Francesco Sorbara

[Business of Supply, September 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the hon. member wish to take that off the record? I am offended by that statement. He knows it is not true.

[Business of Supply, September 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing about members of the official opposition is that they like to talk down our country. They like to talk down our economy. They want to talk down the best country in the world. It is the best country in the world. They have not seen it and they do not acknowledge it, but it is.

In our budget, we have about a 1% deficit to GDP versus the U.S. at 7%. We have a AAA credit rating. We went through a global pandemic where we had the backs of Canadians and we assisted them and businesses.

Would the hon. member not admit that any country in the world would love to have our fiscal framework to continue to make key investments in the hard-working Canadians we represent?

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this definition would apply to the two hate propaganda offences in section 319 of the Criminal Code that have the term “hatred” as an element of the offence, as well as the proposed new hate crime offence. The definition would put into statutory language the high bar that the Supreme Court of Canada has found is required to constitute hatred in this context. It means an emotion that involves “detestation or vilification”. A message that “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends” another, no matter how unpleasant that message might be, does not meet this high bar. There is a category of online language that we call “awful but lawful”.

The bill will also amend the Criminal Code to create a new peace bond to prevent the commission of hate propaganda offences and hate crimes. This peace bond is modelled on other peace bonds in the Criminal Code that are designed to prevent certain crimes. For example, there is one to prevent the commission of terrorism offences and another to prevent offences related to organized crime.

Bill C-63 would also include new provisions to better denounce and address hate-motivated conduct. For instance, it would increase the maximum punishment for all hate propaganda offences when prosecuted as indictable offences.

It is important to note that this bill will create a separate hate crime offence. This new offence will apply to any offence when it is motivated by hate based on specific criteria, such as race, colour, religion, ethnic origin or gender identity or expression. The maximum sentence will be life imprisonment. This offence will recognize the serious harm caused by offences motivated by hate — harm to victims, harm to their community and harm to Canadian democracy in general. Although the maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment, independent judges will determine the appropriate sentence based on the facts of the case and the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

I strongly support this proposed change. It would respond to repeated calls for stronger hate crime laws in the Criminal Code. It would send a clear message that the government, and indeed all parliamentarians, strongly condemn and denounce any crime committed with a hate motive. Quite simply, harming others out of hatred has no place in our society and our laws should reflect this.

It would also allow us to better understand and address hate-motivated crimes by allowing better identification and tracking of individual offences.

Finally, I turn to the amendments outside the criminal law. This bill proposes amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would empower individuals and groups to obtain effective remedies against other users who post hate speech online. An improved section 13 of the CHRA would provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate hate speech online. Complaints would be filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which would screen them out of or into the process under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Respondents might recognize at this point that the content was hate speech and take it down. Otherwise, the commission would decide whether to send a complaint for adjudication to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. After a fair hearing, if the tribunal upheld the complaint, it would order the respondent to remove the hate speech. In special cases, the tribunal would be able to order compensation to victims personally identified in the hate speech and may award a monetary penalty, if needed, to ensure compliance with the law.

In any event, the purpose of the CHRA is not to punish but to remedy. Section 13 is not criminal law and it does not establish an offence.

Some members may recall that Parliament repealed an older version of section 13 of the CHRA a decade ago. That repeal took away an important tool for combatting hate speech online. In that time, we have seen why Canadians need this tool. We consulted widely to understand the perceived problems with the former section 13. As a result, these amendments include a number of improvements. Specifically, “hate speech” is now clearly defined and the commission would rapidly dismiss complaints that do not satisfy this definition. Complainants and witnesses may be given confidentiality where needed in order to protect them from reprisals. Further, the tribunal would have more control over litigants who abuse the process.

These amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act provide effective recourse in individual cases of hate speech, alongside the more systematic regulation of social media platforms under the online harms act.

I would like to conclude my speech by pointing out that this bill also addresses the extremely worrying cybercrime of child pornography. In 2011, Canada passed An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service. This bill will modernize that legislation to respond to the rapid societal and technological changes that impact how child pornography is created and distributed. Among other things, the law will clearly stipulate that it also applies to social media and apps.

These are important changes for everyone in this country, especially with the rise of the Internet and online social media networks. I encourage all members to support this groundbreaking legislation, Bill C-63.

[Online Harms Act, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and honour to rise in this House. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Richmond Hill, my neighbour in York region.

It is an honour for me to say a few words about Bill C‑63.

In addition to the new legislative and regulatory framework, this bill also amends the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service. My comments will focus on the amendments to these three acts.

Online harms have a real-world impact, with sometimes tragic, even fatal, consequences. Ask the families of the six people killed at the Quebec City mosque by someone radicalized online. Ask the young boy orphaned by the horrific attack on the Afzaal family in London, Ontario. Ask the parents of the young people who have taken their lives after being sextorted online.

The online harms act is the result of extensive consultation conducted over more than four years. We have heard from countless organizations that represent victims on the essential nature of this legislation. The groups in support of this bill range from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection to the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

Victims of exploitation and hatred and those who advocate on their behalf are asking all of us to do more. It is time we meet their call and meet their demands. The Leader of the Opposition forgets these facts. He is not serious about helping kids. He is not serious about stopping hatred online or not online. Conservatives are abandoning victims who are asking us to do more. They are discrediting the years of detailed expert advice and shared experience gathered during consultations.

The Conservatives' so-called law and order agenda vanishes when it comes to keeping our digital world and our kids safe. That puts children at risk. That allows hate to fester. We will not let that happen. We will do better. Canadians deserve to live in safety online and in the real world. They also deserve a measure of decency from their politicians, much like I would ask my colleagues on the other side to refrain from making comments when other individuals are commenting on important things. It is called decency.

As regards the Criminal Code amendments, the bill proposes to define the term “hatred”. This definition would apply to the two hate propaganda offences in section 319—

[Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions, September 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East, and if I misspoke the name of the riding, please excuse me, used some very strong language with respect to “failure” and so forth. I want to say that I fundamentally disagree with the hon. member's viewpoint on that.

Our government has been diligent. Our government's first and most important priority is the relationship with first nations, which is a nation-to-nation relationship. To say that there have been failures and shortcomings, I will be as polite as I can be on that. Our government and the ministers have worked very diligently with first nations people in building this nation-to-nation relationship. It does not happen overnight. This is a system that is in place.

What is going on is obviously something long-standing. The issues faced by first nations people did not happen overnight, but over many decades, if not centuries. To make sure we get this right requires diligence, co-operation, collaboration, looking at things in a positive manner and taking action, which our government has been doing over the past number of years.

[Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions, September 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the member for Kitchener Centre this evening. Through you, I hope he is doing well.

With respect to how fast the government is moving on the calls to action of the TRC and other reports, obviously we are working diligently with indigenous communities across the country. A number of agreements have been signed, such as the agreement on, I think, Jordan's principle. If I am misspeaking, I excuse myself. A number of settlements have been reached with indigenous communities.

We need to continue to work together. It is a nation-to-nation relationship. We need to collaborate and work together. At the same time, we need to ensure that this type of debate does not happen again anytime soon, or ever, and that these individuals are safe and secure in their communities when they call the police or the police respond, especially in a circumstance when there may be mental health issues or other issues at play there.

[Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions, September 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut for raising this topic this evening. After reading the letter that the member for Nunavut put forward in asking for this emergency debate under Standing Order 52(2), the first thing I would like to say is that I want to express my condolences, and the condolences of everyone in my riding and in the city that I live in, for these individuals who are no longer with us. We all know, as parliamentarians, that life is so precious. Life is very special. As a person of deep faith, if I can use the term, in the context of modern times, every single life is precious. Every single life is to be lived to its fullest. These individuals have perished. In 11 days, six first nations people were killed. That is a tragedy. I even want to add that not seeing the coverage in the media that it perhaps should have received much more thoroughly is obviously disappointing. To the member of Nunavut, I thank her again.

I am a member of Parliament from a very urban riding in Ontario that borders the city of Toronto but my roots are in small-town British Columbia, on the north coast of B.C. and Prince Rupert. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby knows, up in northern British Columbia there is a very rich history, dating back millennia, of first nations people.

Growing up, in terms of my interaction with and learning about first nations people and what they have gone through, we did not comprehend the colonialism, the systemic barriers, the racism, the residential schools, that many of these individuals were put through and that the communities were put through. It is absolutely horrendous. Over the last eight or nine years our government, as well as governments prior to ours, has done a lot to work with and build a nation-to-nation relationship with first nations and indigenous peoples. I am very proud of that, but there is obviously much work to be done still.

I want to begin my remarks this evening by thanking the member for Nunavut again for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I acknowledge her advocacy in seeking ways that we can work together to meaningfully address the challenges facing the first nations and Inuit policing program. I recognize, and I do not need this written for me, that the current state is completely and utterly unacceptable.

The government has offered additional funding for uniformed officers and equipment, including 17 additional officers for the Treaty Three Police Service, the UCCM Anishnaabe Police Service, and eight additional officers for Anishinabek Police Services. However, we know that we need to continue to work with these police services to ensure our full understanding of their concerns, including where improvements can be made to the program, and collaborate on a true path forward. We must recognize that the funding issues highlighted by specific police services are indicative of our larger program challenges, which is why the Prime Minister has mandated the Minister of Public Safety to continue to co-develop legislation that recognizes first nations policing as an essential service.

Important work in this area is under way, and the Government of Canada continues to work with first nations partners. We heard, through the Government of Canada's engagement, the many challenges faced by first nations police services, including access to stable, sustainable and equitable funding. The co-development of this legislation is our opportunity to change the status quo to better meet the needs of communities and to transform first nations policing to a more sustainable model, one that is well-funded and respectful of the communities it serves. While the co-development of a legislative framework for indigenous policing is a key responsibility of our government, it must also be done in partnership with provinces and territories, given their role as regulators and funders in this area. First nations communities, like all communities in Canada, should be places where people and families feel safe and secure. That is a fundamental duty of any government.

Every first nations individual, wherever they live here in Canada, in whatever community, needs to feel safe and secure. I tell my residents all the time that we live in a great city. We are safe. We have the York Regional Police department. Whatever challenges we have, we can face them together. We are a great city, a great province and a great country. If we have this nation-to-nation relationship, the first nations need to feel safe and secure in their communities.

A properly funded, culturally sensitive and respectful police service is essential for community safety and well-being. In addition, in order to support safer indigenous communities, budget 2021 provided the mandate to stabilize the FNIPP by adding new officers to existing self-administered police services, expand the FNIPP by creating new first nations police services, transition some community tripartite agreements to self-administered agreements, provide dedicated funding for community safety officers and provide dedicated funding for community consultative groups.

Budget 2021 provided new funding in the amount of $540 million over five years and $120 million ongoing. Most of that funding is being dedicated to self-administered police services; it will allow the services to add new officers and sustain investments in training and equipment. For the first time, it includes an escalator of 2.75% to help mitigate the cost of inflation.

The FNIPP aims to provide culturally responsive policing services, which are being established in many first nations communities that would not otherwise have a dedicated on-site policing presence. However, the issues raised earlier by my colleague are valued. They serve as a reminder that we have a long way to go when it comes to reconciliation. That is why our government remains committed to continuing this important work in partnership and in collaboration together with indigenous communities, based on respect for community needs.

While change does not occur overnight, meaningful actions have been taken to date, and our government remains committed to supporting community safety improvements and advancing reconciliation with indigenous people. I can read a few simple stats with regard to the FNIPP: There is $181 million under the first nations and Inuit policing program to support 1,410 officers in over 426 indigenous communities in Canada; $43.7 million for first nations policing to recognize first nations policing as an essential service; $540.3 million and $126.8 million ongoing to support indigenous communities currently served under the first nations and Inuit policing; and finally, $108.6 million over five years to repair, renovate and replace policing facilities in first nations and Inuit communities.

We tend to rise in the House and speak about programs, our opinions, the economy and what is happening in our communities. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister, which is always an honour for me to do. It is a privilege to be in the House, and earlier this afternoon, I had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-71 with reference to a piece of immigration policy for lost Canadians. There was a bit of debate. There is unanimity among us, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, the three parties there, and the official opposition is on another side, pursuing another path, and that is fine. That is what our parliamentary process involves. That is what debate is about, bringing forth our ideas and sharing opinions.

This evening, with regard to this debate, to be honest, I rather wish we were not here tonight and that this debate was not taking place. All of these individuals' circumstances are unique, and I hope there is a full investigation, obviously, into what has gone on. We ask in some terms from economic business if this is a cluster of this. How could such things happen in an 11-day period? I hope that, in the days to come, we do not read about these stories. I understand that these stories do not happen and these events do not happen. I understand there is a desire to bring this to committee and to have it studied. Obviously, for those individuals who sit on the indigenous services committee, or INAN, I encourage them to do the work that a committee does. Committees are destinies of their own domain, as we always indicate from all parties, because more work needs to be done.

Indigenous communities and indigenous people deserve better all the time.

With that, I thank the Speaker for his attention. It is great to see him. I hope he and his family are doing well. To my hon. colleagues tonight, good evening.

[Citizenship Act, September 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we know that Bill C-71 is the right thing to do. The bill would correct an injustice that was caused by the prior Harper government, when the courts ruled that the law in place at the time was unconstitutional. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled it unconstitutional. This is the right thing to do to correct an injustice. It is about fairness.

I have much respect for the hon. member for Edmonton Manning. Why would he not support a piece of legislation that would correct an injustice?

[Citizenship Act, September 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we need to bring this piece of legislation forward. We need to get it passed with all-party support. The Conservatives should know this is the right thing to do to correct an injustice. I agree with the hon. member that we need to get royal assent and move this into force as soon as possible to ensure there are no injustices to Canadians, specifically with regards to their citizenship.

We are very proud to be Canadian. These folks are Canadian, and they would be just as proud to get that citizenship that we are fortunate and blessed to have today.

[Citizenship Act, September 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois, who represents one of the ridings in Quebec, that we need to fix this injustice for Canadians across this country. What has happened is wrong. We know it.

Canadians born abroad to Canadian citizens are Canadians. They should have always been treated as such. There are measures here for substantial tests to make it fair and right.