Bill C-13 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments)

This enactment amends various provisions of the Criminal Code in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other matters.
The amendments respecting criminal procedure provide for, among other things,
(a) the use of a means of telecommunication to forward warrants for the purpose of endorsement;
(b) changes to the process with respect to the challenge of jurors;
(c) a new election for the accused where a preferred indictment has been filed against him or her or where the Supreme Court of Canada orders a new trial;
(d) an appeal of a superior court order with respect to things seized lying with the court of appeal;
(e) summary dismissal by a single judge of the court of appeal when an appeal has erroneously been filed with that court; and
(f) a summary conviction trial with respect to co-accused that can proceed where one of the co-accused does not appear.
The amendments respecting the language of the accused clarify the application of provisions related to that matter.
The amendments respecting sentencing provide for, among other things,
(a) clarifications with respect to the application of impaired driving penalties;
(b) the power to order an offender not to communicate with identified persons while in custody and the creation of an offence for failing to comply with the order;
(c) the power to delay the sentencing proceedings so that an offender can participate in a provincially approved treatment program;
(d) an increase of the maximum fine that can be imposed for a summary conviction offence to $5,000 and a change with respect to the calculation of the period of imprisonment to be imposed in default of payment of a fine;
(e) the suspension of a conditional sentence order or a probation order during an appeal;
(f) in the case of a person serving a youth sentence who receives an adult sentence, clarification that the remaining portion of the youth sentence is converted to an adult sentence; and
(g) the power of a court to order, on application by the Attorney General and after convicting a person of the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system, the forfeiture of things used in relation to that offence.
The enactment amends the description of the offence of conveying information on betting and book-making so that the offence encompasses the conveying of that information by any means and makes related changes to the exemption provided with respect to the use of a pari-mutuel system.
Finally, amendments are also made to reclassify the offence of possession of break and enter instruments into a dual procedure offence.

Justice and Human Rights

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

moved:

That the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Tuesday, April 28, 2014, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, the Statutory Review of Part XVII of the Criminal Code report says the following:

The 8 November 2012 order of reference from the House of Commons provided “[t]hat the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code.” During the subsequent parliamentary session, an identical order of reference was adopted by the House of Commons on 16 October 2013.

Section 533.1, added to the Criminal Code (“the Code”) upon passage of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) in 2008, reads as follows:

(1) Within three years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Part shall be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.

(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that the committee recommends.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (“the Committee”) began its study of Part XVII of the Code (Language of Accused) on 27 May 2013. It held five meetings and heard witnesses from the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law (FAJEF), the Language Rights Support Program, lawyers Gérard Lévesque and Steven Slimovitch, law student Geneviève Lévesque and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

On 5 November 2013, the Committee wrote to all the provincial and territorial ministers of Justice asking for information on their experience administering Part XVII, including best practices and problems identified. They were also invited to give evidence. The Committee received seven replies, which, according to the ministers, is to serve as their evidence. These letters are appended to this report.

I am reading part of the report on the accused. This is important, because there was a review and five years have passed, but there are still problems with the right of the accused.

Despite a few regional issues and differences, these letters state that Part XVII of the Code is generally being administered without any major difficulty. However, there is still room for improvement.

This report outlines the main issues raised by the witnesses. It is not a comprehensive review of all issues pertaining to language rights in criminal law. That is why the Committee recommends that the Department of Justice continue working with the key actors and that a parliamentary committee follow up in five years with a review of Part XVII of the Code and its administration.

The background on part XVII is as follows:

Part XVII, enacted in 1978, gradually came into force, province by province, and finally throughout Canada in January 1990. In Beaulac, the Supreme Court of Canada found that equal access to designated courts in the official language of the accused is “a substantive right and not a procedural one that can be interfered with.” It is Parliament’s responsibility to determine the extent and scope of language rights under Part XVII. These rights are distinct from the right to make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).

Under Part XVII, on application by the accused, a judge will order that the accused be tried before a judge, or judge and jury, as the case may be, who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused. If the accused speaks neither English nor French, a judge will order that he or she be tried before a judge, or judge and jury, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony. Courts are also required to make interpreters available to assist the accused, counsel and witnesses.

Before Bill C-13 was introduced, studies by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and an inquiry conducted by the Department of Justice identified barriers to full and equal access to the criminal justice system in the official language of the accused’s choice. The amendments proposed by Bill C-13 were designed to help reduce these barriers and the problems of interpretation that had been identified.

Bill C-13 made various amendments to the Code, some of them related to provisions concerning the language of the accused. In particular, it stated that a bilingual trial might be warranted in the case of co-accused understanding different official languages. On 29 January 2008, the Senate passed Bill C-13, with, among other things, an amendment requiring a comprehensive review within three years of the provisions of Part XVII of the Code coming into force. It is this review that the Committee undertook.

The Senate also sought to amend the bill so that the presiding judge would remain responsible for personally informing the accused of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice. However, this amendment was not adopted. Bill C-13 received Royal Assent on 29 May 2008. Part XVII came into force on 1 October 2008.

...

2.1 OBLIGATION TO ADVISE THE ACCUSED OF HIS OR HER RIGHT (SUBS. 530(3) OF THE CODE)

Before the adoption of Bill C-13, the presiding judge was required to inform the accused of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice only where they were not represented by counsel. Bill C-13 removed this condition, meaning that the judge must now ensure that the accused is informed of this right in all cases. However, the judge is not obliged to inform the accused personally, but must ensure that the accused is informed of his or her right — by counsel, for example.

Therefore, the judge is responsible for making sure that the accused has been informed of his or her right to a trial in the language of their choice.

2.1.1 FAILURE TO ADVISE

The Committee heard that in practice, it is desirable to have some flexibility in how the accused is advised. It is the failure to advise the accused that is troubling. In some cases, subsection 530(3) seems to “fall between the cracks” and simply no notice is given. As noted by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, James Cornish, in his letter to the Committee, “[i]t appears, however, that this level of compliance with s. 530(3) has not been accomplished across the board in Ontario (…) [F]urther effort is still required (…)”

This is 2014, and we are still trying to inform judges. It should not be that hard to inform the accused of his or her language rights. This is 2014 and we are conducting studies. Even well-known lawyers tell us that in the criminal law process, people are not informed.

The lack of “active offer” was also identified in 2012 by the French Language Services Bench and Bar Advisory Committee to the Attorney General of Ontario and was reiterated by the witnesses who appeared before the Committee. The witnesses suggested several reasons behind this failure to advise, such as the fact that certain judges are not informed or trained in that regard.

The Department of Justice has its work cut out for it, or else people, or judges, simply do not want to get informed. It does not seem that complicated to me.

The report even says that judges should get a note so that they do not forget to inform the accused. This law has been around since the 1900s, and this is still a problem in a country like ours. Forty years after the passage of the Official Languages Act, we are still arguing with judges and training judges to inform the accused.

For example, just because someone's last name is Doucet does not mean that French is their mother tongue. It is a question of choice, but often the judge sees the last name and assumes the person is francophone.

I will explain why I chose to use the name “Doucet” in my example. One of my colleagues, the former union president at the Brunswick mine—once I left the position—had the last name Doucet, but he did not speak a word of French. Everyone spoke to him and wrote him letters in French, and he always responded by saying he did not speak French.

If the judge relies on a name like Doucet, Boivin or even Godin—there are some French-speaking Godins and some English-speaking ones—to determine whether the person is francophone or anglophone, he could be mistaken. In the justice system, it is important that people be able to express themselves in their own language. We cannot stress that enough. My bill about Supreme Court justices indicated that it is unusual that the justices sitting on the highest court are not bilingual. That shows how the government is still stuck on this. It agreed to make the Federal Court and the court of appeal bilingual. However, the government feels that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, does not need to be bilingual. That really worries me.

We have the report and the study. The study was positive. It worries me that even at the end of 2014, people are still asking questions about this and trying to convince judges to do what they are supposed to do in every province in the country and tell the accused that he has a right. It is the law. We are still trying to convince them. I do not think there should be any need to convince them. We should simply have to tell them that they represent justice and the law and that they have to follow the law or face the consequences.

I would like to compare this to the rules of the road again. If people drive faster than the speed limit, there are consequences. Nobody tells the offender that they hope he will soon learn to drive at the speed limit. I have never seen a police officer stop someone and tell him that he can do it another 50 times so that he can learn to drive at the speed limit or that even though he was driving 300 kilometres per hour, he still has time to learn.

The time has come for the Minister of Justice to step up and send a clear message to all judges about this.

The minister responded to the committee. To respond to the committee in a positive way is one thing, but what really matters is action, what happens on the ground. The act was passed in the 1990s, and we are still having problems on the ground today. I invite the minister to follow up with his department to make sure that when the next study is done, this will no longer be a problem. Our country's two official languages will have been accepted very respectfully and will be promoted. When both languages are promoted and respected, I can guarantee that the two populations will get along better than they do now. Furthermore, this has to come from above, from our leaders, our governments and the Supreme Court, for instance. This has to come from above and be practised on the ground. I guarantee that everyone will get along better at that point. As long as people know that bilingualism is not being embraced by those higher up, they will continue to fight one another down below.

As Antonine Maillet said, when the two ships left Europe, one came from France and the other from England. When they arrived in Canada, they fired their cannons at each other. One side won. We know that; it is why we are a minority. However, there were two founding peoples, the francophones and anglophones, along with our first nations. We are still fighting about official languages in Canada today. Some other countries have four, five or six languages. Parents tell their children that being able to speak several languages is a gift. Here we are still telling our children not to speak English or not to speak French. Both sides are guilty. I am not taking sides here. That is why I am sincerely saying that this must come from above, from the leadership, from governments and the Supreme Court, in order to demonstrate that learning both languages is not a sin.

I have children and I encouraged them to learn both languages. If they can learn a third, they should do so.

This is part of our history, when the two founding peoples came to Canada. We must build our country together respectfully. We are not asking anglophones to be francophones or vice versa. We are only asking that the two peoples be served in the official language of our country.

I am asking the minister to act immediately.

Criminal Code

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).

The bill is aimed at tackling the separate but related problems of auto theft and trafficking in stolen property and other property obtained by crime. The bill reintroduces offences for tampering with a vehicle identification number and for trafficking in property obtained by a crime, which was initially set out in Bill C-53, a bill that our government introduced in the 39th Parliament.

Bill C-26 also proposes a new distinct offence of theft of a motor vehicle, which is similar to the offence proposed in Bill C-343, a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, which died on the order paper in the last Parliament. I would be remiss if I did not mention at this time the efforts of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his outstanding work on behalf of his constituents and for raising awareness of this serious issue.

Auto theft is one of the most pervasive forms of property crime in Canada. While there has been a downward trend in auto theft rates in the last decade, it stills remains one of the highest-volume offences in Canada. In its December 2008 report on motor vehicle theft, Statistics Canada reported that in 2007 approximately 146,000 motor vehicle thefts were reported to the police across Canada, averaging 400 thefts per day.

Motor vehicle theft has created a significant impact on owners, law enforcement and the insurance industry. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that auto theft costs Canadian more than $1 billion each year, including non-insured vehicle theft, policing, health care, legal costs and out-of-pocket costs such as insurance deductibles.

Motor vehicle theft also creates public safety concerns for Canadians, as stolen vehicles are often involved in police chases or dangerous driving, which can result in injury or death to innocent bystanders. Such was the case of the tragic death of Theresa McEvoy, a Nova Scotia educator and mother of three children who was killed on October 14, 2004, when her car was struck by a youth driving a stolen vehicle. Sadly, this is not a rare incident. A study carried out by the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft reported that in the period of 1999-2001, 81 people were killed as a result of auto theft and another 127 people were seriously injured.

The bill therefore proposes that a new offence of motor vehicle theft be added at section 333.1 of the Criminal Code. It is true that many offences in the Criminal Code already address motor vehicle theft, such as theft, fraud, joyriding, possession of property obtained by crime and flight from a police officer. However, the bill would create a distinct offence with an enhanced penalty for a third and subsequent conviction in the form of a mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment.

The creation of this distinct offence is an important measure that will assist prosecutors. A problem currently facing the courts is that very often a prosecutor is unaware that the offender is a career car thief. Normally, the offender is simply charged with theft over $5,000 or possession of property over $5,000 and there is no indication on the available record as to the type of property that was stolen. The result is the prosecutor and the judge do not know if they are dealing with a prolific car thief or with a car thief involved with organized crime. The proposed distinct offence will help give the courts a clearer picture of the nature of the offender for bail hearings and when it comes time to impose a sentence.

In a report published in 2004, Statistics Canada estimated that roughly 20% of stolen cars were linked to organized crime activity. Organized crime groups participate in the trafficking of stolen autos in at least three ways. First, they operate chop shops, where stolen vehicles are disassembled and their parts are trafficked, often to unsuspecting customers. Second, organized crime is involved in the process of altering a car's legal identity through changing its vehicle identification number, commonly known as its VIN. Third, high-end, late-model luxury sedans and sport utility vehicles are exported from Canadian ports to far-off locations in areas such as Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

The bill takes serious steps to address organized crime's involvement in motor vehicle theft in a number of ways, including by the proposed creation of two new offences of general application that will target trafficking in property obtained by crime whether stolen property or property obtained by fraud or other crimes. Let me be clear, though. The scope of the proposed trafficking offences is comprehensive and will extend to all forms of trafficking and property obtained by crime, not just stolen autos.

To understand how the proposed offence of trafficking and property obtained by crime would help, consider what ultimately happens to personal property when it is stolen during a typical break and enter. Members in the House probably have constituents who can relate to the offence of break and enter. When thieves break into homes, the first thing they usually do with the goods is sell them to a fence, who buys them at a significant discount and then sells the stolen property at a profit, either to pawn shops, legitimate businesses or directly to customers who have ordered a specific item such as a high-end bicycle or electronics.

In the theft cycle it is the fence who provides the avenue to pursue the financial incentive that motivates the thief to commit the initial crime.

Another example of trafficking involves the stealing of vehicles to export or dismantle for parts. This is a lucrative business for organized crime and one that affects the legitimate retail industry. Stolen parts are easily fenced and often sold to unsuspecting customers or garages. It is far easier to traffic automotive parts than entire vehicles, especially when exporting by sea.

Selling automotive parts can also be more lucrative than selling an entire automobile because parts from cars older than five years old are often worth much more than the vehicle would be worth if it was sold as a whole.

Chop shops that disassemble stolen cars thrive in urban areas, especially those with easy access to ports. Canadian chop shops export automotive parts throughout the world.

Presently the general offence of possession of property obtained by crime in section 354 of our Criminal Code carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for property valued over $5,000. It is the principle Criminal Code offence that is used to address trafficking in property obtained by crime. There is no specific trafficking offence that adequately captures the full range of activities involved in trafficking, such as selling, giving, transferring, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering stolen goods. The current theft and possession provisions also do not recognize organized crime involvement in these activities.

There is an organized nature to the activities involved in dealing in property obtained by crime. Take auto theft as an example. Chop shops often keep as little inventory as possible to avoid detection and to minimize the risk of multiple counts in the event of a raid. The offence of possession of property obtained by crime does not capture the fact that the chop shop operation processes far more motor vehicles than are normally seized during a raid. Additionally, the police often only charge the person who is in possession of the property at the time of the raid. In many cases none of the other players can be fully prosecuted during the existing theft or possession offences.

To more effectively address organized crime, including commercial auto theft, it is necessary to target all the middlemen, including the seller, the distributor, the person chopping the car, the transporter and the person arranging and organizing these transactions. This is also the case in regard to the trafficking of stolen property in general.

The proposed reforms in Bill C-26 will give law enforcement and prosecutors new tools to target those who participate in any part of the entire range of activities that are involved in the disposal of illegally obtained goods. To this end, it will make it an offence to traffic in or possess for the purpose of trafficking in property obtained by crime.

The proposed offences will be based on a wide definition of trafficking. It will include the selling, giving, transferring, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering of goods or offering to do any of the above. As such this, new law will target all of the middlemen who move stolen property from the initial criminal act through to its sale to the ultimate consumer.

I should mention that there are victims at both ends of the spectrum, the individuals who have had their property stolen and the unsuspecting purchasers of goods obtained through the theft from innocent victims.

This government believes that serious crime should be appropriately punished. Accordingly the proposed trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking offences will have higher penalties than the existing possession offence in section 354 of the Criminal Code. If the value of the item trafficked exceeds $5,000, the maximum penalty will be 14 years imprisonment. If the value is less than $5,000, the matter will be a hybrid offence and will carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment or six months on summary conviction.

As noted, the movement of stolen property across Canada's international borders, especially automobiles, is a particular problem. However, at our ports now, Canada Border Services Agency officials cannot use their administrative powers under the Customs Act to stop suspected stolen vehicles from leaving our ports. In order for the CBSA to be able to bar the cross-border movement of property obtained by crime, goods must first be classified as prohibited goods for the purpose of importation or exportation.

No such classification is currently set out under federal law. If customs officials come across suspected stolen automobiles, they do not currently have the administrative authority to detain the shipment, or even to determine themselves whether the cars are stolen by accessing databases. They can, of course, refer clear cases of criminal activity to the police, but the application of administrative customs' powers would be far more effective in helping to interdict the export of stolen goods.

To address this concern, I am pleased to say that the bill proposes to supply the necessary express prohibition against the importation or exportation of property obtained by crime. This would trigger the administrative enforcement powers of the Canada Border Services Agency.

In the case of auto theft, for example, CBSA officers would be able to investigate, identify and detain imported vehicles or vehicles about to be exported, and to search databases to determine whether such vehicles were indeed stolen. These actions could ultimately produce evidence that would allow the police to conduct criminal investigations and lay criminal charges.

As I have mentioned, another one of the ways in which organized vehicle theft is facilitated involves disguising the identity of stolen vehicles. This process involves stripping the vehicle of all existing labels, plates and other markings bearing the true vehicle identification number, and then manufacturing replacement labels, plates and other markings bearing a false vehicle identification number obtained from imported or salvaged vehicles.

There is currently no offence in the Criminal Code that directly prohibits tampering with a vehicle identification number. Like trafficking, the current Criminal Code provision used to address VIN tampering is the general offence of possession of property obtained by crime.

The proposed amendment would make it an offence to wholly or partially alter, obliterate or remove a VIN on a motor vehicle. Under the new offence, anyone convicted of tampering with a vehicle identification number could face imprisonment for a term of up to five years on indictment, or punishment on summary conviction.

As of October 1, 2008, when Bill C-13 came into force, the general penalty for an offence punishable on summary conviction is now a fine of not more than $5,000, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. This would be an additional offence. A person could be charged with both the possession of property obtained by crime and the proposed VIN tampering offence, which could result in a longer sentence. In order to ensure that the proposed VIN tampering offence does not capture lawful behaviour such as automobile body repair, recycling and wrecking, the offence also includes an express exemption provision.

This government is serious about fighting crime, and this legislation is a strong measure to help law enforcement and prosecutors punish criminals who commit auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime.

I want to take this opportunity to thank our Minister of Justice, who has carried the ball on a number of significant measures that tackle violent crime, gang crime, organized crime and motor vehicle theft. As he is fond of saying, we are just getting started.

There is so much more we can do, and we are doing that. This bill is a big part of protecting all Canadians from the offence of motor vehicle theft.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 29, 2008

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Marie Deschamps, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 29th day of May, 2008, at 2:38 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-215, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses—Chapter 16; Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad—Chapter 17; Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments)—Chapter 18; and Bill C-459, An Act to establish a Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day and to recognize the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 as an act of genocide—Chapter 19.

Justice

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the government is responsible for the appointment of the next justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. We recognize the need to act in a timely manner to fill this vacancy.

However, I should say to the hon. member that if he is so concerned about bilingualism in our courts, he should speak with his unelected Liberal colleagues in the Senate, who are holding up Bill C-13, a bill that will ensure access to both official languages in Canada.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

We are debating Bill C-13. Is there anybody who would like to rise to speak to Bill C-13?

Is the House ready for the question?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-13. I believe the member is speaking to Bill S-3.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

I should note that the bill was originally introduced as Bill C-13 in the first session of the 39th Parliament. It passed all stages in the House of Commons, was sent to the other place and is back here now with some amendments, which I and my colleagues believe enhance the bill. I will be supporting the bill, and I expect my colleagues on this side will as well.

We support the bill because it would a number of positive things to improve and enhance our criminal justice system. Some of these matters are quite procedural and technical in their nature, but, nonetheless, they are very important to ensure the system in the country works efficiently, effectively and brings justice to all.

Some of the aspects of the bill, for example, increase the maximum fine that can be imposed for a summary conviction offence from $2,000 to $10,000. The $2,000 limit had not been changed for some 30 years. The bill also calls for the suspension of a conditional sentence order or a probation order during an appeal. That enhances this law as well.

The proposed bill also provides the power to delay the sentencing proceedings so an offender can participate in a provincially approved treatment program. That is very important. In many cases we can lock people up and throw away the key, but eventually they will get out and have to be functioning and responsible citizens of our country. Therefore, if we can help someone deal with drug or alcohol abuse or some other social problem, this is to be very much encouraged.

In the case of a person serving a youth sentence who has received an adult sentence, the bill clarifies that the remaining portion of the youth sentence is converted to an adult sentence. This follows through on some of the changes that were made previously to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and something I think many Canadians often do not fully comprehend.

There is an impression that young people can commit crimes at will, flaunt the system and do not receive the types of sanctions that many Canadians think they should. However, we need to understand that if we put young people in jail, they can become hardened criminals. If they are not rehabilitated or given the appropriate treatment, in jail they will become even worse criminals. When they get out, they will offend again.

It is important that all criminals be rehabilitated while they are serving their time. At the same time, the youth criminal justice changes we made when we formed government allow a judge, at his or her discretion, to sentence a young person as an adult if, in the view of the judge, that young person deserves to be sentenced as an adult.

If I recollect correctly, the cutoff is age 14, and that is a very young. When people tell me that the age should be reduced further, I tell them that it is not something I would advocate. In fact, 14 is young enough. I think many judges would not be inclined to impose an adult sentence on someone of those young years unless the circumstances warranted it in the view of the judge. Nonetheless, it is important to have that provision so a judge can have the flexibility to do things like that.

One aspect that is not in the bill, although I hope it will come at some point in time, is an initiative that our government started. After two years of serving as government, I am surprised the Conservatives have not really acted upon it. It has to do with the modernization of investigative techniques.

I notice in the bill there are amendments which call for the use of telecommunications to forward warrants for the purpose of endorsement and execution in a jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction where the search warrant was obtained. Therefore, there are measures in the bill dealing with telecommunications, but we still do not have legislation to modernize investigative techniques for our law enforcement personnel. Let me describe what that is.

If we look at our Criminal Code today, if law enforcement officers can convince a judge that there are significant grounds, the judge can execute a search warrant. However, the search warrants and the wiretapping warrants are tailored to technologies that have been superceded, although not completely, and replaced by other types of media, other types of technology.

For example, wiretapping warrants on our books today, in terms of law, deal mostly with land phone lines. We know criminals today use wireless devices. They use cellphones, computers and the Internet. The problem is our laws are archaic in the sense that the police cannot tap these types of technologies. The problem, again, is criminals have moved ahead of law enforcement. In fact, some criminals will make a few calls on a cellphone and then chuck it away. They will do the same for other kinds of wireless devices.

When we were the government, we began a process to modernize these investigative techniques. It raised some concern in certain quarters that this was calling for a change in the ability or the power of the police to seek out a wiretap. The reality is it changed nothing in that regard. Law enforcement would still have to convince a judge that the wiretap was necessary. The only thing that it would do is it would allow the wiretap to be executed against a cellphone number, or a BlackBerry, or an Internet account, or some other telecommunications device.

While there is some confusion and some angst among citizens and others about what this type of legislation would do, in fact, it would do nothing more than what is on the books right now. It would not give the police the power or the authority to wiretap someone's line without a duly executed warrant by a judge.

The Conservative government talks about how it is getting the job done and how there has been 13 years of inaction. Here is something upon which the government should be acting.

There are a couple of other issues with telecommunications companies and servers. There are costs associated with adapting this technology or being in a state of readiness. If a warrant is executed by law enforcement officers, they need to have the capability and capacity, the technology within their own shops. There are costs associated with that.

There are also costs on a going forward basis if we require these telecommunications companies, like a server or mobile phone company, to retrofit to ensure their technologies are capable of putting these wiretaps on this technology. If this law were passed, companies would have to ensure the technology was engineered in such a way that if a warrant were executed, they could implement the wiretap on a cellphone, or on a BlackBerry, or on an Internet account. I believe this is holding the government back from doing something on this initiative, and that is a wrong reason.

Why should we be compromising the safety and security of Canadians because some telecommunications companies are anxious and nervous about the costs they would be faced with to adapt and execute this type of technology?

When we were the government, there were a lot of discussions and negotiations back and forth. My recollection is that there was some compromise, some meeting of the minds, as to how to move forward in this particular environment.

If my memory serves me correctly, these companies indicated a willingness on a going forward basis to build in the technologies and infrastructure needed so they would be in a state of readiness for warrants like this to be executed. I am not sure where those discussions went finally, but it is a matter of negotiation.

As for retrofitting, that is a bigger issue. It is a question of making the law come into force so the companies would have to retrofit all their technology, which is a big ticket item, and that is a matter for negotiation with the government.

However, I am surprised that it has taken two and a half years to negotiate something that would be reasonable in the circumstances. With the passage of time, the safety and security of our citizens have been put at risk. I do not think that is acceptable.

In fact, when we had the new civilian Commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Bill Elliott, come to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I asked him if the tools he needed to deal with this type of technology were there to make sure we were up to date with the technologies the criminals were using. He indicated that it would be an improvement if enabling legislation were in place so that we could beat the criminals at their own game.

Therefore, I encourage the government to bring forward legislation such as this, which would modernize our investigative techniques and give the police the same tools that criminals have. Does it make any sense for police officers to be using land line phones when the criminals are using not land lines but other technologies? It seems to me that this is an initiative that could have been incorporated into this bill, but it was not. I do not know where that particular item is.

We find in this bill that there are some improvements in the process that deal with our justice system. As I said earlier, I think some of them are more housekeeping in nature, but it is important housekeeping. It is something that I would encourage this House to support.

As an example, the amendments say that a summary conviction trial with respect to co-accused can proceed where one of the co-accused does not appear.

Another feature introduces changes to the process with respect to the challenge of jurors to, among other things, assist in preserving their impartiality.

It also brings in other amendments with respect to language rights provisions of the Criminal Code. This is a very important part of this legislation.

It means that an accused is informed of the right to be heard by a judge or a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused, or both official languages of Canada. The amendments to this bill codify the right of the accused to obtain a translation of the information or indictment on request.

These are very important elements. We live in a bilingual country. We value our bilingualism. It is part of our national heritage. It is part of our strength as a nation. We also respect the right of individuals to be heard and listened to in the official language of their choice, one of the official languages of this country. I think that is also a very important part of Bill C-13.

I encourage the House to get on with this bill. It has been here before, it has been in the other place and it is back. Again, while sometimes the members in the other place are criticized, or that institution itself is criticized, there are many fine and competent people over there who can add value to legislation. In this case, I think they have done that.

I would encourage members of this House to support Bill C-13 in its current form. I certainly will be voting for it.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, in last fall's throne speech, our government presented five clear truths to Canadians.

We said we would get tough on crime, maintain our prosperous and vibrant economy, improve the environment and health of Canadians, strengthen our federation and restore Canada's place in the world. Over the past few months we have made significant progress in all of these areas with lowering taxes and debt, extending the military mission in Afghanistan, and passing the Tackling Violent Crime Act to get tough on crime.

This week is indeed stronger justice system week. We have been successful so far in moving forward on our plan to tackle violent crime with Bill C-31, a bill to amend the Judges Act which has been sent to the Senate, and Bill C-26, our anti-drug law which passed second reading.

However, we will not rest on our laurels. Today and tomorrow we will wrap up our stronger justice system week by hopefully returning our bill on criminal procedure, Bill C-13, to the Senate. We also hope to debate our bill to reinstate modified provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act, Bill S-3, as well as Bill C-45, dealing with our military justice system.

Next week's theme is “putting voters first” because MPs will be returning to their ridings to consult Canadians in their communities.

The following week, we will be examining another priority: “improving the environment and health of Canadians”.

As members already know, our environmental plan announced in the throne speech was adopted by the House last fall.

There is, however, more to be done. We will start by debating Bill C-33. This bill requires that by 2010, 5% of gasoline, and by 2012, 2% of diesel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. This bill will help reduce greenhouse gases and represents an important part of our legislative plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

In addition, we will begin debate on two very important bills concerning food safety and consumer and health products in Canada, namely Bill C-51 to modernize the Food and Drugs Act and Bill C-52to establish An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Taking together, these two bills represent an extraordinarily tough and thoroughly new approach to consumer safety. I hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure these pass through the legislative process in a quick and timely fashion.

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-13.

Call in the members.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there further debate on the amendment to Bill C-13? Is the House ready for the question?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that we now have Bill C-13 to debate today, as we had Bill C-31 yesterday.

I like to think that governments live and learn. None of us are perfect and I would suggest that neither is the government. When it decided to prorogue it may not have realized the implication to the many bills important to Canadians that would be hindered by that decision.

We all live and die by the decisions we make here in the House of Commons. It will be up to Canadians to decide whether we are fast enough or the government is fast enough at producing legislation. There has been a lot of justice legislation tabled, some of which we have supported, and we will continue to move forward in the best interest of Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for York West for her continued input on criminal justice issues.

Yesterday, there was a great deal of discussion about judges, particularly the fact that there are 31 vacancies already and another 20 are sought to be authorized by Bill C-31. It also came out that there had been no analysis or projections done on the demand for the court system. Now I see in Bill C-13 that we have even more elements of whether there will be greater demands placed upon our courts.

I wonder if the member would care to amplify on the fact that the government has delayed this legislation. It could have been passed easily enough had it not prorogued and introduced a different type of bill, effectively to do the same kind of thing.

We saw that yesterday as well. A number of bills in the first session were already well advanced and yet the government decided to consolidate them in an omnibus bill, thereby requiring that the whole process start all over again.

It seems that the government is not committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system is proceeding in an efficient fashion.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-13 today. Again, it is another piece of legislation that I think is important when we look at trying to modernize the justice system in Canada and make various changes. It is also good to have time in our ridings to discuss these issues and get the support of our constituents in advance of being able to speak to them.

Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), will clearly take us in another direction to ensure that our justice system in Canada is as modern as can be. Hopefully, the bill will modernize the system to make it also more efficient and more effective, something that we also hear complaints about in our judicial system. Lawyers, crown attorneys and so on talk about how slow the system is and how there is a need to update a variety of areas in our judicial system.

Some of these amendments make certain processes more effective through greater use of technology and by consolidating and rationalizing existing provisions. The amendments relating to criminal procedure in Canada provide for, among other things, the use of a means of telecommunication to forward warrants for the purpose of endorsement and execution in the jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction where the search warrant was obtained. This clearly will save time and will be far more efficient. It is a logical step that needed to be taken.

The amendments also provide for changes to the process with respect to the challenge of jurors to, among other things, assist in preserving their impartiality, which again is very important; summary dismissal by a single judge of the court of appeal when an appeal has erroneously been filed with that court; an appeal of a superior court order with respect to things seized lying with the court of appeal; a summary conviction trial with respect to the co-accused that can proceed where one of the co-accused does not appear; and the reclassification of the offence of possession of break and enter instruments into a dual procedure offence to allow the Crown to determine whether this offence should be prosecuted by way of indictment or by the more expeditious procedure of summary conviction, which again could save hours of court time and allow for much faster determinations.

Amendments related to sentencing provide for, among other things: the power to order an offender not to communicate with identified persons while in custody, and the creation of an offence for failing to comply with the order, thereby enhancing protection of victims, which for some time has been called for; clarifications with respect to the application of impaired driving penalties; an increase of the maximum fine that can be imposed for a summary conviction offence from the current $2,000 to $10,000, which is a significant increase and hopefully would work to some degree as a deterrent; the suspension of a conditional sentence order or a probation order during an appeal; and the power to delay sentencing proceedings so that an offender can participate in a provincially approved treatment program.

We often have heard about the lack or insufficient number of treatment programs for people who find themselves with a serious drug problem. There are just not enough programs. There was an article in yesterday's paper and a symposium held yesterday in Toronto which talked about the very issue of there not being sufficient drug treatment programs for many people. That also results in many people are finding themselves in the judicial system.

Further amendments include: in the case of a person serving a youth sentence who receives an adult sentence, to clarify that the remaining portion of the youth sentence is converted to an adult sentence; and the power of a court to order, on application by the Attorney General and after convicting a person of the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system, the forfeiture of things used in relation to that offence.

Clearly this legislation is reflecting the ongoing concerns of Canadians and parliamentarians with regard to many of the things that are going on through the Internet and the luring of young children, an issue that has been discussed at length here in the House. Again, it is all part of the modernization of our justice system's ability to reflect these kinds of things that did not happen many years ago.

Other amendments will allow for better implementation of the language right provisions in the Criminal Code. These amendments will improve the means through which an accused is informed of the right to be heard by a judge or a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused, or both official languages of Canada. The amendments also codify the right of the accused to obtain a translation of the information or indictment on request. Other provisions clarify the application of the language provisions of the Criminal Code in the context of bilingual trials.

Although this bill may not seem as exciting as some that we have been debating lately, I think it is nice to get something that is not charging each and every one of us up but goes on to modernize the system. These justice bills are important. As the responsible Liberal official opposition that we are, we will be supporting this legislation.

The legislation might seem familiar to all the people watching at home. There is good reason for that. This bill was originally introduced as Bill C-23 in the first session of the 39th Parliament. It passed all stages of approval in the House of Commons and had been sent to the Senate, so if anyone thinks this is familiar legislation, clearly it is. It died on the order paper, unfortunately, when the minority Conservative government decided to prorogue the House and start fresh with a Speech from the Throne. This is catch-up time on good legislation.

That Speech from the Throne was another ploy by the government to try to raise its poll numbers, not unusual for the Conservatives, nor was it unusual for other people who had assumed the same role in government, but sadly for them Canadians saw through the strategy and were not fooled. Canadians know how much good work the Liberal government did to protect our cities and our communities and how much progress we made on our justice agenda.

Notable achievements by my government included the creation of a national sex offender registry to protect Canadians from violent sex offenders, and we introduced legislation to restrict the use of conditional sentences for serious and violent offences. We also introduced a package of measures to crack down on violent gun crime and gang violence to assist communities at risk.

Much of that legislation is currently being used in cities across Canada, in particular my city of Toronto, which continues to work on areas of crime prevention, enforcement of the sentences that are there and reaching out to at risk youth and at risk communities. Some of the initiatives included a new $50 million gun violence and gang prevention fund, legislative reform for stricter sentencing for gun crimes, and social investments to prevent those at risk from following a life of crime and to provide them with hope and opportunity for tomorrow.

Canadians know that the Liberal Party continues to be committed to protecting our homes and our rights, as they have always known. It is a priority for us. That is why we have committed to appointing more judges, and it is why we are supporting that legislation, and to putting more police officers on our streets and more prosecutors in the courts, as I mentioned earlier today. We also have worked very hard to toughen laws on Internet luring and identity theft to protect Canada's most vulnerable citizens, including children and seniors.

In his many comments, our leader has also committed to establishing a new fund that will help preserve the safety of ethnic and cultural at risk communities across Canada. This safety being put at risk is something that unfortunately continues to happen more and more in many of our communities across Canada. This fund would, for example, cover the costs of security in their places of worship and gathering places.

I am pleased to support Bill C-13. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I also encourage my colleagues to exercise their privileges as members to be on the record as speaking out on behalf of their constituents on important pieces of legislation before the House. I am glad to have had the opportunity to get my points of view on the record today. I look forward to questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. When we resume consideration of Bill C-13, he will have one minute remaining for debate and ten minutes for questions and comments.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-13, to which a few changes have been proposed. I am especially worried about the changes concerning judges and the possibility that the case be heard in the preferred language of those involved, be they minority francophones outside Quebec or minority anglophones in Quebec.

The judge's decision is important for the person appearing before the court. What will happen to that person in the future? The individual must be able to clearly understand the judge, just as the judge must be able to properly understand the accused. This gives citizens the opportunity to have a fair trial in their preferred language, in their home province, in order to be able to deliver their arguments and their defence.

The decision finally handed down last Friday by the Supreme Court in the case of Marie-Claire Paulin from New Brunswick was very important for minorities. For those who do not know the case, Marie-Claire Paulin, a woman from Tracadie-Sheila, went to the Woodstock area and was arrested by the RCMP. This case has been in the courts for a number of years now. Trial proceedings began in New Brunswick at least eight years ago with the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, which was represented by several lawyers, but it was primarily Michel Doucet who argued the case.

The RCMP did not provide service in French in certain areas of New Brunswick. We must see the link between this case and this bill. One cannot ignore the case of Marie-Claire Paulin, who received service only in the official language that was not her mother tongue. In the Woodstock area and other areas of New Brunswick, the RCMP provided its services only in English. Ms. Paulin was arrested by the RCMP in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province of Canada, and wanted to be served in her language. She fought her case in court and won, but the federal government decided to appeal the decision and it won. It is unfortunate that the Liberals and the ministers of Justice and Official Languages of the day, who claimed to defend minorities, supported the government's initiative to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

When the New Brunswickers decided to go to court, the government pressed for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court in order to defend the RCMP which, it believed, did not have to provide service in French because it was a federal force. Under federal law, service must be provided in French where numbers warrant. It deemed that it was not warranted by the numbers in Woodstock, New Brunswick. However, according to the law and the Constitution, it is clear that New Brunswick is responsible for providing government services in the province's two official languages, and that includes legal services. If you are stopped by the police and required to go to court in New Brunswick, the proceedings must be in the official language of the person in question. In this case, it was French.

Regrettably, the Liberal government at the time went to court and the case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Conservative government, which came to power in 2006, did not rescind the decision.

It could at least have acknowledged that the RCMP did have a responsibility because it signed a provincial contract and had to respect the law of the province of New Brunswick.

This case does not apply only to francophones. It also relevant for an anglophone who goes to the Shippagan or Caraquet region, for example. A police officer who speaks to an anglophone must be able to reply in the language of choice of that person, that is English. This will ensure that there is respect for both communities in New Brunswick because citizens will be served in the language of their choice.

Justice Bastarache's decision was very sound. He will be missed when he retires in June. He will be particularly missed by minority communities, not only in New Brunswick but throughout Canada, because he has ruled in favour of minorities and his decisions have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. The very honourable Justice Bastarache will be missed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

That is why we are recommending to the Conservative government that, when it comes time to appoint another judge, to make sure he or she is bilingual. We cannot ask that the person be francophone, but we can ask that they speak fluent French and English.

That way, when lawyers appear before the Supreme Court of Canada with their clients, they will be able to express themselves in the language of their choice without having to rely solely on the interpretation services. With all due respect to those services, that is not what we want; we want the person to be able to express themselves in the language of their choice.

The government has the obligation to ensure that the next judges appointed to the Supreme Court will be able to function in both official languages of our country.

Just before the study of Bill C-13, there was a debate on Bill C-31, on judicial appointments. Again, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has found that as far as judicial appointments are concerned, there are not enough bilingual judges—not only in New Brunswick, but across the country.

Let us talk about Bill C-13. New Brunswick is a province recognized as bilingual under the Constitution. Bill C-88, which was enshrined in the Constitution, states that citizens will be served in the language of their choice. An amendment was made to that bill to ensure that anyone in New Brunswick wishing to appear in court and use the language of their choice, would not have to travel from Bathurst to Saint John or vice versa. I am pleased with the amendment.

The other provinces, if I am not mistaken, have agreed that people have the right to travel to regions where there is a francophone judge in order to present their case before a judge who speaks their mother tongue.

To resolve this problem when it comes to appointing judges, the government must truly take into account the official languages of the country and start appointing more bilingual judges who are able to speak both official languages, either an anglophone judge who speaks fluent French or a francophone judge who speaks fluent English, in order to better serve the community.

I am also proud to note that in their decision, the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the Conservative government's decision to abolish the court challenges program has had a negative impact on minorities. For these reasons, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the RCMP to pay the court costs of $135,000.

Last week in the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I could not believe my ears. The former premier of New Brunswick, who toured the country looking at official languages, said that abolishing the court challenges program was not the end of the world. People could go to court with or without the court challenges program.

The same week that Mr. Lord said that we did not need the court challenges program because people could go to court, the Supreme Court itself rendered a decision—I think I have it right here—acknowledging that the abolition of the court challenges program could affect communities. Paragraph 27 of the decision states the following:

The appellants ask for $135,000 in costs. In light of the abolition of the Court Challenges Program, which would have applied to a case such as this one, and since the respondent appears to have acknowledged the importance of the principles in issue in this case, as she has not asked for costs, the appellants are awarded the requested amount.

The Supreme Court ordered the RCMP to pay all the court costs. I would like to congratulate the Supreme Court. Today, I would like to be able to congratulate the Conservative government by saying, “You will continue to give the ultimate tool that people need, that minorities need to be able to go to court”.

What do we need? First of all, we need judges who can speak, hear, listen to and understand our country's two official languages. We need that, and that was in Bill C-31.

That is not all that was in Bill C-31. It was also about judicial appointments. When it comes to judicial appointments, of course we have to pay attention to how we can appoint judges who have a clear understanding of what our country is, who understand our country's value, who understand the Official Languages Act, who can understand people's mentalities, the approaches of our two peoples. At the same time, they must be able to look at the effect this can have on minorities, on people who are sensitive to this.

Unless the government wants to appoint judges, with all due respect, from the far right who will decide to cut everything, to side with the government, to share the government's philosophy and change everything. We made progress in the past and we are making progress now, but minorities have always had to fight for progress and they still do.

With all due respect, Marie-Claire Paulin did not have the money to go to the Supreme Court. We also have to thank the Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick for supporting Marie-Claire Paulin's case, as well as all of the francophone communities who supported her too.

If francophone or minority communities are forced to pay so that citizens can go to court, that means less money for those communities. Minority communities have to fight to get government money so they can develop and get things for themselves all over the country, whether they are in Quebec or the rest of Canada.

If people have to use that government money to go to court, the communities lose that money, which they could otherwise spend on schools, training, immersion schools, teachers, or the support that people need.

We will support this bill. Moreover, we call on the government—we cannot say this often enough—to ensure justice for communities and people through the judicial appointment process. I think that will make a huge difference.

That will make a huge difference because people need to be served in the language of their choice. If our country is recognized as being bilingual, we have to enforce the law. To enforce it, the people who enforce it need to be capable of understanding both official languages. That is why we will strongly recommend it to the government. Once again, we will also ask that the court challenges program be reinstated.

I was a little worried recently when the Liberal leader said that if he were elected, he would reinstate the court challenges program and would double its funding.

I am afraid, in that case, that he may be breaking the law twice as often and that is why he would need more money.

The only thing we are asking is that the government comply with the Official Languages Act and respect Canadians. Perhaps then people will never need to go to court again. When Marie-Claire Paulin was pulled over and ticketed in Woodstock, if the police had spoken to her in French, she would not have needed to go to court.

It is hoped that the ruling will not be interpreted in such a way that an RCMP officer who pulls someone over can make that person sit at the side of road for half an hour or an hour, waiting for another officer who can speak that person's language. If people want to be treated equally, they should not have to wait until another police officer comes to speak to them.

Things are going to change in New Brunswick from now on. The RCMP will have to change its mindset, because it was really the RCMP that caused the situation when it decided it no longer needed to have bilingual officers in certain regions. Now the RCMP has realized that this was not acceptable in New Brunswick.The ruling by Mr. Justice Bastarache and his fellow Supreme Court judges is a good decision for minorities. I can guarantee that it is welcomed in the community in New Brunswick.

I want to sincerely commend Mr. Doucet for his tenacity in this process. The Conservatives have said that they abolished the court challenges program because it only served to help friends of the Liberals to make money. I cannot image how Mr. Doucet is a friend of the Liberals or how he made money on the court challenges program. Most of the time, Mr. Doucet does not even get paid to represent our minority communities. In most cases, he has never been paid to go to court. He has only been paid for court costs, the cost of paper, photocopies and those types of things.

Mr. Doucet has been an example to the communities. As the member for Acadie—Bathurst, I am proud to congratulate Mr. Doucet for all the good work he has done in this case. The Conservatives have accused people who were using the court challenges program of only being there to make money at the expense of minorities, but that is absolutely not what happened.

It is important to note that the objective of Bill C-13 is to send a message to communities and individuals, telling them they have the right to appear in court in the official language of their choice anywhere in Canada. That is important. And people must know this. Once the new legislation takes effect, they must be told that they can be represented in the language of their choice.

It is similar to when a patient goes to the doctor and tries to explain what is wrong using hand gestures, because they do not speak the same language. What if that patient goes into surgery and the doctor removes the wrong thing and a big chunk is taken out? It is the same idea here. When someone appears in court, it is absolutely crucial that both parties understand one another to ensure that the accused person is judged fairly.