House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 43% of the vote.
Foreign Investment February 1st, 2018
Mr. Speaker, the Investment Canada Act provides for a multistep review in all of these cases, which are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. It is a rigorous process in which we rely, as a government, on our national security experts. We believe in them. We have confidence in them. It is interesting that the opposition does not seem to have confidence in our national security review people.
Foreign Investment February 1st, 2018
Mr. Speaker, global companies want to invest in Canada precisely because of our skilled workforce and our strong innovation economy. Our government is open to investment that will grow our economy and create good middle-class jobs. The Investment Canada Act provides for a review of significant international investments to ensure that they are of an overall net economic benefit to Canada. Yes, a security review is part of that process.
Supreme Court of Canada December 11th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, on December 15, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Canada's longest-serving chief justice, and the first woman to lead the court, will officially retire from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Originally from Pincher Creek, Alberta, she studied philosophy and law at the University of Alberta.
She practised law in Alberta and British Columbia before joining the faculty of law at UBC in 1974.
Her 36-year judicial career started in 1981 when she was first appointed to the Vancouver County Court.
From the B.C. Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal, she was appointed by Brian Mulroney as Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada on March 30, 1989, and was made Chief Justice of Canada on January 7, 2000, by Jean Chrétien.
After 28 years on the bench of the highest court in the land, including 17 years as Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin is hanging up her robes.
A truly outstanding jurist, she has been a real leader for the court and our country, and a great Canadian judicial ambassador abroad.
We will remember her sense of humour and her joie de vivre as she enjoys true moments of happiness when cooking for her family and friends, using fresh vegetables—
Innovation, Science and Economic Development December 5th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, as our minister has made very clear, we support the principle of net neutrality, where Canadians have access to the content of their choice in accordance with Canadian laws. I can assure my hon. colleague and friend that net neutrality is the critical issue of our times, much like freedom of the press and freedom of expression that came before it. That is why our government will continue to support a strong net-neutrality framework through the CRTC.
World Martial Arts Championship December 1st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize four athletes from my riding who put in outstanding performances at the world martial arts championship in Dublin, Ireland, in October.
Representing Canada, Antoine, Félix, Kingsley, and Ruth Ann, along with their sensei, Danny Griffith, returned home with a total of 11 medals.
Ten-year-old Felix was crowned world soft kata champion, and Ruth Ann took home top honours in the 35 and over soft kata division.
All four of these karateka can be proud of their performance. They have been practising for many years with their sensei, Danny Griffith, at Danny Griffith Kenpo Karate in Ville LaSalle.
These achievements are the culmination of years of effort, work, and perseverance, and I am proud to honour them in the House today.
Petitions November 24th, 2017
Madam Speaker, I am tabling today a petition signed by LaSalle Community Comprehensive High School students.
They are calling on Parliament to promote awareness of child labour in schools and enact legislation requiring Canada's large corporations to report on their efforts to monitor, combat, and prevent child labour.
This is a call to action which I and many Canadians support.
Report Stage November 21st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
We have been working on this for a long time, since taking office, in fact. We have consulted people across the country. We even set up a special committee to study the matter. We have consulted the provinces from the very beginning. We are working with the provinces to find solutions, and their suggestions have been incorporated into the bill.
With this bill, we have sought to strike the right balance. As a government, we sincerely believe we have achieved that. It is time to move forward.
Report Stage November 21st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, the criminal law standard, which is within federal jurisdiction, is a heavy apparatus and through our consultations we set the criminal law standard at four plants to allow a certain flexibility to the provinces. The provinces are, within their jurisdiction, able to further regulate on that point. That a number of provinces have chosen to do so or are planning to do so is indicative of a healthy federal system in which both the federal government and the provinces are attuned to the needs of their people and the health of their populations. There is nothing wrong with some variance across the country, as provincial governments determine what to do with that standard.
Report Stage November 21st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-45, the cannabis act.
Protecting the health and safety of the public is a key priority for all orders of government in Canada. In fact, that is why we introduced Bill C-45. Its goal is to create a strict national framework for controlling the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis in Canada.
Bill C-45 would legalize access to cannabis, but only for adults, and would allow a limited amount to be grown at home or purchased through an appropriate retail framework, to make sure it is sourced from a well-regulated industry.
The bill would establish controls to protect youth, including prohibitions on selling and providing cannabis to anyone under the age of 18 and restrictions on marketing and promotional activities directed at young people.
Commercial growers and manufacturers of cannabis would require a federal licence and be subject to strict oversight to control product safety and quality.
While Bill C-45 would use the federal criminal law power to create a strict framework to control and regulate the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis, the effective oversight and control of cannabis cannot be achieved without working with our partners in the provinces, territories, and municipalities.
From the outset, our government has been clear that the control and regulation of cannabis requires a pan-Canadian approach, involving all orders of government, at all stages of development and implementation.
This is reflected in the important role that our provincial and territorial partners have played in the work of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. This task force was established in June 2016, with a mandate to provide advice to the federal government on how to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis.
Input from the provinces and territories was essential for the successful work of the task force. The provinces and the territories nominated experts to serve on the task force and make suggestions as to who should be consulted. They met with the task force and shared their views on cannabis legalization and regulation, and on how to best achieve our shared objectives of better protecting health and safety.
It should not come as a surprise that the views of the provinces and territories helped shape, to a great extent, some of the important provisions of Bill C-45. Like the task force report, Bill C-45 proposes a shared framework for the control and regulation of cannabis based on ongoing federal, provincial, and territorial collaboration.
The bill sets out clear controls and standards around cannabis, but provides the flexibility for each government to work within its own jurisdictional authority and experience. Each aspect of the framework would be implemented by those best placed to do so.
At this time, I would like to explain how the different levels of government would share their various roles and responsibilities, beginning with the federal role.
Under the proposed cannabis law, the federal government would be responsible for establishing and implementing a national framework for the regulation of cannabis production, establishing health and safety standards, and creating criminal prohibitions.
This would include: establishing restrictions on adult access to cannabis and establishing serious criminal penalties for those operating outside the legal system; creating rules to limit how cannabis or cannabis accessories can be promoted, packaged, labelled, and displayed that are in line with the rules that are in place for tobacco products; instituting a federal licensing regime for cannabis production that draws on lessons learned from the current system for access to cannabis for medical purposes; establishing industry-wide rules and standards, for example, serving sizes or potency, as well as the tracking of cannabis from seed to sale to prevent diversion to the illicit market; creating minimum federal conditions to provide a national framework to protect public health and public safety; and enforcing cannabis importation and exportation prohibitions at the border, except when legally authorized.
At the same time, Bill C-45 recognizes that provinces and territories, as well as municipalities, have an important role to play in the new system. Similar to provincial and territorial oversight over the distribution and sale of alcohol, the proposed legislation would recognize provincial and territorial legislative regimes that would oversee and regulate the distribution and retail sale of cannabis in their respective jurisdictions.
The legislative measures would also take into account the fact that the provinces and territories, together with municipalities, have the authority to adapt certain rules to their own jurisdictions and to enforce them with a variety of tools, including tickets.
As per the recommendations of the working group, the provinces and territories, together with municipalities, could establish rules governing the location of facilities for the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis in a community, and locations where cannabis can be consumed in public.
Provinces and territories could also set additional regulatory requirements to address issues of local concern. For example, provincial and territorial legislatures have the authority to set a higher minimum age for cannabis possession or more restrictive limits on possession for personal cultivation, including the lowering of the number of plants or restricting where they may be cultivated. As a result, Bill C-45 is drafted in such a way that provinces and territories can establish these stricter rules under their own authority.
Key roles for our municipal counterparts would include setting and enforcing local zoning bylaws, inspecting buildings, and carrying out local enforcement for matters related to minimum age for purchase, personal cultivation, personal possession limits, smoking, and place-of-use restrictions as well as public-nuisance complaints.
As the framework is implemented, I am convinced that our government will be able to work closely with its provincial, territorial, and municipal counterparts.
I am pleased to note that provinces and territories have already begun to prepare for legalization. For example, our partners in Manitoba have already introduced legislation amending provincial traffic safety laws to help police crack down on drivers who are driving while impaired by drugs and to restrict how cannabis can be transported in a vehicle.
The active involvement of our provincial, territorial, and municipal counterparts will be vital in helping to ensure that young people do not have access to cannabis and that those who sell cannabis outside of the legal framework will face stiff penalties.
Our government has said many times that it will be working with the provinces and territories to raise awareness and educate Canadians on the risks of cannabis use and to monitor the impact of tougher controls around access to cannabis.
In the 2017 budget, the government committed to investing $9.6 million over five years in a public education and awareness campaign and in surveillance activities.
As health is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, provinces and territories complement federal public health programming, including through the management of public health and safety issues and school-based education and counselling.
In partnering with the provinces, territories, municipalities, and local communities, our government has announced that it will invest to provide law enforcement with the necessary equipment and education to ensure road safety. It said that it would also meet with the provinces and territories to continue discussions on how cannabis will be taxed.
Strong collaboration between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, as much in areas of security and supply chains as in public education, is essential to reaching the goals of strict cannabis regulation, including that of keeping proceeds out of the hands of criminals.
Our government will continue to work tirelessly with all levels of government to realize our common goal of protecting the health and safety of Canadians.
Supreme Court Act October 19th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak to this very important topic and to an institution that is dear to me. You will see why in a moment.
Although I support the intent behind Bill C-203 introduced by the hon. member for Drummond, I sincerely believe that at the end of the day, legislation is neither necessary nor even advisable under the circumstances, even though having bilingual Supreme Court justices is very important and something we should all work toward.
This is the second time I have said as much. I said that the Supreme Court is an institution that is very dear to me. I had the opportunity in my life to be a clerk to a Supreme Court justice from 1989 to 1990. I worked for Justice Peter deCarteret Cory, an Ontario judge who was bilingual.
I would like to correct something that the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton said. Justice John Sopinka was perfectly bilingual. That year, he did not have a clerk so I worked with him, too, and even attended in camera meetings with him in French. It is true that he had an accent that at the time was called the “John Diefenbaker accent”, but his French was impeccable.
Having had that experience, I agree with many of the ideas my hon. colleague just put forward. It is very important that all lawyers' arguments, whether oral or written, be understood without the use of translation. Yes, texts are translated, and yes, much like here, the Supreme Court interpretation service is very good.
However, this is about the process of making legal arguments. When a lawyer seeks to impress the merits of his case upon a judge, every word is carefully selected, which makes legal arguments particularly difficult to translate. It is of the utmost importance, then, for judges to be able to understand both written and oral arguments without the use of translation.
I also participated in a case that was before the Supreme Court and I helped draft a submission to the court. I can assure you that every word is carefully weighed, because there are limits. Once again, it is very important to be able to understand the speaker's arguments and style. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton has a certain style when he makes his speeches. He should understand why it is so important to protect the integrity of an argument's style.
Even if the interpretation is good, it is about convincing someone, so it is very important that our goal be to have bilingual Supreme Court judges.
That said, as a former law professor in a bilingual, bijural faculty, the first thing I have to point out is that the law does not always offer the ideal solution to a problem. In our case, I do not believe this kind of law is necessary.
As my colleague from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs just told us, we have already taken steps to change the selection process for Supreme Court judges and the process to select a successor to Chief Justice McLachlin to ensure that bilingualism is a central consideration. We have already done that, and it worked well in the case of Justice Malcolm Rowe, and it should continue to be part of the system itself.
My colleague also described the action plan we introduced for superior courts, which is where people have their first contact with the legal system. Supreme Court Justice Cory always said that he was not the most important person in the system and that superior court judges play the most important role because they are the ones that have contact with the people.
While we may agree on the purpose of the bill, and while I would like us to have nine fluently bilingual, or at least functionally bilingual, Supreme Court justices, that is not advisable. When it comes to the Supreme Court, a careful balance must be struck.
What my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques just said is also true in some respects. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to call on a criminal law expert or a trade law expert to help in its understanding because of both the complexity of the subjects it addresses and the language that is used. When the Supreme Court needs such experts, then it is rather significant. In that respect, a bilingual candidate does not necessarily meet the current needs of the court.
I would like for us to maintain this flexibility that allows us, in some cases, to fill some of the possible gaps left among the nine justices. It is also very important to consider the substance of the cases that are brought before the Supreme Court.
The future can be unpredictable. We have to be prudent. That is what are doing with regard to the measures that are already in place. It would be premature to act before seeing whether people fully adopt these measures.
Law students and lawyers already know that they have to be bilingual if there is any hope of being appointed to the Supreme Court. Perhaps in the future it will not be a problem. It is better to be prudent for now.
Finally, there are constitutional issues. If we tried to change the criteria for selecting Supreme Court justices, it is highly likely that the provinces would say that it is unconstitutional. It is best not to open Pandora's box.
The government already has the rather significant burden of justifying the appointment of non-bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. It shifts the emphasis to the judges who are already bilingual. To justify the choice of a judge who is not bilingual, the government has to have a convincing reason. It is already a weighty standard that has the same effect as what the hon. member for Drummond wants to entrench into law. For these reasons, I believe that such a measure is neither desirable nor necessary in the current context.