M-103 Post Vote Release

March 23, 2017

M-103, “regarding Systemic racism and religious discrimination” passed in the House of Commons with a final vote count of 201 in favour, and 91 opposed. I was among the 201 who voted in favour of this motion.

Over the past several months, M-103 has become a high-profile issue for many Canadians, and I heard a great deal of input from my constituents, both for and against. These individuals were dedicated to an important issue, and I commend their involvement in our governing process.

There was however, a great deal of misinformation circulated regarding M-103. On February 17, I published an open letter to my constituents to explain my views and dispel what I viewed was a false characterization of the motion. That information is still readily available; however I would like to take this opportunity to re-iterate my beliefs.

Contrary to a common misconception about M-103, it has no influence on Canadian law. It does not criminalize any new form of speech, nor does it inappropriately shelter one religion at the expense of others. Rather, it calls for the Government of Canada to develop a comprehensive response to xenophobia across all ethnic, religious and cultural denominations while addressing a clearly observed rise in hate crimes perpetrated upon Muslim Canadians. This is similar to a motion carried unanimously in the House of Commons in 2015 which condemned hate-motivated crimes against Canada’s Jewish community.

Yesterday’s vote in the House of Commons reflected Canadians’ view that a climate of hate and fear is antithetical to the fabric of our society. Nobody deserves to feel less at home in this country simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or any other denomination. I am proud that M-103 passed in the House of Commons, and to live in a country that possesses the moral courage to condemn blind intolerance in all forms.

✔︎ C-18 (Rouge National Urban Park)

Bill

C-18: An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act

Third Reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

Bill C-18 will meet a mandate commitment to work with the Ontario government to enhance the country’s first urban national park – Rouge National Urban Park – including improved legislation to protect this important ecosystem and guide how the park will be managed.

Result

Passed.

Heritage Week & International Mother Languages Day

Statement in the House of Commons celebrating Heritage Week and International Mother Languages Day

Mr. Speaker,

Today is a very special day. Not only is it the second day of Canada’s Heritage Week, it is also recognized by the global community as International Mother Languages Day.

Heritage Week was created to celebrate the unique value of Canada’s built heritage. These are the roots and places that tell this country’s story and from coast to coast to coast, I’m sure we can all think of an historic building worth preserving.

Today is also an opportunity to appreciate Canada’s cultural heritage. In 1999, UNESCO recognized February 21st as International Mother Languages Day to celebrate the linguistic heritage of peoples across the world.

This effort would have been impossible without the  efforts of the Vancouver-based organization, Mother Language Lovers of the World, and Mr. Abdus Salam, a founding member whose family now lives in my riding of Cloverdale-Langley City.

I would like to commend Mr. Salam for his tireless efforts and join him in celebrating our country’s linguistic diversity.

Thank You.

Open Letter: Statement on Anti-Islamophobia Motion (M-103)

Dear Cloverdale - Langley City residents,

In recent weeks, much attention has been given to Ms. Iqra Khalid’s (Member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills) Private Members’ Motion. This motion concerns systemic racism and religious discrimination, and is otherwise known as the “Anti-Islamophobia Motion.” A great deal of misinformation has been circulated regarding M-103, and concerns have been raised about its implications on Canadians’ right to freedom of speech, and its emphasis on one particular religion. 

While I unequivocally uphold the value and absolute necessity of free speech in Canada, M-103 is not in any measure an infringement on this right. This particular motion addresses rising anti-Islamic sentiment, and responds to dangerous and potentially violent undercurrents of thought amongst a slim minority of Canadians. 

According to police reports, hate crimes are declining in Canada but have doubled against the Muslim community since 2012. Although it should be noted that this motion was tabled before the horrific attack in Quebec City, this tragic event reaffirms the need for us to take action on Islamophobia.

A significant piece of misinformation that has been circulated about M-103 is that it would make criticizing religiously motivated violence a crime. Such an idea is categorically false. This is because M-103 is a motion, not a bill. The distinction is that while a passed bill does become law in Canada, a motion is a non-binding resolution in the House of Commons. What M-103 aims to accomplish is to condemn racist anti-Islamic sentiment and initiate a study in the Standing Committee on Heritage to explore ways to address the issue. 

This is also not the first such motion to be debated in the House of Commons, many of which have passed, often by unanimous consent. Relevant examples would be a unanimously adopted motion condemning anti-Semitism in early 2015 and most notably on October 26 a motion condemning all forms of Islamophobia was unanimously adopted in the House of Commons and supported by members of all parties.

In the same way that Canadians took a stand against hatred and violence perpetrated upon the Jewish community, M-103 decries similar acts carried out against our country’s Muslim population. It in no way limits an individual’s right to freedom of speech or alters the Criminal Code of Canada. Just as we must condemn violence in all forms, so too must we extend this condemnation to violence carried out upon Muslim Canadians who are our neighbours, classmates, colleagues and friends.

The Government of Canada firmly believes that diversity is our strength, and religious freedom is a value that Canadians hold dear. M-103 calls for a holistic way of combatting hatred, fear and violence across our country and is a victory not just for those targeted by these crimes, but for all of us who believe that Canada is made stronger by the diverse thoughts, opinions and faiths of all those who call this country home.

John Aldag
Member of Parliament
Cloverdale - Langley City

Statement on Anti-Islamophobia Motion

February 16, 2017

“In recent weeks, much attention has been given to Ms. Iqra Khalid’s (Member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills) Private Members’ Motion. This motion concerns systemic racism and religious discrimination, and is otherwise known as the “Anti-Islamophobia Motion.” A great deal of misinformation has been circulated regarding M-103, and concerns have been raised about its implications on Canadians’ right to freedom of speech, and its emphasis on one particular religion.

While I unequivocally uphold the value and absolute necessity of free speech in Canada, M-103 is not in any measure an infringement on this right. This particular motion addresses rising anti-Islamic sentiment, and responds to dangerous and potentially violent undercurrents of thought amongst a slim minority of Canadians.

According to police reports, hate crimes are declining in Canada but have doubled against the Muslim community since 2012. Although it should be noted that this motion was tabled before the horrific attack in Quebec City, this tragic event reaffirms the need for us to take action on Islamophobia.

A significant piece of misinformation that has been circulated about M-103 is that it would make criticizing religiously motivated violence a crime. Such an idea is categorically false. This is because M-103 is a motion, not a bill. The distinction is that while a passed bill does become law in Canada, a motion is a non-binding resolution in the House of Commons. What M-103 aims to accomplish is to condemn racist anti-Islamic sentiment and initiate a study in the Standing Committee on Heritage to explore ways to address the issue.

This is also not the first such motion to be debated in the House of Commons, many of which have passed, often by unanimous consent. Relevant examples would be a unanimously adopted motion condemning anti-Semitism in early 2015 and most notably on October 26 a motion condemning all forms of Islamophobia was unanimously adopted in the House of Commons and
supported by members of all parties.

In the same way that Canadians took a stand against hatred and violence perpetrated upon the Jewish community, M-103 decries similar acts carried out against our country’s Muslim population. It in no way limits an individual’s right to freedom of speech or alters the Criminal Code of Canada. Just as we must condemn violence in all forms, so too must we extend this
condemnation to violence carried out upon Muslim Canadians who are our neighbours, classmates, colleagues and friends.

The Government of Canada firmly believes that diversity is our strength, and religious freedom is a value that Canadians hold dear. M-103 calls for a holistic way of combatting hatred, fear and violence across our country and is a victory not just for those targeted by these crimes, but for all of us who believe that Canada is made stronger by the diverse thoughts, opinions and faiths
of all those who call this country home. “

John Aldag
Member of Parliament for Cloverdale-Langley City

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Gunraj Gill
Office of John Aldag, Member of Parliament
778-389-6353
john.aldag.a1@parl.gc.ca

Debate on Bill C-37 and our Government's Response to the Opioid Crisis

Highlights from debate on Bill C-37 and our Government's response to the national opioid crisis on behalf of Cloverdale - Langley City - February 14, 2017.

Full statement on Bill C-37 and our Government's response to the national opioid crisis on behalf of Cloverdale - Langley City - February 14, 2017.

Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. This Bill is part of the Government of Canada’s comprehensive approach to drug policy; one that strikes a balance between public health and public safety.

Last year in my province of British Columbia, over 900 people died of drug overdoses. This was an 80% increase from 2015 and we now know that the opioid “fentanyl” was disproportionately responsible for these deaths. As the medical community has known for some time, and as the general public is becoming increasingly aware of, fentanyl is a difficult drug to combat. When used legitimately, it is a powerful pain suppressor which can help people suffering acute and chronic ailments. However when used inappropriately, incredibly small doses can be fatal.

What has become evident in my community is that illicit fentanyl has become both widely available and far too easy to obtain. So today I stand in this House not only for my riding of Cloverdale-Langley City or as a British Columbian, but for all Canadians who have been, or may be affected by the opioid crisis.

Central to the Government of Canada’s efforts to help individuals and communities affected by the current drug emergency is the reintroduction of harm reduction as an integral part of our country’s narcotic strategy. This Bill includes changes to streamline the application process for new supervised consumption sites, which I believe is not simply a compassionate course of action, but a responsible and evidence-based decision which has been proven to save lives.

This important public health initiative will be partnered with the recently announced “Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy.” The Strategy is built on four pillars: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement, which will be grounded in a strong evidence base to bring about a decrease in both the manufacturing and consumption of illicit opioids, and the tragic instance of overdose deaths across our country.

The Government knows that while we must address the public health perspective in dealing with the crisis at hand, we must also deal with the illicit drug supply issue. That is why Bill C-37 addresses problematic drug use from all sides and includes proposals to respond to controlled substances obtained through illicit sources.

Canada’s drug control laws are centred on the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, also known as “the CDSA”. This Act serves a dual purpose of protecting public health and maintaining public safety.

The CDSA provides controls over drugs that can alter mental processes and that may result in harm to one’s health… and to society when misused. This is done by regulating the legitimate use of controlled substances and prohibiting unlawful activities such as import, export and trafficking of controlled substances and precursors.

As I discussed earlier, problematic and illegal substance use, coupled with an illicit drug supply that has become increasingly more dangerous has led to a spike in overdoses and deaths. This risk is especially pertinent to fentanyl, given its extreme potency and difficulty to detect in other so-called “recreational drugs.”

Our Government is committed to protecting public health and safety by curbing production and trafficking of banned substances. Bill C-37 would amend the CDSA to provide the necessary tools to do so.

At the end of 2016, the Government of Canada added six fentanyl precursors to the list of controlled substances under the CDSA to help address the illegal production of fentanyl and related drugs. If passed, Bill C-37 would provide a wider array of effective tools to fight the illegal production and trafficking of all dangerous narcotics, including fentanyl and carfentanil.

In addition, many overdoses have come as a result of ingesting drugs that appear identical to legitimately produced pharmaceuticals. These drugs are made without adequate controls and often contain unpredictable amounts of high potency, and potentially lethal, substances such as fentanyl and carfentanil. Essential to making these illegal drugs are pill presses and encapsulator devices and illegal producers can turn out thousands of counterfeit pills or capsules in a very short time. This presents a significant risk to public health and safety.

That being said, pill presses and encapsulators are also used in legitimate manufacturing processes in the pharmaceutical, food and consumer product industries. This is why a registration system is being proposed, whose new requirement would impose minimal burden on legitimate manufacturers.

Importers of pill presses and encapsulators devices would simply have to register with Health Canada prior to bringing these devices into this country. Importation of these devices without proof of registration would be prohibited, and border officials could detain those arriving without proper registration.

Changes are also being proposed to help information sharing between Health Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency, about the importation of pill presses and encapsulators, and also with law enforcement agencies in the course of an investigation.

In addition to the registration of imported pill press and encapsulator equipment, C-37 would broaden the scope of “pre-production activities” associated with the production of illegal drugs. Pre-production activities include buying and assembling chemical ingredients or industrial equipment with the intention of using it to make illicit narcotics. The offences and punishments would be extended to capture equipment and chemicals not currently listed in the CDSA Schedules.

Bill C-37’s proposed amendments to the Customs Act would also allow border officials to open incoming international mail weighing 30 grams or less, if there are grounds to suspect it contains goods which are prohibited, controlled or regulated under another Act of Parliament. This would allow border officials to open packages that are suspected to contain substances intended for use in the production of illicit drugs, and is in response to substantial evidence that illicit drugs such as fentanyl are being brought into Canada through the postal system. While 30 grams may seem like a small amount, it is equivalent to approximately 15 thousand lethal doses of fentanyl.

The changes proposed in Bill C-37 are an important part of the Government’s multi-faceted plan to address the growing opioid crisis in Canada. The Bill would provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to take early action against suspected drug production operations and to respond to the ever-changing illicit drug market.

At the end of 2016, news of over ten overdose deaths in one night in British Columbia highlighted an already alarming, and tragic situation and the opioid crisis has not gone away with the beginning of the New Year. Instead, it gets worse as hard-working emergency responders and public health officials struggle to keep up with the increasing number of those afflicted. Unfortunately, I witness this challenge in my own riding of Cloverdale-Langley City, one of Canada’s communities most affected by the opioid crisis. Sadly, my constituents are not alone in facing this issue.

As we in this House study legislation from day-to-day, we must often ask ourselves: “what will be the direct result of this legislation, this action?” With Bill C-37, we have an opportunity to pass legislation that will directly save lives. There is currently tremendous work being done to combat this issue, such as the RCMP’s Surrey Outreach Team, who have been effective in addressing addiction and homelessness issues in our local community. This task force responded to 55 overdoses in just two weeks, and have continued saving lives in the City of Surrey. While the individual efforts of police detachments and public health officials has resulted in positive results at the local level, these front-line responders need federal assistance, and a national framework to tackle the issue.

The sooner Bill C-37 becomes law in Canada, the sooner it can help those most afflicted by this ongoing public health emergency. I trust that all Members of this House understand the importance of this Bill and hope that they will support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

✔︎ C-30 (CETA)

Bill

C-30: An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

Second Reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

All 28 EU Member States approved the conclusion of CETA and have signed the agreement. The next step in the EU’s approval process will be a vote in the European Parliament, following which CETA will enter into force. A vote in the European Parliament is expected in December. All EU Member States will also need to approve the agreement before it can be fully brought into force. CETA is a top priority for Canada. We are working with our partners in Europe to ensure implementation next year. CETA will deliver positive results and opportunities for citizens in the EU and Canada.

Result

Passed.

Open Letter: Electoral Reform in Canada

To the people of Cloverdale - Langley City,

On Wednesday, February 1st, the Government of Canada announced we would not continue pursuing changes to the way we vote in our federal elections. This came as a surprise to many Canadians who have been advocating for a change to our existing First Past the Post System, and I certainly understand the disappointment felt by many people across the country. As a member of the former Special Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE), I would like to take this opportunity to explain the rationale behind our Government’s decision this week, and my thoughts on this decision.

From June to December of last year, I, along with colleagues from all parties in the House of Commons conducted a far-reaching study on changing Canada’s voting system. This experience gave Members insight into the various strengths and weaknesses of a wide array of electoral systems. What became clear quite quickly was that there is no perfect electoral model. Each one has its strengths, and each its downsides. This is true of all electoral systems, and is not why the Government of Canada is not pursuing electoral reform. 

At the same time, the Minister of Democratic Institutions attempted to engage Canadians on electoral reform in many ways. Despite these numerous efforts to consult with people across the country, what became evident was that Canadians, by and large, were not engaged with the process. Several polls conducted during the Committee’s study showed that electoral reform was the least, or near the least important issue to the majority of Canadians. There was, and continues to be, a commendably vocal community pushing for electoral reform. These individuals attended town halls across the country, wrote to their Member of Parliament, and participated in the variety of processes that were underway. I greatly enjoyed meeting these dedicated citizens and seeing their dedication to this issue. However, the argument that too few Canadians engaged in the process to confer a mandate to change the voting system is indisputable.

Another consideration that quickly became apparent once exploration of electoral reform began was that even among the community of individuals advocating to change our voting system, there was little consensus to be found. Those who participated indicated that Canada should transition to a proportional system of government, and the Committee’s majority report reflected this. With that being said, there are dozens of different systems of proportional government, and often, proponents of one proportional system had grave concerns about another. 

Electoral reform differs from many issues a Government faces on a daily basis. It concerns the fundamental way that Canadians connect to their democracy and their representatives, as well as how Government functions in our country. During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party made a commitment to change the voting system. This commitment has now been retracted, but this decision was not done lightly. Much effort went into promoting this issue across the country, and both the Minister of Democratic Institutions and the ERRE Committee were deeply committed to hearing input from across the country. 

Some people have argued that input from Canadians is not inherently necessary to change the way we
vote. This is a perfectly reasonable argument, but I will explain why I disagree. While it is true that a government cannot conduct intensively broad consultations on every decision that is made, I believe that changing the nature of our democracy requires a unique level of explicit support from the citizens participating with it. Despite the efforts of all parties to engage in the issue, this was not reached, and pursuing sweeping changes without the expressed consent of Canadians would be a troubling breach of their confidence. This concern notwithstanding, the lack of consensus among those advocating reform adds another layer of ambiguity on how this would proceed.

Despite all this, I still believe there is substantial merit to electoral reform. Being on the ERRE Committee gave me the opportunity to study the issue closely and many experts in the field, both from Canada and internationally, gave insightful testimony into how change could benefit Canada. The Committee’s majority report recommended some measure of proportionality to be added to Canada’s electoral system, and I see the value in this change. For me personally, my conviction that the Government of Canada should not unilaterally change the electoral systems stems not from a disagreement with the value of electoral reform, but from my view that the way we vote is too fundamental to our society to change without adequate support. We must maintain the integrity of our electoral system and the trust Canadians have in our system. Changes cannot be rushed.

Although the Government of Canada will not be changing the voting system by 2019, this does not spell the end to democratic reform. The Minister of Democratic Institutions, Ms. Karina Gould, is continuing reforms to Canada’s Senate appointment process, making the Chamber less partisan and more responsive to the needs of Canadian people. We are also changing the way federal appointments are made, placing the emphasis on merit and technical ability, and making them less conducive to patronage appointments. In addition, our Government has tabled legislation that will repeal undemocratic aspects of the previous Government’s “Fair Elections Act,” which will abolish partisan politically-motivated changes that were made to the way Canadians vote. I will also continue to advocate for changes to our electoral system that will address concerns such as declining participation, particularly amongst youth.

While I respect and acknowledge that these words will not satisfy those who passionately believe in the necessity of electoral reform, I hope I have been able to articulate by beliefs surrounding the issue, and have clarified our Government’s reasons for not pursuing with the initiative. As always, I welcome response and feedback from all constituents, and I would encourage anyone who wishes to have a conversation about electoral reform, or any issue, to contact my office. Both I and my staff are always doing our best to serve the people of Cloverdale-Langley City.

Sincerely,

John Aldag
Member of Parliament for Cloverdale-Langley City

✔︎ C-37 (Controlled Drugs and Substances)

Bill

C-37: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

Third Reading.

Vote

Yea.

Rationale

Our government must continue to respond to this tragic crisis in a way that is comprehensive, collaborative and compassionate. This legislation proposes to ease the burden on communities that wish to open a supervised consumption site, while putting stronger measures in place to stop the flow of illicit drugs and strengthening the systems in place for licensed controlled substances facilities. And we will continue to work with our partners across the country to continue bringing forward evidence-based solutions to save lives and ensure that 2017 is the year that marks a turn on this national public health crisis.

Result

Passed.

✔︎ C-4 (Public Sector Collective Bargaining)

Bill

C-4: An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act

Third Reading.

Vote

Yea.

rationale

The Government of Canada believes that Bills C-377 and C-525 diminish and weaken Canada’s labour movement and are counter-productive to a positive working relationship between employees and employers. Given the essential role that unions play in protecting the rights of workers and helping the middle class grow and prosper, and the importance of restoring a fair and balanced approach to labour relations, the Government is proposing to repeal the provisions enacted by these two Bills. Repealing Bills C-377 and C-525 was identified as a priority in the mandate letters of the Honourable Patricia A. Hajdu, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, and the Honourable Judy Foote, Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

Result

Passed.