Alex Ruff
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the family-run Tyson Downs Association for donating a new AED SaveStation at Harrison Park in Owen Sound. Tyson Downs was an exceptional 18-year-old athlete and lacrosse player who passed away suddenly in 2023 as the result of cardiac arrest.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for getting to the crux of the challenges with bail reform and the fact that, when this bill went through the House, it was supported completely. The issue around sureties was discussed and an amendment was unanimously agreed to by all parties in this chamber before it went to the Senate.”
“Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP Act mandates that it must be reviewed before October 6, 2022. Unlike in his response on January 29, could the House leader please provide the date the government intends to initiate the long-overdue review of the act?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. They are calling upon the Liberal government to stop its cuts to Canada Post rural delivery.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the two questions my hon. colleague was already asked, because in my opinion, when people are breaking the law or they are avoiding taxes, it is all about transparency and accountability. In particular, I want to ask him what he thinks the end result will be.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation. I want to get back to the answer to my previous question.”
The complete record
Every one of 179 lines we hold for Alex Ruff, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“I want to thank the Tyson Downs Association, SaveStation, the Owen Sound Attack, the City of Owen Sound and everyone who helped make this possible. I congratulate them and thank them for helping to improve cardiac safety in our community.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the family-run Tyson Downs Association for donating a new AED SaveStation at Harrison Park in Owen Sound. Tyson Downs was an exceptional 18-year-old athlete and lacrosse player who passed away suddenly in 2023 as the result of cardiac arrest. Yesterday, this new SaveStation was officially unveiled just outside the Harrison Park Inn in Owen Sound. It houses an automated external defibrillator that is now available to the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Harrison Park is one of the busiest public spaces in our community. Families, athletes, visitors and community groups use it throughout the year. In an emergency, having an AED close by can make the difference between life and death.”
“I am now concerned that, with this loophole in the bill, these people, who do have to convince the judge, will have the ability to get back out when they should be spending time in jail if they cannot find somebody to cover for them or to be their surety.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for getting to the crux of the challenges with bail reform and the fact that, when this bill went through the House, it was supported completely. The issue around sureties was discussed and an amendment was unanimously agreed to by all parties in this chamber before it went to the Senate. I do find it somewhat hypocritical of the government to not reject this amendment, like the other amendments that have come back from the Senate on this bill. As the member indicated, it creates vagueness. I know the member referred to rural crime. I have the same challenge in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, where the same repeat offenders, who are robbing our farmers and our rural people, are getting back out on bail. That is why we need bail reform so badly after 11 years of the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP Act mandates that it must be reviewed before October 6, 2022. Unlike in his response on January 29, could the House leader please provide the date the government intends to initiate the long-overdue review of the act? Further, will the Liberals support my motion, which would establish a joint committee to ensure that Parliament abides by this law?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. They are calling upon the Liberal government to stop its cuts to Canada Post rural delivery. In particular, they cite their concerns about the impacts that this is going to have on rural communities, indigenous communities, seniors and disabled communities, and the fact that this decision has not been released publicly and with very limited public input. Therefore, petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to stop the cuts and immediately launch a fully transparent public mandate review that allows all stakeholders to provide meaningful input.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the two questions my hon. colleague was already asked, because in my opinion, when people are breaking the law or they are avoiding taxes, it is all about transparency and accountability. In particular, I want to ask him what he thinks the end result will be. Will this help and potentially enable additional changes to our tax laws and our Criminal Code? As he talked about in his speech, unfortunately, Canada has a bad track record of not collecting any of the money that has not been properly paid to the government coffers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to give my colleague the opportunity to remind all Canadians who will ultimately foot the bill for the 15% increase if the Liberal government does not reject this streaming tax increase proposed by the CRTC and does not scrap it.”
“These are all very important things that I think we need to do, and I encourage those members in the other place to take this into consideration as the bill goes forward. However, the ultimate disappointment I have with the government's decision not to respect the victims and the decisions made at committee is that we are not going to get this right. As I said before, I predict that those of us who will have the privilege of still being in this chamber in a few years will be dealing with the next iteration of this bill and, unfortunately, apologizing to the victims who are not going to get the justice they deserve.”
“If all the amendments that were done, in some cases with all-party consensus, get removed and Bill C-11 passes in its current form, the challenge we are going to have is that the victims are not going to get justice. There are two things that I think we are going to see happen at the Senate. Based on the minister 's own commentary here in the chamber, he is open to the sunset clause amendment that did pass at committee, which the government has since removed, to be put back into the bill. The other thing I think needs to be included in the bill is some sort of data collection provision. The biggest challenges we hear all the time, especially as these cases get transferred to civilian authorities, are how many they actually take, how many result in a charge being laid and how many end up with something occurring.”
“I have highlighted before that ultimately the decision was made in late 2021 by the director of military prosecutions, in light of the report that came out by Justice Arbour, to try to transfer all Criminal Code sexual offences to the civilian authorities. In the last five years, we have learned that the civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the resources or the capacity to deal with all these Criminal Code sexual offences. Part of the reason is that sometimes the cases are historical in nature and the courts do not view that they are in the best interest of public safety here in Canada. However, they are definitely in the best interest of justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, discipline and the necessary requirements that we need of our Canadian Armed Forces members.”
“Mr. Speaker, because of the programming motion and the time allocation on this, I am going to be the last individual to speak in this chamber, unless the bill comes back, and there is a very high probability that it may come back, based on the Minister of National Defence 's indication earlier in this chamber. When I spoke to the bill earlier this week, I highlighted the importance that we get it right. This is about the victims. This is about our military justice system. This is about retaining the credibility of our military police and our military prosecutors, but in the end, it is all about a victim-centred, trauma-informed decision within our Canadian Armed Forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation. I want to get back to the answer to my previous question. The member stated that if one of the members of the CAF commits a heinous crime, a Criminal Code sexual offence, overseas, he has complete faith in our military police to be able to collect the data, but then it needs to be transferred to the civilian courts. Unfortunately, that is not what is going to happen when Bill C-11 passes. The same thing that occurs right now will happen when that bill passes. If the military police can find a police of jurisdiction, if there is some way to make that connection and they are willing to take that charge on, then, yes, but in the end it is going to be the military justice system that is going to do justice for these victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary have faith in our current military police and their ability to do justice for victims when a Criminal Code sexual offence occurs outside Canada, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was moved by my Conservative colleague earlier today, which is to put this bill back to the committee to, specifically, look at some of the clauses and amendments that were passed by the committee, including Liberal members of that committee, which the government, unfortunately, has removed during report stage. This is important because the minister signalled publicly in this chamber, just a day or two ago, that he is open to having the sunset clause be put back in. That was passed by the committee when it was studying the bill. Does the member think it is somewhat hypocritical of the government to say, “We have screwed this up. We made a mess of it. We are going to let the Senate fix it. It can amend it and then send it back to us”? What does the member think?”
“With the choice that has existed now over the last five years, we are giving victims the opportunity to make sure justice is served and for the military to take administrative action even when criminal court proceedings go through on the civilian side. What does the member think about those comments?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was tabled by my colleague, and even the comments that just came from the member for Winnipeg North , because I agree with my Bloc colleague that this is about choice for the victims. The member for Winnipeg North keeps bringing up this issue of what Justice Arbour recommended. A lot has changed, and I gave a full speech on this earlier this week at the report stage, highlighting that we have actually gotten this right. The system now provides that the military police try to transfer any of these Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian courts or to the civilian jurisdiction. However, police in these jurisdictions are coming back saying they cannot do it. Their threshold is too high, they do not have the resources, and now, basically, justice is not getting served.”
“Unfortunately, on Monday, this symbolic groundbreaking spent more time focused on the monument itself instead of the veterans and their families. I am committed to doing what I can to ensure, when this monument is built and officially unveiled in 2028, that Afghan veterans are the focus. I plea with the Liberal government to do the same. Lest we forget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a plea to the government that we need to do better. This week, Veterans Affairs hosted the long-delayed national Afghanistan war memorial groundbreaking. This monument will recognize the commitment and sacrifice of the over 40,000 sailors, soldiers, aviators and special forces operators, along with hundreds of Canadian civilians, who served in Canada's longest combat mission, which was from 2011 to 2014. It will serve as an enduring testament to the 158 Canadian Armed Forces personnel and seven Canadian civilians who made the supreme sacrifice. It is on all of us to ensure that they and their families are never forgotten. Where we, and the government, need to improve is in having the Afghan veterans be front and centre with this project.”
“Right now, we have a military police system that will try to move things over to the civilian courts when a case is severe enough, but at the same time, they can ensure that justice is served. Would the member agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague just to elaborate a bit more on where the improvements have happened. In fact, ever since that direction to try to move many of the Criminal Code sex offences over to the civilian courts, unfortunately, there have been obstacles that the military police have run into, and lots of these police jurisdictions refuse to accept it because of that higher threshold, so there are victims not getting the justice they need. However, because this law, Bill C-11 , has not passed, the military police are able to do that. Not only have they learned. Not only is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights there, which has come in within the military. Not only has all of this changed, but we actually have landed on the solution and we do not need to change things.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bruce County and Grey County beef farmers have publicly expressed concerns about the ongoing negotiations with Mercosur. They said, “This won't just hurt farmers—it will weaken rural communities and reduce Canada's ability to produce its own food.... In Ontario...where most imported beef enters the market, the impact on local farmers would be severe.” Canadian beef producers are waiting to get more access in markets across the world. Should the Liberal government not be prioritizing export market access abroad instead of displacing the Canadian cattle industry at home?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I do not know if anybody is going to be held to account. That is going to be the problem with this, because ultimately it is an abdication of responsibility and accountability within the CAF, which is what I highlighted in my speech. It is about handing this off and saying that police officers are able to deal with this. As the member noted, they are already overloaded. Their threshold is much higher than the military's and I think we are not going to do the victims justice. They are going to be the ones who will suffer from this and we will be back at this trying to fix this mistake a few years from now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could use a really derogatory term, but I will not. My point is that it is the government that is making a mistake. Ultimately, I think we need to get this right. This is about the victims. The committee did so much hard work. The witnesses testified. I am not taking anything away from what Justice Arbour brought forward. This is a tough position for the CAF and the senior leadership of the CAF. However, I dare say that if we go back and review the testimony put forward at committee by the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the Canadian director of military prosecutions, they weighed their concerns on this. Again, this is ultimately about taking care of the victims. I do not think the government is going to get it right if it removes the hard work of the committee and what it put forward as recommendations.”
“Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary with respect to Justice Arbour, things have changed. In previous speeches we have outlined this. The victims' bill of rights is no longer there. We have a sexual misconduct resource centre available. The independence has gone forward. The military police have actually fixed and addressed the key things that allowed for the situations upon which Justice Arbour made her recommendations. It was brought up previously in the debate that unfortunately Justice Arbour chose not to show up at committee to testify. Things have changed. In the military, the last thing we do when we do a mission analysis is ask whether the situation has changed. Since 2021, the situation has changed, as I highlighted during my speech, based on the recommendations that came from Fish and Arbour.”
“My plea to the government is that we need to do this right. If we cannot fix it in this place, I am praying the other place will be able to fix it, because I have legitimate concerns that we would be making a mistake if this bill passed as the government wants to amend it.”
“We are seeing this in jurisdictions like Ireland right now, which went through this sort of step. It is now trying to figure out how to undo what it did. It is trying to fix the situation it is in. This would break trust with our military police and within the CAF and is basically an abdication of responsibility and leadership, from my viewpoint. This bill, no matter what, needs a sunset clause. What concerns me is that we will be back in Parliament in three years, five years or six years from now saying we messed up. We will be apologizing to the victims for not getting it right. We are not going to be able to fix that harm we caused. I say “we” meaning the Parliament of Canada, this chamber and the other place. It would not do the victims justice. It is important that we get this right.”
“I would argue that in the types of operations we are doing now in places like Latvia, where there are DND members and their families, we would see the potential for a higher level of these types of cases because, again, those in the CAF doing that are not perfect. My point is that someone could do something in Latvia and be charged for it, but if a person were to do the same thing in the CAF in Canada, they may not be charged for it. To wrap this up, this is what concerns me. A victim-centred, trauma-informed approach would not happen as the military police would lose this concurrent jurisdiction. More charges would be dropped. There would be less accountability within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current civilian system is already overloaded and, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, has a much higher threshold.”
“Since 2022, all the former cases that used to be done by summary trial and are now dealt with at courts martial must be investigated by the military police. The civilian police acknowledge their incredible capability. In fact, if I had enough time, I could share stories where victims were so happy to have their situations investigated by military police instead of local police. Let us talk about outside of Canada. I am not talking about a host nation perpetrator or victim, but specifically about where military police can investigate a CAF member, whether a victim or perpetrator, and a Canadian victim. Latvia is a good example. In this case, military police would investigate, weigh the charges and decide whether they should end up in the military or civilian justice system, as they can still do. They would maintain that skill set.”
“Right now, the way that local police of jurisdiction are dealing with this is very slowly; they are not keen on sharing that information with the military police. We would basically be taking this choice away from the victims. It would not be clean. It could be something as simple as a lower-level harassment issue that maybe should not be criminal in nature as it would not necessarily meet that threshold, but because it would fall under the changes being forecast to pass in Bill C-11 , if the government got its way, they would not be able to do anything. The removal of this would fundamentally undermine the reputation of our military police. As I mentioned earlier, military police are experts.”
“As soon as the military police, during an investigation, find any suspicion of a Criminal Code sex offence, they would have to contact, transfer or refer this to the local police of jurisdiction. A CAF victim would go to them and they would have to give them a phone number for the OPP or for the Ottawa Police Service, for example. It is not ideal. The police of jurisdiction would not be compelled to do anything about it. If the Canadian Armed Forces chooses to go ahead with administrative actions, the problem is that they would not be allowed to investigate. Section 70 of the National Defence Act lists all of the sexual offences that are tied to Criminal Code offences. Their hands would be tied and they would not be able to investigate.”
“There is the military police, which has fixed and addressed many of the shortfalls that had existed historically in our system, that is now able to do this in collaboration with the victim and the police of jurisdiction to make a case and go forward. I think that the way the system is functioning today when it comes to dealing with Criminal Code sex offences is right. (1640) Now let us talk about what happens if this bill passes with the amendments the Liberal government has made to change what was passed in committee. First off, for the first time ever in Canada, a police force, the military police, would lose jurisdiction to investigate criminal offences within its own jurisdiction. The military police are the police of jurisdiction for the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“We have seen this with public statements of affirmation from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police of the incredible professional competency of our military police. For some of the cases that were brought forward, the civilian police looked at them and said that there was no public interest in moving forward because some of them might have been historical or that public safety was not being dealt with. Further, in this interim time frame, the declaration of victims' rights had been implemented. This means that not on purpose, but because of an interim direction in 2021, we now have a choice for victims. Victims are getting the best of both worlds.”
“That direction was clear; however, the military found out that local police of jurisdiction were not accepting the files. Military police then were able to do a victim-centred trauma analysis. They could conduct the investigations for a number of reasons. The civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the capacity or the resources to deal with it. Their threshold is much higher than the standard that the Canadian Armed Forces expects and there is a much larger gamut of tools available within the Canadian Armed Forces for both disciplinary and administrative action that allowed all of this to take place. Part of the reason that the civilian police of jurisdiction pushed back was that they believed that the military police were more than capable and competent to do this.”
“When I say MPs, I mean military police, not members of Parliament. I will likely say “police of jurisdiction”, or POJ. Let us back up a little bit. In November 2021, the director of military prosecutions and the Canadian Armed Forces provost marshal decided to transfer all Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian jurisdiction. This was a result of Justice Fish and Justice Arbour's recommendations, and they were sort of an interim directive to go forward. Prior to that, there were concurrent investigations by both civilian authorities and the military police that resulted in some cases prior to 2021 ending up tried as civilian cases. However, when this interim direction came into place in 2021, it was the intent that ideally all CCSO would be transferred.”
“I want to focus around the transfer of jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civilian authorities when the offences take place in Canada and what this would mean for our Canadian Armed Forces, where I had the privilege to serve for 25 years. Today I am wearing my Royal Military College tie. The college's motto is “Truth, Duty, Valour”, something that I think is essential with this bill. I am also wearing the tie clip of my regiment, the motto of which is pro patria , or “for country”, but the slogan is what I want to focus on, which is “Never Pass a Fault”. I feel that we are in a position right now where the government is making a mistake. I am going to try to lay this out. There are a few things for all listeners here because I am going to use some abbreviations. Criminal Code sex offences is CCSO.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here again. The last time I rose at second reading on this bill, I talked a bit about my military background, but I focused on why it is so important that we get this bill right, especially for the victims and the accused. This bill would do a number of things, and in fact parts of Bill C-11 are actually very good, a step in the right direction and needed. I do not want to debate those, which are in reference to the independence around the director of military prosecutions, the provost marshal, etc. Nor do I want to focus on any amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Economic Institute said, “We don't need a Canada Infrastructure Bank 2.0”. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommended “[t]hat the Government of Canada abolish the Canada Infrastructure Bank.” With this in mind, does the member agree that Canadians do not need this sovereign wealth fund?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition is about the fact that this fund is, basically, being funded on the taxpayers' credit cards. We are already paying to service our national debt, and this will just add to it. Going forward, it is going to have an impact on the hon. leader's children, my daughter and the youth in this country being able to live a prosperous life in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is so important we do this right. I mentioned this earlier, and countless other members have highlighted it, but this has been attempted at least three times or four times over the last 25 or 30 years. Unfortunately, because balancing public safety and privacy rights is such a controversial issue, we need to get this right. This can only be done through deliberate, careful and very wide consultation with every stakeholder who has any sort of foot in this game when it comes to lawful access.”
“Mr. Speaker, I actually cannot share my party's perspective writ large. That is a great question for the shadow minister for public safety or the shadow minister for justice on my side. I can share my own personal take on it, which is that we do have to balance it correctly. We talked about it. I quoted about it extensively in my speech. This is something I think absolutely needs to get fleshed out at committee. We need to have the same access to experts on this topic that the other members of the NSICOP committee and I had the privilege of having, in order to look at how we balance this. Again, I will reiterate what the report states. If the member read it, he would see it states clearly that privacy and public safety and public security are complementary even when it comes around lawful access.”
“Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Actually, the member can just read the report that I quoted extensively. This is something we absolutely need to address. The point, though, is that everybody ultimately, as I mentioned during my speech, thinks this should not be rushed. It needs to be done properly. As I have said countless times in response to this member, everybody in this chamber should have the exact same amount of time to speak to every bill as the member for Winnipeg North.”
“There have been been calls for this for decades and former governments have tried to, unfortunately, no success. In my opinion, Bill C-22 is the initial step to get us there. However, I fully believe that Bill C-22 needs full scrutiny at committee and that we, parliamentarians, need to be sure we are talking the same language and addressing the same concerns. In my opinion, the Liberal government is absolutely failing at addressing “a common understanding of key concepts” with respect to Bill C-22. It still has time to fix this.”
“Paragraph 175: The Committee also observed that privacy and cybersecurity advocates and national security practitioners appear to be talking past one another in debates about encryption and exceptional access for law enforcement and intelligence organizations. As stakeholders debate policy initiatives or legislation, it will be critical for both sides to ensure a common understanding of key concepts. For the government, the Committee suggests that a robust, transparent communication strategy, which explains technical concepts in detail, is fundamental. Unfortunately, this is where the Liberals' current communications strategy is failing to address this need and needs to be rectified. In conclusion, Canada absolutely needs updated legislation around lawful access.”
“Both Bill C-12 and Bill C-22 are the appropriate compromises as a result. Again, I mentioned this earlier. Unfortunately, the government's delay of the NSICOP report on lawful access hindered the ability to fully leverage the extensive work done by this bicameral, all-recognized-party committee that only includes findings and recommendations that have unanimous support of all its members. Again, I mentioned this was given to the Prime Minister on March 4, but not tabled here in Parliament until September 15, despite my encouraging a number of the Liberal government ministers to table it back in June. Here is a key paragraph from the report that will highlight the ongoing challenges around debate.”
“They instead regard the judicially authorized practice of using tools built into a CSP’s system, which are encryption neutral, as using the “front door.” From paragraph 172, “Importantly, the committee did not hear any government official call for legislation to compel the creation of exceptional access or 'backdoors' to get around encryption.” Long-winded, but that is all from the report. This is where I want to get to the issues that I am hearing from constituents and even during debate here in the House, and where the Liberal government is failing. First off, I talked about this a bit earlier, the Liberals tabled omnibus Bill C-2 , which included a few clauses on lawful access. However, the bill was focused on everything from border security and immigration to banning cash transactions, and was doomed to fail from the start.”
“Instead, it would be safer and more beneficial for law enforcement and national security agencies to be able to leverage the information already accessible by CSPs.” Some cybersecurity experts and privacy advocates, however, consider lawful intercept capability a backdoor, citing that there is “no such thing as a security backdoor that is only for the ‘good guys.’” Others similarly contend that while it might be argued that “surveillance technology can be built securely and without risk of penetration by hostile forces,” the “track record is not encouraging.” Neither CSIS or RCMP view intercept capability as a backdoor, because it does not compromise encryption platforms or software.”
“While it noted that “there are means of creating technical solutions which are currently considered secure,” it stated that it would have a concern with legislation compelling CSPs or software providers to implement backdoors, which could compromise the cybersecurity more generally. According to the RCMP, backdoors “create vulnerabilities and can weaken the overall security of a network; they create valid security concerns given the potential for these vulnerabilities to be exploited by criminals or other hostile actors. Recognizing the need to protect sensitive information and maintain individuals’ right to privacy, the RCMP does not advocate for the creation of ‘backdoors’ into CSPs’ networks.”
“CCCS defines a backdoor as an “undocumented, private, or less detectable-way of gaining remote access to a computer, bypassing authentication measures, and obtaining access to plaintext.” The Citizen Lab states, “[o]nce a backdoor is created, there is no practical guarantee that only state agencies will walk through it. This fundamental flaw makes exceptional access systems an inherent threat to persons who rely on encrypted communications products.” This view is echoed by many cybersecurity experts. (1300) Continuing on in the report: CSE told the Committee that it also has a concern with backdoors.”
“Parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate new legislation about lawful access with clear eyes and careful consideration, not in a rushed, emotional debate in reaction to a national tragedy. The longer these issues are kept on the backburner, the more the government opens itself up to the risk of following a similar path. Now I want to get to the idea of intercept capability and the issue of back doors. Paragraph 104 states: Policy debates about how to respond to the challenge of encryption have included proposals that the government could require companies to create exceptional access to encryption programs, or backdoors, for security and intelligence organizations.”