstances in the 21st century.

For those reasons, I will be supporting the bill. I congratulate the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for bringing this important matter forward.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for sponsoring this bill. I can advise him that I will be voting in favour of his bill.

I am sure the member has researched the history of this in drafting his bill. Would he advise me as to why an exception was made in the Criminal Code for a race or a fight or a single sports event? I am curious as to what the historical significance is or why the distinction was made for single events.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a good point. Yes, the registration information is inherently unreliable. It is searched thousands of times a day simply through a CPIC search when a motor vehicle is pulled over on a routine stop.

The licensing information is much more accurate. Nothing in this bill changes the licensing regime. Individuals who want to purchase firearms or ammunition will still need a licence. That information is much more accurate and much more effective in the hands of law enforcement.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to question Chief Blair on this very issue when he appeared before the public safety committee on its examination of Bill C-391, a private member's bill in the last Parliament. I have no doubt Chief Blair supports the long gun registry and has his reasons for doing so, but I would submit to the hon. member that he does not speak for all the chiefs of police across Canada. He does speak for the association because he is the president.

The hon. member will do doubt know, or should know, that quite a number of chiefs broke ranks, although there was considerable political pressure not to break ranks. For example, Chief Rick Hanson from Calgary came to the committee. He did not share Chief Blair's advocacy for the long gun registry. I think if we asked police chiefs generally, in a world of finite resources where they have to choose between more boots on the ground or an ineffective long gun registry, they would answer that they want resources diverted elsewhere. If we asked them straight out about the long gun registry, they would probably give us a positive response, but if we asked them to rank it vis-à-vis other more effective resources, we would get a very different response.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy a good debate with the member for Halifax. She is always prepared and brings her A game.

With respect to the question, I will keep my promise, and I promise to abolish the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

With respect to our other promise regarding whether we are going to do something to fight crime, perhaps the hon. member is familiar with Bill C-10 which is before the justice committee. It is a comprehensive bill that includes nine pieces of legislation from the former Parliament which we were not able to get through that minority Parliament. It deals with a variety of mandatory minimum sentences for individuals who grow drugs and sell them to children and sell them near schoolyards. It deals with some sexual offences against children. It is a great bill, and I encourage her to support it.