Rob Nicholson

[Privilege, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments.

The Minister of Justice introduced the bill on Holy Thursday, before the Easter long weekend, on March 29, 2018, at 12:11 p.m. At 12:19 p.m., eight minutes after the minister introduced the bill, CBC posted an article entitled “Liberals propose major criminal justice changes to unclog Canada's courts”.

The article goes into detail about Bill C-75 to make a prima facie case that CBC had prior knowledge of the contents of Bill C-75 before it was introduced.

For example, the article states that “The Liberal government tabled a major bill today to reform Canada's criminal justice system”, saying it contained measures designed to close gaps in the system and speed up court proceedings, including putting an end to preliminary inquiries except for the most serious crimes that carry a life sentence. It said, “The changes also include an end to peremptory challenges in jury selection” and that another proposed reform of the bill will “impose a reverse onus on bail applications by people who have a history of [domestic] abuse, which would require them to justify their release following a charge.”

Bill C-75 is an omnibus bill containing 302 pages. While I appreciate the quality of journalism at the CBC, I do not think anyone can believe that someone could read 302 pages, analyze what was read, write an article, and then post the article on the Internet with various links in just eight minutes. If such extraordinary human capabilities exist at CBC or if unknown technology exists to make this happen, then the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would like to hear about it.

All I am asking of you, Mr. Speaker, is to find a prima facie case on the question of privilege to allow a motion to be moved instructing the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look into this matter.

On March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part:

...the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be, not--do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.

Now, whether it be superhuman capabilities or advanced unknown technology available only to the media, it is unacceptable for members of Parliament to be left behind playing catch-up while the public debate on a government bill takes place outside the House, minutes after its introduction, between a well-briefed media and a well-briefed Minister of Justice.

It has become an established practice in this House that when a bill is on notice for introduction, the House has the first right to the contents of that legislation.

On April 14, 2016, the former opposition leader and current Leader of the Opposition raised a question concerning the premature disclosure of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).

The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was reported in a newspaper article and elsewhere in the media before the bill had been introduced in the House. The member stressed the need for members to access information in order to fulfill their parliamentary responsibilities, as well as the respect required for the essential role of the House in legislative matters.

On April 19, 2016, the Speaker agreed with the Leader of the Opposition and found that there was indeed a prima facia case of privilege regarding Bill C-14. He said:

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

The Speaker's concluding remarks on April 19, 2016, were as follows:

In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.

On October 4, 2010, on page 4,711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken said:

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.

There was a similar case March 19, 2001, regarding the Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill before members of Parliament. This was referenced by the Leader of the Opposition in his submission on the Bill C-14 case, in which he quoted Speaker Milliken as saying, at page 1,840 of the House of Commons Debates:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, after the Department of Justice briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House. The leak of Bill C-75 is another example of the government's disregard for Parliament and its role in the legislative process. It is important that we in the opposition call out the government for these abuses of Parliament and place before the Chair any breaches of the privileges of the House of Commons.

Speaker Milliken said:

To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

You, Mr. Speaker, said, on March 20 of this year:

...respecting members’ needs for timely and accurate information remains essential. There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

Given the facts presented and the clear precedents on this matter, I believe, Mr. Speaker, you should have no trouble in finding a prima facie question of privilege. In that event, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Peter Munk, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today to pay homage to a great Canadian, Peter Munk. Yesterday, we learned of his passing at the age of 90.

Peter Munk founded one of the world's largest gold producers, Barrick Gold Corporation, and Mr. Munk became the epitome of the Canadian dream. He was born in Budapest and escaped Hungary with his family in 1944, when the Nazis invaded. He arrived in Canada with only a suitcase and, among other things, sold Christmas trees to help support himself as a student.

One of his most famous quotes was, “You can create wealth. You are entitled to the joy of this creation. But ultimately society makes it possible, and this wealth should flow back to society.” He lived by that philosophy and donated over $300 million to worthy causes and institutions over his lifetime.

We extend our thoughts and prayers to his wife Melanie, their children, and grandchildren.

He set the “gold standard” for the rest of us and will be sorely missed.

[Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System, February 14th, 2018]

It wasn't that long ago, no, just a couple of years ago.

At that time, only the crown had the right to peremptory challenges. Defence lawyers did not. I remember when it was extended to defence lawyers, I said that it makes sense, that it evens it out, and it is fair to both sides. I am not sure what the government is proposing on this, or if it is going to propose anything, but we will have a look at it when it comes forward with something, hopefully.

[Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the government is going to propose. We go back a long way on this. Once upon a time, when I first started out in the legal profession—

[Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the Pickton case. She can check that one of the pieces of legislation Conservatives brought forward was that people who commit these horrible crimes can be subject to consecutive sentences. If there is one conviction against a person and then that is it, victims asked, “What about my daughter? What about my sister?” That was one of the steps we brought forward. We sent out the message that all victims count, that there are consequences for everyone who commits these horrible crimes. That was one of the things I was proud we did, to make consecutive sentences.

It is important that we do that, and that is exactly what we did, because it was the right thing to do. I would meet with the victims of these mass murderers and they would say that nothing is happening, that they were convicted with no trial, that there is nothing for their daughter, their granddaughter, or their sister, and I said that is completely wrong. The court should have the ability to impose consecutive sentences. That is the right thing to do, and that is what we did as a government.

[Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is consistent with one of the points I brought up, and that is that indigenous police forces would help on this. I was a big supporter of it when I was in government, and I am still a big supporter. I met with these individuals from the province of Ontario and they told me about the challenges they had with getting recognition at the federal and provincial levels. I told them it was a great idea, that we had to do this because it made sense.

With respect to missing and murdered indigenous women, I hope the resources of our country go toward finding out who did these crimes. The complete focus should be on those who committed these crimes and then bring them to justice. This is what we need to do.

There have been some challenges with the inquiry. I am hopeful that resources will be put toward to finding out who did these horrible crimes and then make them face the justice.

[Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have known the hon. member in public life, going back at least a couple of decades.

I thank him for that suggestion. That is exactly what we have to do. We have to move forward on these. There was quite a bit of criticism of the Department of Justice but in many ways the department has considerable insight into these.

I remember when I was on justice committee, listening to Don Piragoff, an outstanding individual in the Department of Justice. He pointed out that many times people who were caught up in the criminal justice system had administrative offences that otherwise were not criminal offences but they piled up on them.

For instance, if a person gets arrested and he or she is told not to be on the street after 9 o'clock, not to be in a bar, not to have anything to drink, those in and of themselves are not crimes, yet many times people who might have addiction problems and have been arrested go out. If they are drinking or if they are on the streets, it then piles up. It becomes far more complicated to deal with an individual who faces all kinds of charges. I really appreciate my colleague pointing that out.

We have to look at what really happens in our country with respect to indigenous peoples. I spoke of indigenous police forces in the province of Ontario. We have to look at ways to help them. We can make changes so they are in a better position.

During all of the years I was in government, I was a big supporter of the aboriginal court worker program. It made sense to help people to ensure they understood the system. People are having problems understanding what goes on in the system or what the system is all about, and this is part of the dialogue we are having here. We need to have this dialogue.

I hope the government will bring forward constructive amendments or legislation. I hope it has some ideas on this because we will look at them very carefully.

[Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House on the experience of indigenous peoples within Canada's justice system.

First, I would like to reiterate that our thoughts and prayers continue to go to the members of the Boushie family on the tragic loss of their son, their nephew, their brother. No family should ever have to endure such pain. Our hearts are united with the Boushie family at this most difficult time.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about the Conservative Party's record in supporting victims of crime.

My colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who has shown leadership on this issue, pointed out something very important. and that was that our colleague, the Hon. Peter MacKay, introduced the Victims Bill of Rights. Again, this is completely consistent with where the Conservative Party is, has been at in the past and continues to be. It became law in 2015. That was not the only thing we had done.

We passed Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, which among other things amended the Criminal Code to allow the swearing in of up to 14 jurors to ensure a trial could be completed. It also had other provisions. One of them was special protections for aboriginal women under the threat of domestic violence. This is known as the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests Rights Act. Again, this is an important step forward to updating Canada's laws.

Another example is that the Human Rights Code in our country did not include indigenous peoples. They did not have the protections that all Canadians deserve. Our government did that. We said that it was important for everyone in the country have those protections.

I want to be clear that the Conservative Party is always interested in ways to improve Canada's justice system.

We talked about Bill C-51, the only bill the government did bring forward, but we supported it. We will not take the position the Liberals took with the previous government when they basically opposed everything we did. We will look at any way to improve Canada's justice system.

This past week, the heartbreaking death of Colten Boushie warrants discussions about the challenges first nations people face. All Canadians want to have fair and equitable treatment for all indigenous people. In fact, if we look at what we did in government over 10 years, they were all consistent with helping to support victims and people in the criminal justice system. One of the significant resources was to expand the aboriginal justice strategy, which enabled aboriginal communities to have increased involvement in the local administration of justice.

During the 2008 fiscal year, as an example, approximately 113 programs were funded and they served nearly 400 indigenous communities. We continued to renew that as part of our economic plan. In fact, in 2014, we renewed it for another two years. Why? Because we believed it was important.

One of my colleagues on the other side said that the native courtroom program had ended. It certainly did not end under our government. It was one of those programs in which I was very interested. It was known as the aboriginal court workers program. It assisted indigenous people to understand their right to speak on their own behalf or to request legal counsel, and to better understand the nature of the charges against them. It was very important. It assisted indigenous people with the administration of the criminal justice system, with special awareness given to the values, customs, languages, socio-economic conditions of indigenous people, and ensured there were no communication barriers between indigenous people and those involved with the administration of the criminal justice system.

Let me be clear. The Conservative Party of Canada has always been interested in hearing from Canadians on ways that we can improve the criminal justice system. Certainly the heartbreaking death of Colten Boushie warrants a discussion about the challenges faced by first nations people. We would welcome and carefully consider proposed legislation that would improve the justice system, while maintaining the independence of our justice system.

Judicial independence is protected in our Constitution, and it guarantees anyone accused of a crime that his or her case will be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. Independence is necessary for public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of our justice system. It is a cornerstone of Canadian democracy. Fairness for all Canadians includes everyone, indigenous and non-indigenous. We all deserve that protection.

As I have stated, I am in favour of seeing more indigenous jurors and working with the indigenous community with other justice-related issues, including indigenous policing. Just two weeks ago, I was honoured to meet with the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians on indigenous policing and law-related issues. We discussed how we could support indigenous police services. One way of doing that would be to ensure they would be listed as first responders.

I hope the government will act on the recommendations of this group. It is extremely important that we give it assistance. The government must bring first nation policing in line with other police services. There is nothing wrong with that, and it makes sense. Those forces need to be protected under strong legislative frameworks, and afforded the same resources and support as federal and provincial police forces.

Underfunding jeopardizes the adequacy of policing in indigenous communities, and there have been examples, which I was told about, among the nine first nation police services in Ontario. For instance, I was told that they were not legislated under the Police Services Act and therefore were not required to meet the adequacy standards of other local police services. There have been a couple of articles on how this can work to the disadvantage of people who need the help.

Therefore, if the government is looking for ways to help out indigenous communities, certainly this is one way. Ensure they get the same protection and the same resources as other policing services do. Again, I heard this about a week ago from groups in Ontario that this was what they should have. If the government is looking for ways to do this, this is something on which it could move forward.

We continue to be prepared to encourage more indigenous representation and input into our justice system. That is important. As I have stated already, politicians, regardless of how powerful they are, must also respect the independence of our judicial system. If it is interfered with, it may have the unfortunate effect of impeding the crown's ability to launch an appeal.

On the weekend, I made a statement about the Boushie case. I recognized that the verdict in this case must have been difficult for all those involved, especially for the family members. However, I am pleased they are in Ottawa this week.

Again, we are open to suggestions on these things. I believe you will get more support from us for worthwhile initiatives. You will probably get more support from us than we received from you in the last Parliament. However, we have to work together.

[Human Trafficking, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, recently, I held a round table in my riding of Niagara Falls to dialogue with community leaders on how we can work together to combat human trafficking.

My colleague, the former MP Joy Smith, has done much to raise awareness on this tragic issue and will be appearing before the justice committee in March as we prepare to study human trafficking in Canada. Among the initiatives she has developed is a documentary called Human Trafficking: Canada's Secret Shame. The documentary is used as a tool to educate young girls on how traffickers use mediums such as social media to lure young people into the sex trafficking trade.

If people have a daughter, granddaughter, or niece, she is at risk of being trafficked. These evil predators prey upon girls whose average recruitment age is thirteen.

I am pleased that the justice committee is determined to shine a light on this terrible crime, and hopefully in the process, help to keep Canadian girls and women safe.

[Canadian Armed Forces, February 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, CTV has reported that the government is trying to kill a class action law suit that alleges sexual misconduct and gender discrimination within the Canadian Armed Forces. Frankly, I find this quite disturbing.

Can the Prime Minister explain why his self-proclaimed feminist government is trying to silence women who are coming forward with such serious allegations?