Ed Fast

[Criminal Code, September 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to engage in this debate on Bill C-295, and I want to commend the member for Vancouver Centre for bringing forward this bill. I am not sure we will be supporting it, and I will explain why in a moment, but she has brought forward a bill that addresses what is perhaps one of the most existential challenges facing not only Canada but western developed societies, which is the aging of our population.

A huge demographic challenge facing our country of course is the aging of our population. There are more and more Canadians who are becoming seniors. There are more and more Canadians who are moving out of the workforce, which is creating significant workforce shortages, and we are experiencing those today. At the same time, these seniors are requiring more and more care, which of course imposes a burden on taxpayers.

I would not for a moment suggest we should not be providing for the seniors who built our country. We owe it to them to do that.

However, the COVID pandemic, the first pandemic of its kind in over 100 years, left virtually every government around the world unprepared to meet that challenge. Here in Canada, that challenge manifested itself, among other things, by creating significant shortages of competent workforce members within our hospitals to address the increasing numbers of patients coming in suffering from the COVID virus. This became an acute problem for hospitals across our country.

There was not a province or territory that was not impacted by the fact that our hospitals could not provide the care needed. Beyond that, our long-term care facilities suddenly found themselves faced with this incredible challenge of having vulnerable seniors they were in charge of who had now contracted the COVID virus and trying to put into place protocols that were going to protect those vulnerable residents of those homes.

This bill seeks to address that by criminalizing the failure to provide the necessary care in those homes. More specifically, this enactment, Bill C-295, would amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their managers who fail to provide the necessities of life to residents of their facilities.

I think all of us can agree that is a worthy undertaking to make sure our long-term care facilities have the kinds of services and protective protocols that would protect the residents of those facilities. The problem is we have significant labour shortages in our country. Until we have actually addressed those labour challenges, it would be imprudent to impose on these facilities criminal sanctions that effectively mean these homes could not provide the kind of care the Criminal Code would require but that our labour challenges cannot address adequately.

My challenge with this legislation is we are trying to do two things. We are trying to provide those facilities with the labour force they need to adequately protect residents and patients, but at the same time we are trying to criminalize the activities of these facilities when in fact they are in no position to comply with the law.

I would raise one other point. The proponent of this bill, the member for Vancouver Centre, has said that this is all about protecting the most vulnerable within our society. I commend her for standing up and defending the rights and the welfare of our seniors, the ones who find themselves in extremely vulnerable positions.

However, there are other seniors and other Canadians who are also in vulnerable positions who call out for protection and those are our mentally ill, the mentally disordered in our society, who are now finding themselves caught under Canada's medical assistance in dying regime, Canada's assisted suicide regime, which is being extended by this government to the mentally disordered within our society, including those suffering from depression.

I do not know how we square that, on the one hand, advocating for the protection and welfare of seniors in our homes, but, at the same time, saying that we are going to also advocate for assisted suicide to be extended and expanded to include the mentally ill.

There is something wrong with that picture. It troubles me deeply that we have found ourselves in this place where competing ideologies are taking place right here in the House of Commons.

I earlier asked the proponent of this bill if she would support Bill C-314, which seeks to extract and remove the mentally ill from Canada's MAID regime. She hummed and she hawed and she explained this way and that way.

At the end, all we could conclude was that, no, she was not prepared to protect the mentally ill against medically assisted dying but, at the same time, would be advocating for the seniors in our homes and the residents of our long-term care homes who find themselves vulnerable and could see their lives and their health impaired by another pandemic.

We can see that I am quite frustrated to be placed in the position of having to judge the member for Vancouver Centre's bill based on her inability to understand that there has to be consistency when we bring forward legislation.

When we promote an ideology that is supposed to protect the most vulnerable in our society, that does not mean we can pick and choose between different vulnerable groups. We need to address their needs in a wholesome way, in a holistic way, and we have to be consistent in how we apply our ideology.

Unfortunately, that is not taking place here. Quite frankly, I lament that our country is moving down this road, where some of our most vulnerable are going to find themselves at great risk because of the life and death policies that this government is adopting, which have not been properly thought out.

I am going to ask the member for Vancouver Centre to reconsider her position on Bill C-314, as I will reconsider my position on her bill, Bill C-295. We both have objectives to protect and defend the rights of the vulnerable.

I call for one thing: consistency. All those who are vulnerable in our society are worthy of our protection.

[Criminal Code, September 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her care and concern for the most vulnerable adults in our society.

There is another bill coming through the House very shortly, Bill C-314, which is about medical assistance in dying and protecting the mentally ill against the scope and expansion of medical assistance in dying. I was wondering, given the fact that the member has concern for the vulnerable adults in our society, if we could expect her to also support that bill?

[Medical Assistance in Dying, September 25th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, next year, the government will expose the most vulnerable Canadians to medical assistance in dying. Assisted suicide will be available to those who suffer from mental illness, including depression. This is profoundly wrong and unprecedented.

There is no consensus in the mental health community that MAID can be safely and ethically administered to the mentally ill. Issues of suicidality, irremediability and competency are far from being resolved. There is growing fear among persons with disabilities over the slippery slope our country finds itself on.

Who is next? The veteran suffering from PTSD? The poor who have no escape from poverty? The addicted on our streets with no hope of accessing timely treatment? That is why I have tabled Bill C-314, the mental health protection act. It repeals the portion of Canada's MAID laws that captures the mentally disordered, while preserving the remaining elements of the government's MAID regime.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-314.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot for that excellent summary of Bill S-8 and what it means to Canada, how it falls short and how the government falls short in meeting the challenges of the geopolitical landscape as it is playing out around the world. As the member mentioned, this is simply some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The bill addresses the issue of sanctions. It would make sure that individuals who have been sanctioned and should not be admissible to Canada do not actually make it into Canada.

The bill is most specifically a response to what happened in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal and immoral. It has devastated a country that was simply looking for peace. As someone who has family roots that are at least in part vested in Ukraine, I, like so many Canadians, was exceedingly angry at what we saw Vladimir Putin do to a country that was struggling to develop the prosperity and security it deserves. Now, with the actions that Russia has taken in Ukraine, the whole global geopolitical and geosecurity environment has been turned on its head. The bill before us purports to tighten Canada's sanctions regime to ensure that no one implicated in illegal foreign acts of aggression and illegal foreign acts of war could enter Canada.

However, right off the bat, I have two comments to make. First, there is no indication right now that foreigners who are inadmissible to Canada are getting into Canada. Therefore, it appears that our current sanctions regime is working. I do understand efforts to be proactive and plug gaps that might exist. That is the first point that I will make. There is no indication that foreigners who are inadmissible to Canada are getting into Canada.

Second, it is troubling that this bill emanates not from the House, but from the Senate, which, as members know, is unelected. One would expect that the Liberal government, if it considered our national security and global security to be that important, would table that bill here in the House first and then let it go to the other place for further, sober second thought.

Since the bill intends to strengthen our ability to prevent persons who have been sanctioned from actually entering Canada, it does so first by establishing a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on those very sanctions. That is the first part of it. The second part of the bill proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility to include not only sanctions that are imposed on a foreign country, but also sanctions that are imposed on a foreign entity or organization, or a foreign person, because we want to capture everybody who would be implicated in foreign acts of aggression.

Third, the bill would expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions that are made in section 4 of SEMA, or the Special Economic Measures Act. Finally, the bill would amend the regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety would have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on those very sanctions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

That may all sound very complicated, but the bottom line is this: All this bill does is purport to plug existing gaps. I would suggest to the government, rather than being in reactive mode, why is it not proactive in addressing the challenges that Canada faces on the security front?

For example, why is the government not actively addressing the issue of foreign interference in our elections? Why is it not actively addressing the issue of intellectual property theft by the regime in Beijing? Why is it not addressing those individuals who were implicated in the acts of terrorism and intolerance in the country of Iran, who have now found a safe haven in our country and are seen walking the streets of our cities such as Toronto? Why will it not be proactive in addressing geopolitical security issues, rather than always responding in a reactive way and missing the boat?

We will be supporting this legislation, but it does not reflect a thoughtful, proactive approach to the very real challenges that face Canada today.

[Canadian Open, June 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, “Good pace. Are you serious? Oh my goodness! Glorious and free!” That was the call by PGA announcer Jim Nantz as Abbotsford’s Nick Taylor made history yesterday by becoming the first Canadian in 69 years to win the Canadian Open golf championship, and he did it in spectacular fashion.

First shooting a course record 63 on Saturday, Nick then survived four sudden-death playoff holes and drained a 72-foot eagle putt to win his third PGA tournament. He joins Mike Weir, Brooke Henderson, George Knudson and others in the pantheon of Canada’s great golfers.

Nick and his wife Andie call Abbotsford home. In fact, he is proud of having honed his golf skills at our own Ledgeview Golf Club.

Other notable Canadian players in this year’s Canadian Open were Corey Conners, Mike Weir and Abbotsford’s Adam Hadwin.

I thank Nick Taylor for inspiring us. Oh, Canada, glorious and free, indeed.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, June 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question relating to promises made by the finance minister.

Last year, in the budget debate, she made it very clear that her government had a plan to return to balanced budgets. In the more recent fall economic statement, the minister again said that she had a plan to return to balanced budgets, or, in other words, the government living within its means.

The most recent budget has no commitment anymore to returning to balanced budgets, so I would ask my good friend and colleague across the aisle this. Why is it that the government has now abandoned any commitment to returning to balanced budgets?

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 31st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to engage in this debate.

The reason I find this so important is that I am from the beautiful province of British Columbia and from the city of Abbotsford, which is nestled between majestic Mount Baker, at 10,500 feet high, and, on the other side, the mighty Fraser River. We live in a wonderful community in a wonderful region of the country. However, one of the challenges we have had over the years is that Canada, and more specifically British Columbia, has become the locus, the very heart, of money laundering in our country.

Just so Canadians understand what money laundering is, I will note that it is not benign activity engaged in by Canadians who want to avoid taxes or something like that. Money laundering is about taking the proceeds of crime, channelling them into what appears to be a legitimate business or a legitimate asset and trying to make those proceeds seem legitimate. It is a great way for criminals to hide the proceeds of crime. The last thing I believe Canadians want to do is aid and abet criminals to commit their crimes in our country, yet that is what has been happening for many years.

This legislation is not the be-all and end-all. Bill C-42 is simply a part of the solution. What it would do is establish a beneficial registry, an ownership registry, that would allow Canadians to see who actually owns the companies into which money might be directed from the proceeds of crime. This is not going to solve the whole problem of money laundering. Our police have their hands full in trying to track these criminals down, trying to identify the proceeds of crime and trying to get convictions.

Here is another problem. Money laundering has contributed significantly to the inflationary impacts on prices of land, real estate and homes that Canadians want to buy. These criminals know that if they can get money channelled into a house, it will be less likely for the police to identify that asset as being a proceed of crime. They also channel these proceeds of crime into legitimate businesses, like small and medium-sized enterprises. They channel this money into hard assets. They may be boats or expensive cars. At the end of the day, this costs Canadians big time.

There is another reason this is important to British Columbians. It was in British Columbia that the Cullen commission was established to investigate this very challenging problem to our criminal justice laws and to the broader issue of how much money laundering costs the average Canadian.

The Cullen commission made a long list of recommendations, most of which implicated the provincial government. It called upon the provincial government to act. However, there was one recommendation that stood out, which was that the federal government establish a pan-Canadian beneficial ownership registry for corporations. I believe Justice Cullen really intended for this to cover all companies in Canada. The problem is that the criminal justice law is federal law, so we as a Parliament have jurisdiction over it. Here is the problem: The large majority of Canadian companies are incorporated not at the federal level but at the provincial level, implicating every one of our 10 provinces and our territories.

How do we cobble together a pan-Canadian foreign ownership registry program with all of these different players at the table? The bill would, at least in the immediate term, establish a corporate beneficial ownership registry for federally incorporated companies, which is a good start. However, I believe the Cullen commission's intent was for the Liberal government to engage the provinces and territories to expand this to include the provincial regimes in federal legislation so that we can go after the money launderers in every corner of our country.

There is a reason this has come to our attention as lawmakers. Back in 2016, the Panama papers exposed how vulnerable Canada was to money laundering. Those papers made it clear that Canada was a laggard on the international stage when it came to addressing money laundering and interdicting the criminals who were taking proceeds of crime, filtering that money through legitimate enterprises and assets and then getting away with their crimes.

In 2017, it was the Liberal government's finance minister, Bill Morneau, who said we needed a beneficial registry to help combat money laundering in our market to determine the true source of funds and ownership in the acquisition of firms. He was right at that time, and that was 2017.

What happened in the intervening years? Nothing. From 2016 to 2023, we had eight years of inaction on the part of the Liberal government. This is pretty shocking, since the government, through its finance minister, at the very least had become aware that this was a very important issue for Canadians and nothing was done.

I will say that I am pleased that at least this has now come before us as Bill C-42, and it looks like we will see a beneficial ownership registry passed and implemented in our country. However, as the bill goes through committee review and comes back to the House, we are going to be asking a lot of questions. For example, how will this registry protect Canadians' privacy rights? We want to interdict criminals as they try to undertake their criminal enterprises, but we also want to make sure that the privacy of Canadians is protected.

I do not have great confidence that the government will actually protect our privacy, and here is why. We recently debated Bill C-27 in the House, which is all about privacy rights. We have been asking the government to actually include privacy as a fundamental right in Canada that Canadians can depend on. Sadly, Bill C-27 did not include that, so we have a right to be concerned.

We also want to ask who will have access to the information in the beneficial registry. Is it the police? Is it the ordinary citizen? It is business people? None of that is clarified in this legislation. We need to know that. Will the bill give law enforcement the necessary tools to combat money laundering and terrorist financing?

To conclude, I believe there is all-party agreement, so I am asking for unanimous consent to request a recorded vote on Bill C-42.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for joining us in calling for a public inquiry. I agree with her that this has nothing to do with Mr. Johnston's qualifications or his exemplary service to Canadians over many years. This has to do with the Prime Minister and Mr. Johnston walking into a huge conflict of interest scandal around the whole issue of foreign interference in our elections.

I mention to this member that the Prime Minister will continue to breach ethics rules and guidelines. He will continue to walk into conflicts of interest as long as the NDP sustains this common-law marriage with the Liberal Party. It is only when the NDP will finally pull the plug that we will actually be able to see Canadians have an opportunity to hold the government accountable. I would ask the member when—

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question.

Autonomy is critically important. The problem when we are dealing with the mentally ill is that autonomy is often much diminished. That is just one of the problems. What we hear back from stakeholders within the mental health profession is that issues of autonomy, capacity and suicidality have not been addressed appropriately through a national debate. We have not had that discussion, so there is no national consensus on this. Before we ever move forward with something as critical as a life-and-death policy decision like this, we should have that debate and have a national consensus.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I do not quite understand it. He did say that everyone means well. “Everyone means well” is not the appropriate standard to apply here. We are talking about life and death for the most vulnerable in our society.

We owe it to the mentally ill and those who have mental disorders to act justly and fairly toward them to give them every opportunity to recover. That has been one of the failures of Canada's MAID regime. We have not provided the social supports and mental health supports to help the Canadians who would consider MAID because they are not getting those supports.