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.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony.

My first question has to do with the role of the judge. Since Bill C-13 was adopted, the judge must inform the accused of his right to stand trial in the official language of his choice. However, the judge is under no obligation to inform the accused personally. He must simply ask if the accused was made aware of this right.

What can you tell us about this provision? In your respective provinces, has it caused any problems?

[Renée Soublière, Senior Counsel, Litigation Coordinator and Supervisor, Official Languages Directorate, Department of Justice]

Good morning. I am pleased to appear before you again to help you continue your review of the language provisions in the Criminal Code. As you know, I appeared here on May 27, 2013, when the committee began its review.

I would like to begin by introducing myself again. I am Renée Soublière, Senior Counsel and Litigation Coordinator in the Official Languages Directorate, which comes under the Public Law Sector of Justice Canada.

I am accompanied by Michel Francoeur, Director and General Counsel in the same directorate. Mr. Francoeur will outline the concrete steps taken by the Department of Justice in support of the Criminal Code language provisions. I am also accompanied by Robert Doyle, Chief of the Executive Secretariat with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Mr. Doyle also acts as the national secretary of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Heads of Prosecution Committee and he will be able to answer any questions you may have about the implementation of the Criminal Code's language provisions.

To begin with, I would again like to describe the role that I play in the Official Languages Directorate, previously known as the Official Languages Law Section. I am part of a team of specialized legal counsel responsible for providing legal advice to the government on any issue of language law, especially with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Languages Act and the Criminal Code.

The team is also tasked with developing the position of the Attorney General and the Government of Canada in language cases that go before the courts. Finally, my team is also responsible for providing opinions and advice on language policies, particularly with respect to any proposed legislative amendments affecting language rights.

As such, it was the Official Languages Law Section, as it was then called, that developed the policy directions that lead to the passage of the 1988 Official Languages Act, including the amendments to sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code. As you know, those provisions give accused persons the right to a trial in the official language of their choice.

It was also in that capacity that my team, along with our colleagues in the Criminal Law Policy Section, helped developed the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), which was passed in 2008. I had the opportunity and the privilege to head up that projet and to participate in all of its stages, from developing the policy directions through the consultations to the drafting of the bill and its consideration in committee. I appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on November 28, 2007, when it began its consideration of Bill C-13.

I felt it was important to once again describe the role and mandate of the section in which I work so that you will understand the limits on what I can say here today. I will be pleased to discuss the provisions in part XVII of the Criminal Code, to provide you with the context for the 2008 amendments and to answer any questions you may have in that respect. However, my presentation today will not deal with either the implementation or the enforcement of the Criminal Code provisions, since my team does not play any role in that area.

With the committee's indulgence, I will start with a general overview of sections 530 and 530.1. I will then explain the origin and content of the legislative amendments adopted in 2008.

Before doing so, I feel it is important to highlight four points.

First of all, as former Justice Bastarache of the Supreme Court of Canada said in Beaulac, sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code perfectly illustrate the progression of linguistic rights through legislative means, in accordance with subsection 16(3) of the charter. In fact, the federal Parliament, in exercising its power over criminal law and the criminal justice system, adopted a number of legislative measures designed to extend the linguistic rights of the accused before the courts, including sections 530 and 530.1.

Secondly, I think it would be helpful to point out the purpose of section 530. Again, according to former Justice Bastarache in Beaulac, section 530 is designed first and foremost to grant equal access to criminal courts to accused who speak one of Canada's two official languages, in order to help official language minorities preserve their cultural identities.

Thirdly, bear in mind that the right of an accused to be tried in one official language or the other is not new. In fact, the right of an accused to be tried in the official language of his choice was initially recognized in the first Official Languages Act, in 1969. In 1978 and again in 1988, Parliament sought fit to broaden the scope of an accused's linguistic rights and to clarify the conditions of a criminal trial to take place in the language of the minority.

On January 1, 1990, the provisions I'm referring to, sections 530 and 530.1, came into force throughout the country. Since that date, any accused person facing criminal charges can therefore be tried in the official language of his choice, regardless of where he is in the country. In concrete terms, that means that the various jurisdictions in the country must be in a position to respond to applications for trial in a minority language and have the adequate institutional infrastructure to provide services in both languages equally.

Fourthly, the purpose of the 2008 amendments was not to change the provisions substantially. The main objective of the 2008 amendments was to clarify certain provisions, to codify the current state of jurisprudence and to make up for certain shortcomings that had been identified in the jurisprudence and studies on these provisions.

Let's now move on to the specific content of sections 530 and 530.1. What are the rights and corresponding obligations set out in these provisions? I don't know if you have the provisions of the Criminal Code in front of you, but it would be helpful for you to have them at your fingertips.

Let's start with section 530.

Subsection 530(1) stipulates that, on application of an accused whose language is one of the official languages of Canada, the judge may grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a judge or judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused, or if the circumstances warrant, who speak both official languages.

Subsection 530(2) covers a situation where the language of the accused is not one of the two official languages. In this case, the judge, on application of an accused, may grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a judge or judge and a jury who speak the official language in which the accused, in the opinion of the judge, can best give testimony or, if the circumstances warrant, who speak both official languages.

According to subsection 530(3), as amended in 2008, the judge before whom an accused first appears shall ensure that they are advised of their right to have a trial in the language of their choice.

Before Bill C-13 was passed, only an accused who was not represented by counsel had the right to be informed of this right. Therefore, the 2008 amendment imposed on the judge the obligation to ensure that any accused, be they represented by counsel or not, were advised of their right to request a trial in the official language of their choice.

Subsection 530(4) allows the court before which the accused appears to issue an order under subsections 530(1) and 530(2), when the accused has not made a request within the deadline set out in the code.

Subsection 530(5) specifies that an order under this section that a trial be held in one of the official languages of Canada may, if the circumstances warrant, be varied by the court to require that it be held in both official languages, and vice versa.

Lastly, subsection 530(6) covers cases in which two or more accused who do not speak the same official language are each entitled to be tried before a judge or judge and jury who speak their official language. In other words, they would be tried together, but under subsection 530(6), there may be circumstances which could justify holding a trial before a judge or jury who speak both official languages.

Before moving on to section 530.1, allow me to mention the fact that, in 2008, subsection 530.01(1) was added. Under this new provision, at the request of an accused whose official language is English or French, the prosecutor must translate those portions of information or an indictment in the official language of the accused, who has the right to receive the translated documents in a timely manner.

Before subsection 530.01(1) was added in 2008, only the preprinted forms contained in part XXVIII of the Criminal Code were given to the accused in both official languages. The sections that were filled in by the informant were drafted and provided to the accused in the official language of the person who had filled in the form. Some courts ruled that it was inconceivable that an accused should not have the right to obtain such important documents in the official language of their choice. Consequently, they required that these documents be translated at the request of the accused.

Adding this new provision to the Criminal Code, by way of Bill C-13, helped to reflect the state of jurisprudence.

Let's now move on to section 530.1 and let us look at the provisions it contains.

First, the accused, their lawyer as well as witnesses, have the right to use either language during the preliminary inquiry and the trial.

Second, the accused and their lawyer can use either official language at the pleading stage, and during the preliminary inquiry and the trial.

Third, the witnesses have the right to testify in either official language during the preliminary inquiry or trial.

Fourth, the accused has the right to have a judge presiding over the preliminary inquiry or trial who speaks the same official languages as the accused or, when a bilingual trial has been ordered, who speaks both official languages.

Fifth, the accused has the right to have the prosecutor—other than a private prosecutor—speak the same official language as the accused or, when a bilingual trial has been ordered, speak both official languages.

Sixth, the court must provide interpretation services to the accused, their lawyer and witnesses, during the preliminary inquiry or trial.

Seventh, the record of proceedings during the preliminary inquiry or trial must contain a transcript of everything that was said during those proceedings in the official language in which it was said, the transcript of any interpretation into the other official language, if proceedings were indeed interpreted, as well as any documentary evidence that was tendered during those proceedings in the official language in which it was tendered.

Eighth, the court must make sure that the judgment or the decision, including the list of reasons, is made available in the official language of the accused.

Allow me now to briefly explain the context behind the 2008 amendments.

The implementation of the language rights provisions in the Criminal Code had created from time to time some legal and practical difficulties, as demonstrated by the case law that had developed over the years. A number of reports and studies by different stakeholders had also confirmed the need to improve and clarify some of the language of trial provisions in the Criminal Code.

In particular, in November 1995 the Commissioner of Official Languages published a study entitled, “The Equitable use of English and French Before the Courts in Canada”. This study concluded with 13 recommendations for strengthening and advancing language rights in the courts, and particularly before criminal courts.

The Department of Justice's response to that study was to prepare a working paper. In November 1996 a document prepared by our section entitled, “Towards the Consolidation of Language Rights in the Administration of Justice”, was published and widely distributed.

This document basically responded to the commissioner's recommendations with a number of proposals to be used as a starting point for public consultations. It served as a basis for public consultations, which were held from November 1996 to April 1998. Then, in May 1999 the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in the Beaulac case, which related specifically to the language provisions of the Criminal Code at issue in our initiative.

The Supreme Court in Beaulac confirmed that there indeed were difficulties inherent in applying and interpreting those provisions. The Supreme Court made specific comments on mechanisms for publishing the language rights of accused persons, on the time allowed for exercising the rights set out in sections 530 and 530.1, and as well, on the application of those provisions in the context of bilingual trials.

As a result of the court's decision, our recommendations were re-examined and substantially modified to reflect the new state of the law. We held consultations again on the content of the proposed changes, and eventually the legislative proposals made their way into a bill along with other criminal law related amendments.

The amendments of 2008 to the language of trial provisions were therefore the fruit of a lengthy process involving many different players. Their main goal was to propose workable and balanced solutions to a number of problems that had been identified and to help ensure the effective implementation of the language rights provisions of the Criminal Code.

I know that after our appearance last May, your committee communicated with the provinces and territories to ask them to provide you with their input on the implementation of the linguistic provisions of the Criminal Code, notably the implementation of the 2008 legislative amendments. I know that you received some responses. I also understand that some provinces will be asked to appear before the committee. I am sure that this will be extremely useful to you.

Thank you for your attention. I will now give the floor to my colleague Mr. Francoeur.

Thank you.

[Renée Soublière]

I think they're doing it in Manitoba as well. But the exclusion of New Brunswick in that provision was actually added by the Senate when it studied Bill C-13 in 2008. It doesn't change the substance of the provision. It simply recognizes, as you correctly point out, that New Brunswick courts are institutionally bilingual, and so they're—

[Renée Soublière, Senior Counsel and Litigation Coordinator, Official Languages Law Section, Department of Justice]

Hello. It is a pleasure for us to appear before you today in order to help you begin your review of the Criminal Code's language provisions.

Please allow me first of all to introduce myself. I am Renée Soublière, Senior Counsel and Litigation Coordinator of the Official Languages Law Section, which is part of the Department of Justice's Public Law Sector.

With me this afternoon is Mr. Michel Francoeur, Director and General Counsel of the Office of Francophonie, which is part of the Department of Justice's Justice in Official Languages and Legal Dualism Section. Mr. Francoeur will report on the concrete measures the department has taken with an eye to supporting the respect of language rights set out in the Criminal Code.

I am also accompanied by Mr. Robert Doyle, from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Among other things, Mr. Doyle acts as National Secretary of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee. He will be able to talk to you about the concrete implementation of the Criminal Code's language provisions, and can answer any questions you may have about this.

First of all, I will explain my role as part of the Official Languages Law Section, the OLLS. The OLLS is a team of specialized legal experts mandated with providing legal advice to the government on issues of language rights that flow from, among other things, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Languages Act and the Criminal Code. The OLLS is also responsible for developing and coordinating the Attorney General's and Government of Canada's positions in linguistic matters that are brought before the courts. Finally, the OLLS is responsible for drawing up any proposed legislative amendment affecting language rights.

As such, the OLLS developed legislative proposals that led to passing the 1988 Official Languages Act, which included amendments to the Criminal Code's language provisions.

It is also in this role that the OLLS participated, with its colleagues from the Criminal Law Policy Section, in drawing up legislative amendments contained in Bill C-13, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), passed in 2008.

I also had the opportunity and the privilege to act as project leader and to be involved in every step, from the creation of guidelines to consultations, as well as the writing of the bill and the study of it in committee. Moreover, I appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on November 28, 2007, as it began its study of Bill C-13.

It seems important to me to call your attention to the exact wording of the review clause in part XVII of the 2008 Criminal Code. When reading this clause, one can see that it refers to a twofold review. Subsection 533.1(1) does in fact mention a comprehensive review of the provisions and the application of part XVII, entitled “Language of the accused”.

If I considered it important to explain the role and the mandate of the section for which I work, and to call your attention to the wording of the review clause, it is so that you can immediately understand the limits of my comments today. It would be my pleasure to discuss the provisions of part XVII of the Criminal Code, to provide you the context behind the 2008 amendments, and to answer any question you might have in this matter. However, my presentation this afternoon does not deal with the application or the implementation of these provisions, since my team has no role to play in this regard.

With the committee's permission, I'll start by giving a general presentation on the content of sections 530 and 530.1. I believe you have a copy of these provisions, with the English and French versions side by side. I'll then explain the context behind the 2008 amendments.

Before I proceed, it seems important to me to emphasize four points.

First of all, former justice Bastarache, as he was then, said in the Supreme Court ruling R. v. Beaulac, on behalf of the majority, sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code constitute a perfect example of the advancement of language rights through legislative means provided for in subsection 16(3) of the charter. Indeed, the federal legislator, when exercising its power over criminal law and criminal procedure, passed a great number of legislative measures with the intent of extending language rights to the accused before the courts, namely sections 530 and 530.1.

Secondly, one must keep in mind the intent of section 530. Again, according to former justice Bastarache, as he was then, section 530 aims above and beyond all else to provide the accused with equal access to criminal courts, if they speak one of the two official languages of Canada, in order to help official language minorities to preserve their cultural identity.

Thirdly, it must be noted that the right of any accused to be tried in the official language of their choice is nothing new. Indeed, this right was first recognized in the 1969 Official Languages Act. In 1978, and again in 1988, Parliament decided that it would be useful to extend the scope of the language rights of an accused and specify the exact modalities of a criminal trial held in a minority language.

On January 1, 1990, the provisions being discussed, namely sections 530 and 530.1, which you have before you, came into force throughout the country. Any person facing criminal charges could, as of that date, choose to undergo their trial in the official language of their choice, regardless of where in the country they happened to be.

In reality, it means that the various jurisdictions of the country must be able to meet the request for a trial in the minority language and to have available the necessary institutional infrastructure to provide services equally in both official languages.

Fourthly, the amendments passed in 2008 were not intended to substantially change sections 530 and 530.1. The primary goal of the 2008 amendments—and I will come back to them shortly—was to clarify certain provisions, to codify the current state of case law and to fill certain gaps I identified in case law and studies of these provisions.

Let us now move on to the exact content of sections 530 and 530.1. What other rights and correlative obligations are included in these provisions?

Let us start with section 530. It has six subsections.

The first subsection of section 530 indicates that on application by an accused whose language is one of the official languages of Canada, the judge must grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a judge or a judge and jury who speak the official language of the accused, or, if the circumstances warrant, who speak both official languages. The deadlines by which the accused can make such a request are indicated in the first subsection, and the deadlines vary according to the nature of the procedure used to prosecute the offence.

The second subsection of section 530 applies to cases in which the language of the accused is not one of the official languages of Canada. In such a case, the judge may grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a judge or a judge and jury who, in the opinion of the judge, will allow the accused to best give testimony or who, once again, if the circumstances warrant, speak both official languages.

The third paragraph, as amended in 2008, requires that a judge before whom an accused first appears advise them of their right to face trial in the official language of their choice. Before Bill C-13 was passed, only those accused who were not represented by counsel had the right to be advised of this right. The 2008 amendment therefore requires that the judge ensure that all of the accused, whether they are represented or not, be advised of their right to request a trial in the official language of their choice.

The fourth subsection of section 530 concerns the situation of an accused who fails to make a request for a trial in their language before the prescribed deadlines.

The fifth subsection allows for an order indicating that an accused who must undergo their trial before a court that speaks one of the official languages be varied to require them to be judged by a court that speaks both official languages, and vice versa. Therefore, it is possible to vary the initial order.

Finally, the sixth subsection of section 530, added in 2008, indicates that when the co-accused do not speak the same official language and they respectively exercise their right to be judged by a judge who speaks their official language, but that otherwise these co-accused would be tried together, these may constitute circumstances that warrant that an order be granted directing that they be tried before a judge who speaks both official languages.

Before moving on to section 530.1, allow me to mention the addition, in 2008, of section 530.01(1).

This new provision indicates that the prosecutor shall cause the portions of an information or indictment to be translated into the official language of the accused, and to provide it at the earliest possible time on application by the accused.

Before the passage of the new subsection 530.01(1), only the preprinted parts of the forms indicated in part XXVIII of the Criminal Code were given to the accused in both official languages. The sections filled out by the accuser were written and provided to the accused in the language of the person who had filled out the form. Certain courts considered it unfathomable that an accused would not have the same right to obtain the translation, given the importance of these documents. Therefore, they required that they be translated upon request. Some jurisdictions implemented practices to comply with these decisions. The addition of a provision in this matter, through Bill C-13, both standardized these practices and better reflected the status of case law.

Let us now move on to section 530.1.

Section 530.1 outlines the specific rights that may be exercised when an order is granted under section 530. It prescribes the following.

First of all, it indicates that the accused, his counsel, and witnesses have the right to use either official language during the preliminary inquiry and trial.

Second, it indicates that the accused and his counsel may use either official language in any proceedings relating to the preliminary inquiry or trial.

Third, it indicates that any witness may give evidence in either official language during the preliminary inquiry or trial.

Fourthly, it indicates that the accused has the right to have a justice who speaks the official language of the accused or both official languages.

Fifth, it indicates that the accused has the right to have a prosecutor—other than a private prosecutor—who speaks the official language of the accused or both official languages.

Sixth, it indicates that the court shall make interpreters available to assist the accused, his counsel or any witness.

Seventh, it indicates that the record of proceedings during the preliminary inquiry or trial shall include a transcript of everything that was said during those proceedings in the official language in which it was said, as well as a transcript of any interpretation into the other official language of what was said, and any documentary evidence that was tendered during those proceedings in the official language in which it was tendered.

Finally, the eighth item indicates that the court shall make available any trial judgment in the official language of the accused.

Allow me now to briefly explain the context behind the 2008 amendments.

The implementation of the language rights provisions in the Criminal Code had, from time to time, created some legal and practical difficulties, as demonstrated by the case law that had developed over the years. A number of reports and studies by different stakeholders had also confirmed the need to improve and clarify some of the language of trial provisions of the code.

In particular, in November 1995, the Commissioner of Official Languages published a study entitled “The Equitable Use of English and French Before the Courts in Canada”. This study concluded with 13 recommendations for strengthening and advancing language rights in the courts, particularly before criminal courts.

The department's response to that study was to prepare a working paper, and in November 1996, a document prepared by the official languages law section entitled “Towards a Consolidation of Language Rights in the Administration of Justice in Canada” was published and widely distributed. The document responded to the commissioner's recommendations with a number of proposals to be used as a starting point for public consultations. It served as the basis for public consultations, which were held from November 1996 to April 1998.

In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Regina v. Beaulac, which related specifically to the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court in Beaulac confirmed that there were indeed difficulties inherent in applying and interpreting these provisions. As a result of the court's decision the recommendations were re-examined and substantially modified to reflect the new state of the law. Consultations were held once again on the content of the proposed changes and eventually the legislative proposals made their way into a bill, along with other criminal law-related amendments. The amendments to the language of trial provisions of 2008 were therefore the fruit of a lengthy process involving many different players. Their main goal was to propose workable and balanced solutions to a number of problems that had been identified and to help ensure the effective implementation of the language rights provisions of the Criminal Code.

I will end my speech by inviting you to communicate with the provinces and territories, the heads of court services, provincial heads of criminal prosecutions and any other entity directly involved in implementing these provisions. They will no doubt provide you with important and useful information relating to the study you are currently undertaking.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Robert Doyle.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

With respect to mega-trials, one of the concerns they raise with me is not just the question of the cost of a mega-trial, it's getting through them and having them move through the system. The federal and provincial deputy ministers and departments are working on what we generally call criminal law efficiencies. We had the one Bill C-13. As you know, Mr. Ménard, it's very difficult to get one of these bills through, because what happens is you put these reforms together and you'll have one organization somewhere—they sort of cherry-pick these things—say they're not quite sure about one issue.

But I'm very committed to that. We had Bill C-13 passed. That was the fourth attempt in ten years to get that through. I'm committed to moving forward with efficiencies, and of course I'm always looking at ways to do that. But there's a lot of good work being done right now at the federal-provincial level, and I'm pleased to do that.

With respect to the interface between organized crime and legal businesses, I think we're moving forward. In terms of dealing with organized crime, one of the reasons we're moving on identity theft is just for that reason--and I heard this very loud and clear some time ago when I was in Montreal--people collecting and moving information, using computers, sometimes moving it offshore, out of the country, and then using it for ultimately an illegal purpose. Regardless of how it was put together, the gaps in the present criminal law were very clearly identified to me, and I think when you have a look at that bill, when you get that from the Senate, you'll see that it's addressed.

Changes right now that you can see: with respect to giving power to Canada Border Services Agency guards, to make sure they're able to intercept property moving in and out of this country that may start for illegal purposes or end up for illegal purposes. I think all those steps are in the right direction, but I'm always looking at ways to improve the laws.

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.

[Constable Derek Egan]

Retention also plays a role in the data bank. Currently, access to the profile is disabled when a conviction is overturned on appeal. Congruency would allow these to be kept. The U.K. experience is that 15% of matches occur in this category.

Congruency with the identification act would also move the approval process from a court-ordered one to an administrative one, and by doing so improve submission rates, and indeed reduce error rates.

We also strongly advocate for additional indexes. We believe a human remains index would assist in identifying missing persons, a deceased offender index would assist in solving crime, and a voluntary live victims index could provide linkage to other victims, human remains, crimes, and offenders.

Though it's possibly not within the scope of this committee's review, some comment regarding capacity must be made, given our wish to see the data bank grow. It is our contention that while capacity and expansion are linked, they should be addressed separately. Capacity will continue to be an issue as the science evolves and the ability to detect and retrieve samples increases, regardless of an expansion of designated offences and retention rules.

In 2007 the CACP passed resolution 2703 calling on the federal government to fully fund DNA analysis to meet demand, and we continue to work towards this. We believe legislation should support capacity growth rather than restrict it.

I have two final points I would like to make. One is with respect to search limitations. Currently the legislation does not permit the searching of the bank with evidence of human remains that we believe to be a person convicted and on the index, so it's necessary to obtain a production order for this information. Nor does the bank permit a data bank search for familial matches where this would also aid the investigation focus and eliminate non-involved persons.

Finally, I'd like to talk about the administrative burden caused by the endorsement process for repeat offenders. Currently fingerprints must be taken each time a person on the index is arrested for a designated offence, causing a significant administrative burden in the case of prolific recidivist offenders. We would recommend that persons provide one full sample of one endorsement set of fingerprints only. This will remove this burden.

To conclude, the CACP has historically taken all opportunities to provide input into legislative reform, policy improvements, and innovative solutions, and in regard to the use of DNA as an aid for identifying criminals and exonerating the wrongfully convicted has strongly advocated and supported the government's proposal for the creation of a national data bank through the 1990s. We were consulted and we rendered opinions all through 2002 with respect to the legislation. In respect to Bill C-13, we suggested a number of amendments that were subsequently legislated.

We acknowledge and are very gratified by the level of responsiveness the government has shown. We continue to advocate for the expansion of DNA legislation with a view to making it consistent and parallel with the Identification of Criminals Act. We would ask the government to give consideration to the issues I've raised herein.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I know there's quite a bit of work that goes on, Mr. Rathgeber, with respect to all aspects of the criminal justice system. This is an issue that has been raised with me by my provincial counterparts and it has been discussed. I've indicated on a number of occasions that we look at all aspects of the criminal justice system, and we're taking our changes to the criminal justice system one step at a time. I've indicated, for instance, that I think the mandatory jail sentences that were provided in our drug laws are steps in the right direction. We don't close the door off to any reform of the criminal justice system in this country.

That being said, in response to other questions, we have a number of issues that I would like to see addressed, including identity theft, car theft--auto theft is a huge problem in this country--organized crime, gangs, drugs. I hope we can move through all these issues in an expeditious manner. Perhaps we can get those pieces of legislation passed when they are introduced. As I said to you or to your colleagues, we're just getting started with changes to the criminal justice system in this country, and we would continue to make that available.

It's our understanding that judges take this into consideration, quite frankly, when they are making that sentence. They know how long the individual has been detained. One of the things we're doing is that we'd like to see the process speeded up in the sense that people get access to justice, have their case heard, and move forward on the system.

You'll remember, or perhaps you may not remember, in the previous Parliament we had Bill C-13, which addressed a number of efficiencies in the system, because we want the system to move forward so you're not having an individual who finds himself or herself spending a long time in incarceration before their matter is being heard. These are our ongoing concerns, and we've made progress.

This was interesting to me. On that Bill C-13, which addressed a number of concerns, I was told, for instance, that this was the fourth attempt in 10 years to get something like that passed. So we're always looking for efficiencies and ways of expediting the process, at the same time as concerning ourselves with the rights of the individuals, as well as the rights of the victims and law-abiding Canadians. We want the system to work and we're prepared to look at all suggestions in this area.

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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.

[Graham Fraser]

The purpose of amending the act is to remedy that problem. If I understand correctly, that's Bill C-13. I don't know if it changed between Bill C-23 and the last version of Bill C-13, but it requires that informations be—

[Graham Fraser]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that Bill C-13 was developed precisely to make it possible to do what you just mentioned. I've already appeared before the House Justice Committee and that of the Senate to express my support for that bill because it is an attempt to correct the deficiencies you've identified.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague for giving a very interesting 20 minute speech and outlining a whole list of issues about which he has concerns.

When we make changes, as is being proposed in Bill C-13, clearly, some people would call this a housekeeping bill, but it covers off a whole lot of different smaller things that will continue to make Canada a stronger and more effective country, which is what we all want.

Are there other issues that the hon. member would like to have seen added to Bill C-13, since he has been following it in his role on the justice committee?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will provide some background to remind people of the status of Bill C-13. The intent of the bill to amend the Criminal Code, criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments, is to further modernize the criminal justice system and make it more efficient and effective. Some of the amendments make certain processes more effective through the greater use of technology and by consolidating and rationalizing existing provisions.

This is a general administration bill. It corrects a lot of minor changes to the code. There are some substantive changes to the Criminal Code of Canada, but it makes a lot of updated and needed suggestions.

At the outset, I support the bill. I have some strong feelings about certain parts of it that I want to speak to and also some important opening remarks on process.

I give credit to the government for bringing forward a bill to make these corrections. It is ironic, however, while it acknowledges that the criminal justice system and the Criminal Code need amendments from time to time, either for modernization or things that have been put in incorrectly, it does it at a time when not that long ago it stopped the funding for the court challenges program.

The court challenges program was used in a number of cases to help protect the rights of people and helped lead to some of the amendments in this bill. Someone on the government side at the time asked, “Why would we fund a program to challenge our own laws”, as if they are always perfect and the Government of Canada, whichever party is in power, never makes mistakes. Now we have proof opposite.

We have a bill that would correct a number errors or would at least improve a number of items in the Criminal Code. It is proof right there that it was a mistake to cancel the court challenges program, which was specifically to help protect the rights of people who could not afford to protect themselves.

Once again, I give credit to the government for bringing forward a bill to improve the criminal justice system and the Criminal Code, with a number of improvements, proving that there need to be changes from time to time. Yet it is ironic that at the same it dismantled the Law Commission of Canada, which was there for the very purpose of reviewing the Criminal Code and criminal justice system as a non-partisan body of experts and to give us recommendations as to how to make the improvements.

It is ironic that the government is bringing forward numerous improvements. We all acknowledge in the House, and I think we are all supportive of it, that these improvements are needed, yet at the same time the government is taking away expert, time proven mechanisms to come up with those types of improvements in the future so we can keep making them.

I will comment briefly too on something that was said during the previous debate on the bill. There was a suggestion by a member that the opposition parties were less effective in keeping our streets safe, which is totally untrue. It was proven time and time again by the expert witnesses that the provisions brought forward by the current government to make streets safe had been proven not to work in the past and in some conditions would make Canada less safe.

The opposition pointed out that a vast majority of criminals reoffended and that none of the provisions the government originally proposed would help make Canada's streets safer. In fact, people were remaining in the universities of the jail longer so they learn how to be more effective criminals and, in a modern changing society, were kept away from any rehabilitation, any chance of reintegrating in society in a safe way.

Therefore, the opposition has been fighting for programs that would do exactly that, with rehabilitative types of sentences that would be more appropriate, expanding the jurisdictions of judges as opposed to limiting them, which the government was doing, and ultimately making our streets safer.

I want to go through a number of specific items about which I feel strongly. I am going to go through them first as opposed to going through all the items in the bill because I will never get through it in my 30 minutes. Because it is such a large bill with so many amendments. I will talk about some of the ones that I am particularly supportive of and think are important.

The first one is the amendment that updates the $2,000 default maximum fine for so-called summary conviction offences. At present this amount is the maximum monetary penalty that can be imposed for a summary conviction offence where no other maximum amount is provided for in a federal statute. This amount has remained the same since 1985. The bill would raise the current maximum from $2,000 to $10,000, by increasing the maximum amount for summary conviction offences, when it would be deemed that the monetary penalty would be an appropriate sentence.

It is 20 years since this has been changed. We have to keep up with the times to ensure the penalty is severe in today's dollars, but more important, we do not want to take away the jurisdiction of the judges to choose the summary conviction route in cases where they can proceed by summary or by indictment. That could clog up the courts longer. They are already clogged up. We just finished the debate on appointing more judges because of the backlog. When it is more appropriate to proceed by summary, we would want a judge or a prosecutor to do that, but they cannot do it if the fine is so low as to not be significantly punitive.

The second amendment, and it is a very serious and excellent one, relates to prisoners contacting witnesses or victims. I am sure anyone who deals with agencies that work with women or with victims' protection agencies will know that a prisoner can have a devastating effect on a person's life from within prison. It is easy to get messages and contacts out, particularly to women who are afraid to start with and have been terrorized and abused.

The criminal code currently provides for no contact orders at various stages of the judicial process. A judge may impose such an order when an accused is released on bail, is held on remand or when the offender is under a probation order. However, the criminal code does not currently provide for such an order to be imposed on an offender when he or she is serving the custodial portion of his or her sentence.

The existing measures in correctional institutions regarding unwanted communications from inmates are generally effective and in such situations, where procedures exist, are addressed on a case by case basis. The amendment grants the sentencing courts an additional means to protect victims and other identified persons from undesirable communications by permitting the imposition of a non-contact order on offenders while they are serving their jail term.

A breach of such a non-contact order would be punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment. Therefore, it not only prohibits prisoners from trying to make contact with victims or witnesses and trying to terrorize people further, but it also provides a penalty for doing that.

The next area I want to talk about shows how we have to modernize the justice system related to technology improvements. The world changes and there are several amendments in this omnibus administrative bill to make updates for technological changes. This amendment will serve to clarify the application of impaired driving penalties as they pertain to offenders or to participate in a provincial or territorial alcohol ignition interlock device program.

A number of provinces, Alberta and Quebec if I remember, offer these programs now. They enable offenders, who have been prohibited by a sentencing court from driving for a specified period, to operate a vehicle if the vehicle is equipped with an alcohol ignition interlock device, but only after the expiry of the minimum probation period provided under the Criminal Code.

In order to tighten up the application of this provision, the amendment clarifies that offenders are only authorized to drive during the prohibition period if they are registered in an alcohol ignition interlock device program and if they comply with the terms and conditions of the program. Obviously, they would have to be registered and they have to be following the rules of that program.

The next amendment will once again, as the bill we just passed, try to help reduce the waiting list in the justice system and the backlog. As we all know, justice delayed is justice denied. We want to get on with things and this amendment gives more options to the accused to assist in avoiding unnecessary jury trials when the accused prefers to be tried by a judge alone. Additional procedures would clarify the cases of summary convictions trials which involve multiple defendants. The court may continue the proceedings against all of them even when one of the co-defendants fails to attend.

The next area I want to talk about is one I am particularly pleased with as I am sure my Liberal Party colleagues from Quebec will be as well and from other areas of Canada where French is spoken or a person has French as a first language. It is to ensure that people have the right to have trials and procedures in their own language, in their mother tongue, whether it be French or English is guaranteed.

These rights are an example of the advancement of the language rights through legislative means as provided in subsection 16.(3) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have been in force in Canada since January 1, 1990. However, since the coming into force of these provisions studies and public consultations have demonstrated that these language rights are often misunderstood by accused persons, the bar, crown prosecutors and judges.

This situation may well result in some accused not invoking their rights in a timely fashion, thus presenting a barrier to full exercise and implementation of these rights as well as creating additional difficulties in costs for the justice system. In turn, such misunderstandings led the courts to identify certain shortcomings and to issue rulings that do not correspond with the intent of existing provisions.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-13 would clearly set out the full extent of these rights and would assist in better implementing the language requirements in the Criminal Code and rectifying some of the shortcomings identified in various studies and by the courts, noticeably by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Beaulac in 1999.

These amendments also bring greater clarity to the provisions thus ensuring greater efficiency through the criminal justice process. These amendments would also provide solutions and improvements to respond to a study by the Commissioner of Official Languages entitled “The Equitable Use of English and French Before the Courts in Canada — November 1995”.

In the study the Commissioner of Official Languages identified a number of barriers to the exercise of the language rights of the accused persons. The commissioner recommended that all accused be better informed of the right to a trial in official languages of their choice. The commissioner also indicated that there appeared to be little logic in providing a trial in the language of the accused while failing to provide the accused with a version of the originating documents leading to the trial in the language of the accused as well. I am going to come back to that item in a second.

Finally, the commissioner identified a number of practical issues that arise in the context of bilingual trials which have led to contradictory approaches in court decisions. The amendments proposed here address many of these concerns. For example, the amendments to the language rights provisions would heed the advice given by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Beaulac decision by requiring the court to inform all accused persons of their right to be tried in their official language whether they are represented or not. It used to be if they were represented, they did not have to be.

The amendments also follow the court decisions requiring that the charging document be written in the language of the accused upon request. This appears to be a necessary complement to the accused exercising their language rights. The proposed amendments would standardize existing practice in that regard and would ensure that the wording of the Criminal Code more accurately reflects the state of the law.

In relation to preparing the indictment documents, an amendment was made in committee indicating that the defendant may have those documents drawn up in their mother tongue if they request it. The point I was trying to make in committee was that it should be done automatically. These indictment documents are only a couple of pages long and these situations do not occur often in Canada. We probably translate more in 60 seconds here in Ottawa, so it would have been very easy to do. In my estimation, if the trial is going to be held in French, then obviously the indictment forms should be in French without the accused even asking.

Unfortunately, that amendment was voted down in committee much to my consternation because it would have cost the provinces too much money. The amount of translation is infinitesimal.

I also would like to compliment another part of the bill and that is the part dealing with the increase in the fine for summary offences from $2,000 to $10,000. I have already briefly mentioned this. With this increase, we are giving a judge more discretion, which virtually contradicts almost every other justice initiative that we have had before us in this Parliament and which the opposition has fought strenuously against.

Judges try to come up with the best solutions. They hear all the evidence. There are different sentences and different types of treatments. The broader the judge's discretion, the better for each accused and obviously much better for society. In a court system that has in some ways failed for 1,000 years with criminals reoffending, this at least gives a broader range of remedies that might actually reduce the chance of recidivism. Obviously, that is not going to occur if we limit a judge's options for sentencing.

I was hoping to go through all the items in the bill, but I only have two minutes left, so I will go through two other items that I think are important.

At the present time possessing break and enter instruments is an indictable offence whereas break and enter is a mixed offence, either summary or indictment. These two crimes go together because an individual has the tools to break and enter and then proceeds to break and enter. It makes a lot more sense to allow a prosecutor to proceed by way of summary or indictment because then both crimes can be dealt with during the same trial.

The final point that I wanted to make concerns another excellent change that fits with the philosophy that the opposition has been trying to get across. It is with regard to the power to delay sentencing proceedings so an offender can participate in an approved provincial or territorial treatment program. This is an important step and a modernizing step. It follows the direction that we want to take. If someone reoffends, we are allowing them time to receive treatment. We are dealing with the root cause of the problem, so there will be no chance of recidivism.

The court has made a wise decision to try to deal with the problem rather than postpone it for the length of the jail term when the person is released and revictimizes. For all these reasons, I am in support of the bill and I will be voting for it enthusiastically.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Commons has just now voted to approve the budget implementation bill at second reading. The bill will now proceed to the Standing Committee on Finance where it will be studied by members of that committee.

I know that the Liberal Party originally said that it adamantly opposed the bill, so we welcome its change of heart yesterday with its help to defeat the NDP motion, which would have effectively killed the bill, and its kind cooperation today to make sure it passed at second reading.

As I am sure the Liberal House leader is aware, the passage of the bill is important to the stability of the Canadian economy during a time of global economic uncertainty and to reduce the immigration application backlog that is causing Canada to lose much needed talent from potential immigrants. We hope it will be dealt with quickly at committee so that we can have it back to the House for third reading, where I am sure it will once again receive the same warm greeting.

Today and tomorrow, we will continue to debate Bill C-23, which amends the Canada Marine Act; Bill C-33, which will regulate a renewable content of 5% in gasoline by 2010, and 2% in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012; and Bill C-5, which has to do with responsibility in the event of a nuclear incident, as part of Improving the Health and Safety of Canadians Week.

Next week will be a stronger justice system week. We will start by debating, at report stage and third reading, Bill C-31, which amends the Judges Act to allow the application of additional resources to our judicial system.

We will also consider Senate amendments to Bill C-13, which is our bill to amend the Criminal Code in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, and other matters.

We will then continue by debating Bill S-3, our bill to reinstate modified versions of the anti-terrorism provisions--the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions provisions--in the Criminal Code. This important piece of legislation, which has already passed the Senate, will safeguard national security while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. I hope all members of the House will work with the government to ensure its quick and timely passage.

We will debate Bill C-26, which imposes mandatory prison sentences for producers and traffickers of illegal drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children.

Lastly, time permitting, we will start debating Bill C-45, which has to do with our military justice system.

With regard to the bill dealing with aboriginal human rights, we understand, sadly, that the opposition parties gutted the relevant provisions and protections in it. Therefore, I am surprised by the enthusiasm of the opposition House leader for it. Perhaps if the members are, as they were on Bill C-50, prepared to reverse their position and support the restoration of those meaningful principles, we would be happy to bring it forward again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the opposition House leader for performing his basic parliamentary duty by asking the Thursday question. We have missed it once or twice. I believe it is important that this government have the opportunity to inform the House of its legislative agenda for the coming week.

Today we have started to debate the budget implementation bill. It incorporates the measures that were announced in budget 2008 and adopted by this House on two different occasions.

These are prudent, focused, responsible measures, including the tax-free savings account, $350 million for the Canada student grant program, and more money for police officers, the environment, health, and infrastructure for our cities.

We will continue to debate the bill tomorrow as well as throughout next week. The government has read reports that the opposition is going to delay and obstruct the passage of the bill. I hope that does not happen.

Next week will be improving the health and safety of Canadians week. A number of measures will be announced to accomplish this goal.

I cannot provide any details on these exact measures, but I am sure hon. members will agree that these are excellent initiatives that will improve the health and safety of Canadians.

Next week we will also debate changes to the Judges Act, Bill C-31; the Senate amendments to Bill C-13, our legislation to amend the Criminal Code in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other matters; and Bill C-23, which amends the Canada Marine Act.

The government will also debate—and pass, we hope—important bills to enhance the economy and accountability. There will be Bill C-33 to regulate a renewable content of 5% in gasoline by 2010, and a 2% requirement for renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012.

We will also debate Bill C-5, which deals with responsibility in the event of a nuclear incident, Bill C-7, which amends the Aeronautics Act, and Bill C-29, to create a standard process for dealing with loans made to political parties, candidates and associations.

I would like to indicate that next Tuesday will be an allotted day.

In terms of the question on creating a committee of the House regarding Afghanistan, I thank the member for his question. We did receive a letter from him asking about that yesterday. We appreciate the support of this House of Commons for the motion, which has allowed the Prime Minister to travel to Bucharest and obtain the commitments that have been obtained from our NATO allies and allow that mission to continue.

We do believe it is important for that committee to be formed so it can operate shortly, and we will be proceeding with that soon.

Court Challenges Program

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, in as much as the dispute between the FCFA and the government has been under consideration by Judge Martineau of the Federal Court since February 26, it would be inappropriate to make any comment whatsoever about this case.

Furthermore, the government has clearly stated its position with regard to the lawsuit in its written representations to the court.

The Government of Canada will honour all undertakings it has made within the framework of the court challenges program up until September 25, 2006 until all available avenues have been exhausted, including appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The government has a responsibility to the people of Canada to set priorities and to ensure that every dollar paid in taxes is used in the most effective way in the interests of all Canadians. Taxpayers' hard-earned dollars should be spent on programs that get the most relevant results for Canadians.

Our government is pursuing efforts that support community participation as well as individual contributions and respect for all. This debate provides me the opportunity to highlight some of the truly great initiatives of our government.

For example, through the Department of Canadian Heritage's multiculturalism program, the government supports measures that help ethnocultural communities respond to the challenges they face. We fund projects that recognize the value of our diversity and address issues facing cultural communities.

There is also the issue and challenge of foreign credential recognition. Labour market access is a crucial factor in integrating ethnocultural communities. Our government recognizes that people with foreign credentials too often encounter closed doors. We are committed to doing everything we can to help open those doors for those who face barriers.

That is why we are funding projects which take action to address labour market access issues. This will allow new Canadians the ability to begin the qualification process and to search for employment that uses their talents, skills and experience.

The new labour markets agreement committed $3 billion over six years in labour market investments that are expanding training opportunities for those not eligible under employment insurance. As well, our government has cut the right of permanent residence fee in half and more than $300 million has been budgeted for additional immigration settlement measures.

As for official language minority communities, we have allocated an additional $30 million in funding over two years in budget 2007 to promote the greater use of minority official languages in the daily lives of Canadians in official language minority communities.

I would like to highlight that the Liberal leader and all of his deputies voted against budget 2007 and, therefore, voted against this additional $30 million for official language minority communities. They should hang their heads in shame.

Our commitment to official languages was also reaffirmed in budget 2008 and we are set to announce the next phase of the action plan on official languages this spring. Once again, the very few Liberals who bothered to vote regarding budget 2008 voted against it and, therefore, voted against the follow-on phase of the action plan for official languages. They should hang their heads even lower in shame.

Our government also introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-13, which increases access to the courts in either official language in criminal cases.

Our government has made a firm commitment to official language minority communities and to the promotion of English and French in Canada and we have shown this through our actions.

Our government is also investing in programs that help Canadians with disabilities develop their skills and participate fully in society.

With regard to women, our government has increased the women's program budget to $20 million this year—which is an increase of 66% and the highest level ever. As for all approved projects resulting from a second call for proposals, 47% came from groups which had never before received financing from Status of Women Canada.

Also, as mentioned in budget 2008, our government will move forward with a plan of action to improve women's equality in Canada, and more specifically by improving their economic and social conditions and their participation in democratic life.

Our government is focusing on two key issues of concern to vulnerable women: security and economic prosperity; health and the elimination of all forms of violence.

Through initiatives such as these, we are strengthening and providing Canadians with tools that will make a real difference in their lives today and in the near future. In this way, we will make our society more equitable, open and prosperous for all Canadians, regardless of language, religion, cultural background or any other defining characteristic.

We have to make choices, often very difficult choices, regarding how best to serve our fellow citizens. As our government contemplates these choices, Canadians can rest assured that our decisions are not made lightly. When it comes to spending limited taxpayer dollars, we will always choose to make a positive difference in people's lives.

Official Languages

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, our government is playing its role. It is acting as a leader alongside citizens, provinces and territories in order to strengthen our democratic institutions and to promote our collective heritage, including the two official languages of Canada.

Our government recognizes the importance of promoting both official languages and Canada's linguistic duality. Our accomplishments and our commitments in this area which were stated recently in the Speech from the Throne are proof of that. According to the most recent census data, these efforts are giving results. There are now 5.4 million bilingual Canadians. Never has there been so many Canadians reporting their ability to speak English and French.

Let us talk about the commitment of the government regarding the official languages as well as the future of the Action Plan for Official Languages. I would like to focus on the programs implemented by the Department of Canadian Heritage to support official languages and on the contribution of these programs today.

These programs pertain to minority language and second language learning, service agreements with provinces and territories, community living support as well as the development of both official languages.

I would like to go over each of the targeted programs.

Official languages education is one of the pillars of the government's official languages program. The government has ambitious goals: to improve access to education for francophone and anglophone minority youths in all the regions of Canada and to double the number of young Canadians who, at the end of their secondary school education, have sufficient knowledge of their second official language.

The Government of Canada has been providing financial assistance to the provinces and territories for over 35 years now so that they can discharge their minority-language education responsibilities and offer second-language instruction programs. This relationship is governed by a multi-year protocol negotiated between the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, and Canadian Heritage. For the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09 there is federal envelope of over a billion dollars.

Our investments, combined with those of the provinces and territories, have made it possible to introduce education programs tailored to the particular needs of minority communities. The goal of these investments is to keep the highest possible number of students in minority-language instruction systems and to offer Canadians in minority language communities the opportunity to get an education in their language that is as good as the education offered to the majority.

The department has contributed to the development and support of minority-language education programs; the promotion of French first-language education to eligible students; the recruitment, training and professional development of teachers in official-language minority communities; the enrichment of students' cultural life through artistic activities; the delivery of educational services to improve students' first-language skills; and access to post-secondary education through new technology. These investments also helped draw on new communications technologies and improve the way students' skills are evaluated.

In addition, the Department of Canadian Heritage devotes $80 million a year to second language education programs. Thanks to this funding, more than 2.4 million young Canadians can learn their second official language. Everyone agrees that bilingualism is an advantage for individual Canadians and an asset for our country. More than half of the students across the country today are learning French or English as a second language. We need these young bilingual Canadians so that our institutions can continue to provide services in both languages across the country.

In 2006, the Department of Canadian Heritage also signed a higher number of service agreements with the 13 provinces and territories. The provinces and territories are responsible for delivering a number of important public services. These agreements allow for service delivery in certain sectors of interest to official language minority communities, such as early childhood development, health, and social, legal and economic services.

The program's base budget is $13 million per year, or $65 million over five years. In 2003, the budget received a $14.5 million boost over five years. A service agreement for the anglophone minority was signed with the Government of Quebec, which had not been done in years.

Every year, $36 million is spent to help organizations that are dedicated to developing minority language communities.

For more than 30 years, the Department of Canadian Heritage has directly supported official language minority communities all over the country. Furthermore, our investments have helped thousands of anglophones from all regions of Quebec preserve their culture through the services provided by community organizations.

The agreements signed between the representatives of the 13 communities and the Department of Canadian Heritage provide the framework for the department's financial support. The current agreements cover the period ending in 2009. The current budget of the Cooperation with the Community Sector component is $36 million per year, including the money contributed since 2003.

Members of these communities are now able to pass on their culture and their language to future generations. We are also seeing that learning a second official language is becoming more popular among young people, who realize the opportunities that this may afford, in both their personal and professional lives. These initiatives are just some of the accomplishments of our government. The next strategy regarding Canada's official languages will be announced following consultations. It is important to take the time needed to develop an effective plan. That is what any good government would do and that is what we are doing.

Our government also introduced Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), which guarantees access to the courts in either official language in criminal cases. That bill was just passed.

Thanks to these initiatives, we are giving Canadians the tools they need to improve their lives in the short and medium term. We are thereby creating a more equitable, open and prosperous society for all Canadians, regardless of their language, religion, cultural origins or any other defining characteristic.

We have to make some choices—sometimes difficult choices—regarding how to best serve our fellow citizens. When our government considers these choices, Canadians can rest assured that our decisions are not taken lightly.

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this motion by the government is unprecedented in the history of Canada. We can go back through almost 141 years of Confederation and we have never had a motion like this one in front of the House.

In substance, the motion says to the Senate, “We are telling you from the House of Commons if you do not pass Bill C-2 by the end of March 2008, we are going to bring down the government”. The Minister of Justice was on his feet in the House repeating in his speech this afternoon exactly the same threat.

I want to start with the height of hypocrisy that this motion represents on behalf of the government. Before I do that, I want to deal with the basic lack of logic of this motion.

What are we hearing? We heard from the Prime Minister in the fall when Bill C-2 was put before the House, and I will come back to some of the history leading up to Bill C-2, that he was going to bring the government down if this bill was not passed. It was passed in the House and now the government is doing the same thing in the Senate.

The logic escapes me because behind the threats, the bombast and the macho image the government is trying to portray on crime is a totally illogical position, which is that we need this legislation right now, that we needed it years ago. That is what we hear from the government. There is some validity to that in the case of a number of parts of Bill C-2, particularly those that the NDP supported as a political party and which the Liberal government in previous administrations would not pursue.

The Conservatives are saying, “We need it right now, we are way overdue on a number of these amendments and provisions, but we are going to go to an election”. They threatened it last fall and now they are threatening it again.

This resolution from the House has absolutely no impact on the Senate. We do not have the ability constitutionally to deal with this. It is totally illogical. If it comes to fruition, that is, if the government falls, or brings itself down is a better analysis of what is going on here, over this issue, Bill C-2 will die on the order paper. It will not get through the House of Commons or the Senate until the end of 2008.

Where is the logic behind this? Although it is a rhetorical question, the obvious answer is there is no logic. This is not about dealing reasonably, realistically and effectively with crime in this country. This is all about political posturing and nothing else on the part of the government.

Why are the Conservatives pushing it right now? The answer to that is very obvious. They lost the agenda on making crime the primary issue they want to run on in an election. The Conservatives think that is where they have their best chance of gaining support in the country. I think it is an analysis that is faulty, but that is where the Conservative Party and the Conservative government is coming from.

What has happened in the last several months is that the Conservatives' agenda around the crime issues has been completely pushed aside because we passed that bill before the House recessed at the end of last year. Any number of other issues that have been before the House and the country have taken prominence, issues that the government is very afraid of. Let me mention a few of them.

Obviously, at the top of the list right now would be the economic straits we are in, in particular in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, compelling the government, in spite of the blackmail it tried to pull on the House, to move $1 billion into those sectors and communities in order to deal with the dire economic crises that a number of those communities are facing. That pushed it off its agenda.

Obviously, the Afghanistan war, and in particular, the way Canada is handling detainees in Afghanistan, has pushed the Conservatives off their agenda in that regard. The firing of the head of the nuclear safety commission has pushed them off. Of course, there is always the Schreiber-Mulroney scandal. In the last couple of weeks, there has been the issue of the finance minister not following the rules of the Treasury Board with regard to letting contracts. There is the in and out scandal on the part of the Conservative government, the only party in the House that has been charged by Elections Canada with having in effect breached the election financing law.

There are all of those issues, none of which are favourable to the government. We are seeing, as a result of all of these issues, that the government is falling in the polls. The Conservatives believe that they can hijack the agenda in this country by trying to get back on to the crime agenda.

Let us look at what the Conservatives have done historically in the last 12 months or so. Last spring, just before we broke for the summer, three of the five bills that comprised Bill C-2 had passed this House and were in the Senate. I say without any hesitation that by the end of 2007, had the government not done what it proceeded to subsequently do, those bills would have passed the Senate. I say that on the basis of the way the Senate has handled other crime bills since the Conservative government has been in power. The bills would have passed. I assume, if the government were really serious about doing anything about crime, the bills would have received royal assent and they would have been law.

All three of the bills would have been law by January 1, 2008, if not earlier. Those three parts of Bill C-2, the mandatory minimums on serious violent gun crimes, the age of consent, and the impaired driving bill, all three of those have been through this House. Let me correct that. The impaired driving bill was the one that had not gotten through. It was at report stage. It would have had third reading. It would have passed the House in the third or fourth week of September, when we were supposed to come back. The third one was the bill on the reverse onus on bail hearings which was to keep people in custody if they were facing serious charges involving guns.

Those three bills, the age of consent, the mandatory minimums, the reverse onus, would have been law by now. I believe, quite frankly, the impaired driving bill would have been law by now, because it would have passed the Senate quite quickly in late September or early October, but for the action of the government.

I guess we all know that what the Conservatives did is they did not have enough to do, that is, they did not have their political agenda. They thought they would have fallen as a government, as they probably should have, before the fall of 2007, so they prorogued Parliament. All of the bills on the order paper died. We had to start all over again. All of these bills were off, including the ones in the Senate.

I want to be very clear on this. All of the opposition parties were prepared in the fall when we came back in October after a month's delay to reinstate all of those bills at the same stage they had been, that is, three in the Senate and one here for a quick passage because there was the consent of all of the parties.

Again, with just a little bit of luck, we would have had all of those bills through the Senate by the end of the year, that is, before the year-end break, and if not, we would have had them in the first few weeks of January or February of this year, all of them. Instead, we have had this lengthy delay caused by the Conservative government, not by the Senate.

As members well know, my party and I are not supporters of the Senate. Regularly and consistently since the existence of our political party back in the 1940s, we have been calling for the abolition of the Senate. I am not here to defend members of the other place. We saw last week the kind of delay on Bill C-13, the meddling they do all the time. It is an unelected, unrepresentative, and I think oftentimes an irresponsible body. I am not here to defend them, but by the same token, at this period of time the delay for this legislation lies squarely, entirely in the lap of the government.

If the government were really serious about fighting crime as opposed to, as Lawrence Martin said in the Globe and Mail this morning, using it for, to quote him, “cheap politics”, if the Conservatives were not doing it for that purpose, if they were really serious about the need to deal with serious violent crime in particular and some of these other issues around impaired driving and the age of consent, if they were not seeing it just as a methodology to try to get re-elected, we would have moved quite a bit further along. It is to their eternal shame that we are at the stage we are. Let us look at that stage.

It was interesting in the early and middle part of last week. The government, in the speeches its members were giving in the House, and in some of the addresses they were making to the media, began to sound almost desperate for an election. In that regard, if we have an election, we are going to be in the same situation. The bill is going to die, as all the others will that are on the order paper, and we will not see any of this legislation in place for the use of our police officers and judiciary across the country to apply and fight the various aspects of criminal activity that the bill would allow them to do.

The Conservatives are pushing that button, not because they are really serious about fighting crime. That is not their primary motivation. Their primary motivation is to use this as a political tool to try to save their seats, to try to get re-elected as a government. It is probably a faulty assumption on their part that it is going to work, but that is what their motivation is, not the best interests of the country and not the victims of crime. It is the Conservative political party that this is all about in trying to save their skins in the next election.

If we look at history, it is the height of hypocrisy for them to stand in the House and argue that they are tough on crime. It is simply not the reality when one looks at it.

The other point that I want to make is that if they were really serious about being effectively tough on crime, they would not have broken their promise with regard to the 2,500 police officers that they promised in the last election, and on which they have not delivered. In fact they misled Canadians in the last election. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the former minister of justice, all of them across the country were trumpeting the 2,500 additional police officers they would see put in place.

What has happened? Number one, they did not tell the Canadian people that they were expecting the provinces to pick up most of the tab for those 2,500 police officers, money which the provinces do not have. To some degree, at least a number of the provinces have already moved on with regard to promises they made in elections to increase the number of police officers. They have already put some money into it and now the federal government is coming to them, johnny-come-lately, and saying, “Oh, by the way, although we promised this in the last election and we didn't tell the Canadian people we were going to do this, we want you, the provinces, to pay a big chunk, in most cases at least 50%”. That is not within the financial capabilities of most of the provinces, nor should it be their responsibilities when the promise was made without that condition by the government.

It is a full two years after the election and this broken promise is still hanging over their heads. If the Conservatives were serious about it, they would not be bringing this kind of useless motion in front of the House. They would be moving a motion in the House to see to it that money was put in place, that a budgetary item was put in place. We should have seen this last fall, we should have seen it in the budget in February and we should have seen it in the budget in the previous February.

Today we hear that the next budget is coming. Let me assure the House that there will be nothing in the budget for those 2,500 police officers. The Conservatives are going to break that promise on an ongoing basis and they are not going to fulfill their commitment to the Canadian people.

With regard to that, whenever we look at dealing with crime effectively, we have to look at it from three perspectives.

First, we have legislation, as we see with Bill C-2, that deals with specific problems under our Criminal Code and other legislation. We are working on that against the delays caused by the government because it wants to keep it as a hot button item. It does not want the legislation passed because then it will be behind us. Therefore, we have done that to a great extent. There is still more that needs to be done.

The other two legs of that three-legged stool, if I can use that analogy, is prevention. The big item there is to move programs into our local communities, funded by the federal government. Again, the provinces do not have the taxing power or the revenue capability to fulfill all this. However, we literally have to move $100 million a year to the provinces and the municipal local levels of government, to provide programming that will keep young people, in particular, out of the youth gangs and generally fight the drug culture and keep them out of those parts of our communities that advocate the use of drugs. That money needs to be spent. There is absolutely nothing beyond a very inconsequential amount that the government has done in this regard. It is minuscule. In fact, most of the time the government does not know what to do with it.

I come back to those 2,500 police officers. We know that in those areas of our cities where we have seriously violent crimes, we need to put more police officers on the street. We simply cannot deal with that in any effective ways, even if it is in an interim measure, for the next number of years. We need more police officers on the streets fighting that kind of crime, street level crime, particularly in the youth gangs where so much of the gun crime resides at the present time. The government has done nothing on that and it has done a minuscule about on the prevention side.

Therefore, if the government were really serious, we would see that. We would not see the sham that this motion represents in the House at the present time. We would see concrete action. Most of this is looking at programming that would be successful. There are all kinds of examples of it in Canada and in other communities across the globe that we can look to and adopt, but we have to fund them. The government has been refusing to do that, just as it is refusing to fund those 2,500 police officers, as it promised in the last election.

Where are we at? On a silly waste of time today debating this motion. It is going to have absolutely no effect. The government, whether it is over this, or over the budget or over Afghanistan, is looking desperately to bring itself down, to force the opposition parties to bring it down.

However, in this case it is not even asking the opposition parties in effect. It is saying that we should pass the motion and then if the Senate does not move, it will go to the Governor General and say that it does not have the confidence of the House, even if the motion passes. That is the stupid part of the motion. Even if the House passes it, and it looks like perhaps the Liberals and the Bloc appear as if they will support it, the government would still come down at the end of March, if the Senate, the other house over which we have no control, decides will not pass Bill C-2 by March 31.

It is absolutely silly. It is the height of hypocrisy. It is really the height of demagoguery as well when we look at what has gone on in the House over the last few months around Bill C-2. It is a shame. The government members should really bow their heads and apologize to the Canadian people for it.

Criminal Code

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter the debate on Bill C-13. The bill in its original form was passed by the House of Commons in October 2007. It went to the Senate and the Senate has come back with some amendments. The amendments the Senate is proposing are more in the area of reviewing the bill after certain periods of time and also various reporting mechanisms to ensure the bill is working the way it should.

My colleagues, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and the member Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, have been the lead on the bill, so I am not here to debate the bill generally. The bill deals with some of the mechanisms of the justice system. Generally it is seen as an improvement on the Criminal Code with respect to criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing, et cetera. Some of the amendments make certain processes more effective and efficient through the greater use of technology and by consolidating and rationalizing existing provisions.

The reason I am standing here today is to question a couple of the provisions of the bill. It seems to me if we are to write law in Parliament, the law should be practical, relevant, enforceable and generally have the support of the people. In some cases the latter criteria cannot always be met. Sometimes governments have to take some action that citizens generally would not appreciate. However, generally laws to be effective need to be feasible, operable and enforceable and enforced, otherwise people lose their respect and confidence in the Criminal Code.

I will speak specifically to the question of Internet betting. My riding of Etobicoke North has the Woodbine Racetrack, Canada's national racetrack for horses, thoroughbred and standardbred. It operates year round. It was the host of the Queen's Plate and the North America Cup. It brings a lot of economic activity to Etobicoke North.

The development of a two or three hundred acre plot next to the racetrack will be known as Woodbine Live. It will be a whole gathering of entertainment areas, hotels, shopping and other attractions. This operation brings in many jobs and economic activity to the riding of Etobicoke North. I know the Woodbine Entertainment Group is anxious to employ local people to help build the Woodbine Live project and to help operate it. It is committed to that as am I.

The reality is the racetrack is a legal gaming operation. The Woodbine Entertainment Group used to be the Jockey Club and was renamed some years ago. The group and I have been quite frustrated with the growth in illegal Internet betting, which essentially takes market share away from its legal gaming operations based on the racetrack. We have laws right now on the books that prohibit certain aspects that go on as we speak, and in large volume.

I will go over some of the provisions currently in the act. Bill C-13 would make certain changes to the provisions in the Criminal Code as it relates to unlawful Internet gambling. It perhaps provides greater clarity on what is illegal, and that is a good thing and a positive development. However, it needs to be enforced by the authorities, or we need to change the rules to level the playing field and allow organizations like the Woodbine Entertainment Group to get into the area of Internet gaming, and it would be quite happy to do that.

Right now, because Woodbine Entertainment Group is licensed provincially and because Internet gambling is generally unlawful, it would not engage in unlawful activity in the first place. Second, if it were to, it would jeopardize the Ontario gaming licence.

The Woodbine group is caught in a Catch-22. It is seeing its market share eroded because of activities that are illegal in Canada, but not forced. Yet because of its stringent licensing provisions and its respect for the law, it is unable to get into the Internet betting.

One of the solutions would be for us to ease our restrictions on organizations like Woodbine to get involved in Internet betting. Frankly, I do not see it going away.

We can regulate things like that to death. We can bring in laws, but organizations like the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police are not enforcing these provisions. In fairness to them, if they are dealing with drug dealers, terrorists, illegal migrants and other criminal activities, it only stands to reason that enforcing illegal Internet betting is not high on their priority list.

At one level, I can understand that, but at another level, if we have laws on the books, we either enforce them or we get rid of them. Otherwise we create a climate where people have a disrespect for the Criminal Code of Canada.

Allow me to go over some things by way of background. If we look at the situation in Canada, advertisement of gambling on Internet casinos, including foreign lotteries, is currently illegal if not done by the provinces.

We all know about the various lotteries that go on in Canada. Advertising those lotteries, promoting them is legal because it is done by the provinces. Provincial governments in Canada are permitted to conduct, manage and advertise computer-based lottery schemes like Internet gambling, but they cannot license others to do so.

Part VII of the Criminal Code generally prohibits gaming in Canada, but provides for certain exceptions. Among the exceptions are certain gaming activities which can be carried on pursuant to a provincial licence. A broader range of lottery schemes can be conducted and managed by provincial governments. The racing and the gaming activities associated with horse racing by the Woodbine Entertainment Group at the Woodbine Racetrack is authorized and licensed by the province, and constitutes a legal gaming activity.

Let me tell the House what is happening and happening now in greatly increased volumes and having a detrimental impact on racetracks across the country.

It has been a crime for many years to operate Internet gaming websites in Canada, but that has not stopped many offshore companies from soliciting bets from Canadians. These companies have now become so bold that in addition to placing ads in Canadian newspapers and at sporting events, they are now running seminars in Canada to attract people to their websites. When they meet with people, they say that laws in Canada are pretty soft and undefined, so this kind of activity can go on.

Sometimes we see adverts for poker when we turn on the television. They have an interesting segue. They will have a cometopoker.com or whatever it might be. They will allude or suggest that it is a tutorial on how to play poker, but they all have a very simple segue into poker playing for money. Generally they are complying with the law in one sense, but they are abusing the spirit of the law, and I am afraid the government has not done much about it.

The government says that it wants to fight crime and criminality, but many hard-working Canadians are being ripped off and people who work at race tracks that are part of that economic activity are threatened. Legitimate gaming industries in Canada, such as the Woodbine Entertainment Group in my riding and other provincial gaming operations are being impacted by these illegal Internet gambling websites. It is costing them millions in revenue and it is putting Canadians out of work. It is creating jobs and some economic activity offshore.

I must say in fairness that our Liberal government did not take a lot of action on this either. Part of the problem is that law enforcement agencies have so many other priorities that they cannot enforce it. That is why I am coming around to the conclusion that instead of clarifying elements of the Criminal Code, which Bill C-13 does with respect to Internet gaming, and making it more clear, hopefully there is an intent to enforce it, but I do not see that.

I should say that the relevant sections of Bill C-13 are in clause 5, which reads:

5. Paragraph 202(1)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) wilfully and knowingly sends, transmits, delivers or receives any message that conveys any information relating to book-making, pool-selling, betting or wagering, or that is intended to assist in book-making, pool-selling, betting or wagering; or

The part of the code that is not being amended is saying that this is a criminal offence. I think that makes it pretty clear, but if it is not enforced, I am not sure that it has any impact.

I have looked at changes to the code but frankly do not see what that will do. It has led me to look at a private member's bill that would call on the banks essentially to intercept Visa, MasterCard, or other credit cards or debit cards that are being used for activities that are illegal.

I think that has actually been done in the United States, but unfortunately it is being challenged under the WTO rules because they limited the exposure to offshore Internet operations. However, there are a lot of onshore Internet operations in the United States also that are conducting these illegal Internet gaming operations, so someone has challenged it under the WTO rules. I suspect they will win that one because it is differentiating between onshore and offshore.

I have a draft bill which I am prepared to move forward with that would call on the financial institutions in Canada to set up regimes that would intercept these types of transactions. The bill would provide for the establishment of payment systems to identify and block financial transactions in the course of unlawful Internet gambling.

I have alerted the banking community, which is not thrilled with this because it is a big cost. It essentially transfers the burden of compliance and enforcement to the banking sector because our Criminal Code is not being enforced right here in Canada.

In the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe they have taken a different tact. They have acknowledged that Internet betting, like other activities that take place on the Internet, are almost impossible to police. We have to take action on some of them of course, such as with respect to child pornography and any criminal activity like that, but it is a tough job finding those links. People are very clever when they set up these linkages. In Europe and certainly in the United Kingdom, they said that they had to create a level playing field. They said that they would just legalize it so that those organizations that are involved in legal gaming activities under licence will not have their licences jeopardized if they get in and compete with those operators who are operating illegally.

That really is the point I would like to make with respect to Bill C-13. Of course I will be supporting the bill because my colleagues have looked at it in some detail. In fact it was passed by the House of Commons last fall. The amendments perhaps add to the bill. The bill does, with respect to Internet gaming, provide greater clarity around what that constitutes.

If we write laws in Canada that are not enforced, or that are impractical, all we do is create a gap of credibility that we all suffer as Canadians. There is no point in putting out the smoke and mirrors and saying we are defining it more carefully if law enforcement officers in Canada are not prepared to enforce the law. Frankly, given some of the other priorities, I can empathize with that position.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions. On the one hand, I am almost looking forward to the opportunity Bill C-13 gives me to attack the government and the other chamber for their misconduct, if I can put it that way. That is the emotion on one side, which is a positive one in terms of getting my adrenalin flowing.

However, on the other hand, I feel some significant regret because Bill C-13 and its prior incarnation in the form of C-23 is badly needed to be law, not to be deemed played with as a political toy, which both the government and the Senate are doing.

The history of the bill is that it was first brought before the House by the government in 2006. It went to the justice committee where a number of amendments were made that improved the bill. The bill addressed points of issue in a number of areas, particularly our police but also our prosecutors and the judiciary to more efficiently administer our criminal justice system.

A number of these amendments had been needed for quite some time. The Liberal administration, prior to the Conservative one, had allowed a number of these points to go unaddressed, some of which are as old as two decades and needed to be addressed. Requests had been coming from the police, the prosecutors and our judiciary over that period of time looking for these amendments and they just were not addressed.

The Conservatives came forward in their administration, packaged a number of them into one bill and sent them to the justice committee. We made further amendments that improved the bill. We sent it back to the House and it went through the House with all party support. It went to the Senate around the time the government decided, because it did not have enough of an agenda and did not know what it would do when it returned in the fall of 2007, to prorogue Parliament. The end result was that Bill C-23 died on the order paper in the Senate and had to be brought back.

It came back as Bill C-13 in the new House in the fall of 2007. It did not go to the justice committee. We just passed it and sent it over to the Senate because we had already done all the work that we wanted to do on it in the House.

What happened? The Senate decided that it would stick its fingers, as an unelected, non-responsive, I would say, irresponsible body--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13, which is fairly technical. It deals with the language of juries, procedures for service of documents and also, the aspect that interests us most, the whole issue of official languages and the provision of trials in the official languages. Consequently, it addresses access to justice by minority groups.

We support this bill and are in favour of the amendment tabled by our Liberal colleagues. If I have understood correctly, this amendment clearly recognizes the responsibility of a judge to inform the people before him in a court of law, the people who will be participating in a trial—whether or not they are the accused—that they have the right to a trial in either official language, naturally in the language of their choice. This ensures that justice will be served.

In general, I would like to remind the House that Bill C-13 initially proposed that an accused who does not speak the same language as the majority of a group of accused should not be penalized. It suggested as well that it would be possible for a judge or the chief court coordinator to ensure that a co-accused who does not speak the same language as the majority appears before a bilingual judge or has a separate trial. That is part of our constitutional guarantees. It is also in the Criminal Code and is one of the factors we should always remember as parliamentarians, that is to say, people must always have access to justice in their mother tongue.

For example, when francophones outside Quebec are put on trial—especially when the trial involves multiple charges or there are several accused at the same time—there is always a danger that they will be assimilated because the majority rules, and obviously that is not what we want. The bar expressed its concerns in committee that justice could be denied to minority groups at various points in our current trial procedures.

In regard to linguistic rights, the current system provides that at the request of the accused, a judge will order a preliminary hearing. We all remember that the preliminary hearing is the stage before the trial itself when a judge assesses the evidence that the Crown has and commits the accused to trial. It is a very important stage. The legislation currently provides that, at the request of the accused, a judge will order a preliminary hearing and trial before a judge alone or a jury that speaks the official language of the accused. There is always a concern, therefore, that no one in a minority language situation should be denied knowledge of the evidence against him and the legal procedure or prevented from interacting with the officers of the court and the judges, so that there is always the possibility of ordering a trial in the language of the accused.

I also want to remind the House of similar concerns surrounding the entire question of legal documents. When an accused asks to have his trial in the official language of his choice, in accordance with section 19 of the bill, the Crown must have the documents containing the charges, the information and the indictment translated into the official language of the accused or the language that he best understands. After everything is translated, if that would help the accused understand it better, it is turned over to him.

Changes have also been made in regard to the examination, cross-examination and preliminary hearing. I mentioned that the preliminary hearing is very important because it is here that the Crown reveals its evidence. This is when it is determined whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed to trial.

It should be noted that witnesses can use either official language at the preliminary hearing and the trial. Clause 20(2) of the bill enables the prosecutor, if authorized by the judge and if the circumstances warrant, to examine or cross-examine a witness in the witness’s official language.

Let us look at the case of a francophone accused of a crime. For example, suppose the member for Québec, a francophone, were accused—let us imagine the worst—of having killed her husband. She is ordered to trial and there is a person who saw her kill her husband, Mr. Lemieux, a man who gave her more than 20 years of his life, a veritable saint of a man. If the person who saw her kill her husband is an anglophone, he or she will be summoned to testify as a witness. In this case, the crown prosecutor is bilingual. One may ask in what language the prosecutor will ask questions of the witness. Thanks to the amendments to Bill C-13, it will be possible for the person conducting the examination of the witness, even if he or she speaks a different language than that of the accused, to communicate directly with the witness, thereby avoiding the need for interpreters. Thus, the member for Québec, a francophone, kills her husband; an anglophone witness is called to testify and the prosecutor who laid the charge is bilingual. The cross-examination could be conducted in the language of the witness. In my example, I referred to my colleague, the member for Québec, but honourable members will recognize the fictitious nature of my example because the member for Québec is well known as a peacemaker, without excess of any kind, far removed from anger and possessing total self-control.

That said, I want to say a few words about the amendments that the other place, the Senate, has proposed.

In my opinion—it was a recommendation of the Senate and it is a recommendation of the Liberal opposition—it is desirable that the judge should personally ensure that the person who appears before the court, whether at the preliminary inquiry stage or during the trial on the merits of the case, is clearly aware of his or her linguistic rights, including the right to request a trial in either official language. In a case were there are co-accused, one accused person can even ask for a separate trial when necessary.

Obviously, there are many people involved in the trial proceedings who could inform the accused that his or her linguistic rights must be respected. The prosecutor or the accused’s attorney could do so, or others. In my view, it is a wise move to make certain the judge is able to do that.

Our colleagues in the other place, the senators, have also asked that the legislation be reviewed in three years. This kind of review mechanism, I believe, is now quite common in our bills.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois supports this amendment. The Senate has submitted different cross-referencing provisions, particularly with regard to Bill C-2, the omnibus bill tabled by the government. I have been told there was a bit of a delay in the Senate, which provoked some anger from the parliamentary secretary. As I recall, Bill C-2 was a combination of five previous bills, namely, C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentences), C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make consequential amendments to another Act, the bill on dangerous offenders, the bill on reverse onus in bail hearings and a bill dealing with impaired driving and the new charges that could be laid.

So, Bill C-2 impacts on Bill C-13, and the Senate has presented cross-referencing amendments.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-13 and the amendments proposed by the Liberal opposition. However, I cannot conclude without talking about the court challenges program.

How sad it must be for all parliamentarians to see how this government has taken an insensitive measure. I thought the Minister of the Environment would join his voice to that of the Bloc Québécois and defend francophone minorities. If I am not mistaken, he was responsible for this issue when he was a member of the Mike Harris cabinet. Mike Harris will not be remembered as one of the most progressive parliamentarian in history, but I thought that the Minister of the Environment wanted to follow the philosophical saying to the effect that taking the middle road is doing the virtuous thing. How can one support abolishing the court challenges program and thus move away from the middle road and virtue?

As members know, the Bloc Québécois is a very responsible opposition party. It is the number one political force in Quebec, and it will continue to be so, if such is the wish of Quebeckers. So, the Bloc Québécois brought forward an amendment at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and also at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to resurrect the court challenges program. Unfortunately, we were disappointed by the Conservatives' response. The Conservative Party can no longer be called “progressive”. The fact that they removed the word “progressive” from their name is quite telling.

So, the Bloc Québécois brought forward an amendment in both of these committees. As we know, had it not been for the court challenges program, the French fact outside Quebec—for which our ancestors fought—would not be what it is now. And the Minister of the Environment must raise his voice in cabinet, regarding this French fact.

It is being said that the Minister of the Environment is part of the progressive wing of cabinet. How could he have supported this decision? I will have to tell the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, because I believe he has some influence with this man. I believe that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will have to make the Minister of the Environment understand that he has failed in his responsibilities by not crossing party lines and by leaving francophones outside Quebec to be denied an extremely important tool in this way.

Why is this important? Take the example of school boards. In Quebec, we call them commissions scolaires, but outside Quebec they are conseils scolaires. Governments have not always spontaneously decided to grant resources and equip francophones in some communities with all institutions, from Prince Edward to Alberta, and including Saskatchewan. By using the court challenges program, with public funds, they were able to bring challenges in the courts. The case went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada and forced the establishment of school boards in francophone communities outside Quebec, which are of course minority communities.

How bizarre, not to say stupid, is the reasoning of this government, which claims that it never enacts or introduces unconstitutional laws? Well, I have been sitting in this House for 14 years and I have seen legislation and regulations repeatedly challenged and held to be invalid. Remember that the tobacco regulations, for example, were declared invalid by the Supreme Court. A number of decisions that have been made have been held to be invalid. It is not simply a matter of laws being ruled invalid, it is a matter of getting new ones recognized.

For example, Michael Hendricks, a resident of Montreal, used the court challenges program to have same-sex spouses recognized.

Today, people whose sexual orientation is homosexual can marry, can have proper weddings and experience the joys of marriage—and of course sometimes also the anguish of divorce. Had it not been for Michael Hendricks and his spouse, René Leboeuf, we would never have moved so speedily toward full recognition of rights for the gay and lesbian community. So you can see that the court challenges program has served both francophone communities outside Quebec and gay men and lesbians well.

When we come to examine the Conservative government’s record, the debit side will include the insensitivity it has demonstrated. I can only mourn the fact that no one in the Quebec caucus of the Conservatives felt the need to stand up for francophones outside Quebec. In fact, I say “francophones outside Quebec”, but there is nothing in the court challenges program that made the anglophone minority automatically ineligible to use it. Of course I will be told that the National Assembly has long made sure to respect the anglophone minority in Quebec. In the plan he put forward before the 1995 referendum, Jacques Parizeau said that it was a founding minority of Quebec.

In Quebec, the constitutional rights of anglophones were recognized, and still are. For instance, anglophones have access to learning institutions from kindergarten to university. Even though Quebec is not officially bilingual, a whole range of programs and measures is available to anglophones outside Quebec.

Valéry, a famous name in history, wrote that one can measure how great a civilization is by how it treats its minorities. Of course, in Quebec, we have every reason to be proud of how we have treated the anglophone community. We are equally proud of how we have treated our aboriginal communities. It is well known that René Lévesque was the one who gave recognition to aboriginal communities. Indigenous languages are still used by aboriginal people, and mechanisms maintained by the state allow them to assert themselves as founding nations of Quebec.

In summary, we support this bill. It deals with a number of technical details, but where language rights are concerned, we feel that it is a good piece of legislation, particularly with respect to the right of the co-accused to be tried in the language of the minority, provided that it is one of the official languages. We also support the Liberal amendment that will see the judge presiding at the preliminary hearing or trial be put in charge of recognizing the rights of those appearing before him or her and having them recognized.

In addition, we condemn the Conservative government's insensitivity to minority communities. Hopefully, by the next election, the government will have had a burst of conscience and lucidity and restored the court challenges program.

Finally, I hope that the Minister of the Environment will rise and put a question to me.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon is a stalwart member of the justice committee. He works very hard at ensuring the interests of justice are served. More than that, he does a lot to ensure that his region of this great country is recognized.

After hearing the explanation of the Minister of Finance and him paying all that money to discover that Canada ends at the Rocky Mountains, I want to assure Canadians that Canada goes from east to west. It also goes far north. It goes to the riding of Yukon. The member has expressed many concerns about the aboriginal community.

He is completely right. Bill C-13 was Bill C-23, which could have been law except for, as he says, the ridiculous measures and attitude of the government. The Conservatives was so afraid of a private member's bill that they flushed the drain on all other business, including good business like this. It is sad, cowardly and ridiculous.

Here we are, months later, and the provision that delays the sentencing procedures so an offender can participate in provincially approved treatment programs, which already exist and are in place, should have been put into effect many months ago. The member for Yukon knows that.

The member for Yukon has also addressed language rights with respect to aboriginal peoples. We are evolving as a democracy. We have done fairly well on language rights, despite the actions, the backward, Luddite actions, of the government in cancelling the court challenges program.

We have done pretty well on language rights with respect to bilingualism, meaning French and English. However, what about those minorities in Yukon and in the northern territories and throughout the country?

The Conservatives are supposed to care about western Canada, but there are a lot of aboriginal people who are overrepresented in our justice system, in the sentencing procedures, who may not be served in the language of their mother tongue.

There has been no movement on this because the government does not care about anything but its shrinking 30% or so of the population it serves. The rest of the people in Canada, if they speak another language and the Conservatives do not represent it, they do not matter. If they get any opposition from a wee private member's bill, they will flush all the legislation down the drain to the detriment of the country. They should be ashamed.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always pleasant to see how much support I have on the government side.

I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. He gave a major speech on basic aspects of Bill C-13, which affects, as he said, minority language communities such as the francophone Acadian communities in New Brunswick, including those represented by my colleague and me.

I know that when the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe was the mayor of Moncton, he fought hard for the francophone cause and for bilingualism in his city. I know, too, that he was very disappointed by the government’s decision to eliminate the court challenges program. Like my colleague, I believe that we should accept the Senate amendment that calls on judges to explain to accused what their language rights are.

Does the hon. member think that francophone communities will really be able to assert their constitutional and linguistic rights without the court challenges program? How does he see this bad decision on the part of the Conservative government?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-13. This bill is similar to Bill C-23, which was debated in the House.

I may be a rookie here but I remember Bill C-23 very well. We were in favour of the bill but the government decided to dissolve Parliament. So here we are, debating the same bill all over again, except that the number has changed.

The context is fairly important as we start, Bill C-13 is really Bill C-23. It contains so many important new aspects to make our criminal justice system work more equitably and to modernize it. It is why I was proud as a member of the Liberal justice team and as a member of the Liberal justice committee team to approve it and to send it on for eventual approval and royal assent.

Alas, the Prime Minister and his team decided that they were afraid of the environment. Their new Minister of the Environment had failed so miserably to act on the environment that they had to scuttle the whole Parliament because they were afraid of a couple of bills that might change things. In that mess, in that melee unfortunately, this good justice bill was killed and had to be reintroduced again.

One might ask, what difference does it make? It makes a difference to people who care about the criminal justice system. It may not mean a lot to people, but one of the biggest things we could have done in the last two years that I have been here would have been to modernize and make more effectual our criminal justice system, to move the maximum fine to be imposed for any summary conviction offence from $2,000 to $10,000.

A $2,000 fine is within the means of many people, but a $10,000 fine for a serious summary conviction offence, that does not warrant jail time, is a serious fine and might very well have a deterrent effect on those type of crimes for which a fine is appropriate.

There were many other amendments, which could be in effect and the law in the country now, that were just simply thrown away.

Language rights are very important in my province of New Brunswick which is officially a bilingual province. I represent the city of Moncton, which is an officially bilingual city. This is bread and butter for New Brunswick politicians. It is disturbing to me that the parliamentary secretary, when asked why Bill C-23, which contained many provisions to improve the delivery of justice services in both official languages was not given the priority of other bills, turned his answer to Bill C-2 and the tackling violent crime bill.

I asked why Bill C-23, which everybody agreed upon, was given second shrift to Bill C-2 and of course why was Bill C-2 killed?

This love child of the Conservative justice agenda, why was it killed by the Prime Minister? Was he so afraid of other bills which showed the incompetency of his own ministers?

It seems shocking to me. It included: Bill C-10, involving mandatory minimums which was a bill improved upon at committee and which had passed the House; Bill C-22, which modernized issues surrounding the age of consent and the age of protection, and provided for the first time a close in age exemption which made the bill very palatable in protecting young people; Bill C-32, for which Mothers Against Drunk Driving had been clamouring for some time; and, Bill C-35, a reverse onus on bail provisions which in effect codified the existing treatment of the law by jurists in the country, jurists who are exceptional jurists.

I have said this for two years. It seems like I just got here but I am here again defending judges and saying that they were enacting the provisions of Bill C-35 long before we had to make it law. Finally, there was Bill C-27, with respect to dangerous offenders.

Those were all bills that were moved along and would be law now had the government not pulled the plug on its own agenda. It euthanized its own criminal justice program.

In light of the Conservative vote on the capital punishment issue today, it is not surprising that Conservative members believe in terminating things. They have terminated their own hopes and dreams for criminal justice.

However, we want to move Bill C-23 along, which is now Bill C-13. It is an important bill that will deliver a lot of valuable aspects to the criminal justice system.

However, as I move to what is probably bread and butter for me as a New Brunswick politician, the language of the accused, I want to highlight what the bill will do and what it has done in the past. It is important to note the existing context.

At the request of the accused, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry, a pre-trial procedure, and trial before a judge without jury, or judge with jury, who speak the official language, one or the other, which may be the language of the accused.

If the accused speaks neither English nor French, a judge will order that the accused be granted a preliminary inquiry or trial, without a judge and jury, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony. The court is also required to provide interpretation services. That is the existing set of laws.

What Bill C-13 does to improve upon that, in clause 18 of the original bill, is to suggest that once the accused appears in court, the judge is required to advise him or her of the right to trial in the official language of his or her choice, but this requirement, as it exists now, is only if the accused is not represented by counsel.

What Bill C-13 does, which Bill C-23 did and which we all agree on, is take away the issue of representation and says that the judge must advise the accused, whether represented or not, it was a false barrier, to his or her right to have a trial in the language of his or her own choice. That was a good change and it leads me into some of my further debate points when I say that the judge was required to advise the accused of his or her languages rights.

I know the member for Beauséjour is a member of the bar. He is experienced in certain criminal proceedings and would know, coming from a francophone milieu, that it is critically important that the gatekeeper for language rights in that context, the provincial court judge in most instances, has that positive duty to inform a judge of his or her right to a trial in the language of his or her choice. It is important to know that the judge is already doing that.

With respect to preliminary inquiries and the trial in both official languages, clauses 18 and 21 changed it so that they became more accessible. Trials in the proper language of the accused, either French or English, would be improved by this bill.

I might add, as an aside, that the translation of documents would be ameliorated certainly by these amendments and we are all in favour of that.

I guess where the rubber hits the road is what to do with the amendments presented by the Senate. My friend, the parliamentary secretary, discussed at length some of the amendments, and I want to counter on the two on which we might have a more elaborate discussion.

We know that this bill is aimed at modernizing our criminal justice system and making it more effective. That goes without saying. My party had indicated that it would support the passage of this bill when it was first introduced before prorogation. It was the bill that I mentioned earlier, Bill C-23.

In the context of this modernization, it is important that the rights of all Canadians be respected with regard to the use of official languages in court proceedings.

Canadians, particularly those in minority language situations, know they have certain rights under the Criminal Code, but it is the federal government's responsibility, and I suggest our responsibility as lawmakers, to ensure the application of those rights is clear and that the judicial process is not delayed.

The way the government presented its view of language rights in Bill C-13, a justice of the peace or court judge would only be charged with finding some way to ensure that accused persons are informed of their language rights. That is really not enough.

One of the amendments that we proposed should be supported. We are in argument with the government on this, at least according to the parliamentary secretary's speech. It is important to say from the outset that the judge already has a duty to advise the accused of his or her rights. The language says that the judge must ensure that the accused knows of this option.

I have witnessed many first appearances and I am very confident in the ability of our judges to advise accused persons of their rights. It is commonly done throughout the province of New Brunswick and in any federally appointed court system where official languages are important.

The amendment proposed by the Senate would ensure that the federal government takes on its responsibilities through its agents to inform any accused persons of their right to proceed in the official language they understand. The Senate amendment simply takes out any potential middleman in the administration of justice. The judge would inform the accused of his or her rights.

I do not think that it is an undue burden for a judge. If there is clear communication during court proceedings, we are simply providing for clear access to justice for all those involved. It falls in line with our democratic society's pledge to have an expedient judicial process and it takes out the aspect of appeal.

I think the government wants efficacious legislation but I cannot be sure sometimes because some of the legislation it presents is so poorly written and so hastily delivered, only for the purpose of a television spot on the news, it is not always clear. In this case, however, if the government would only support this Senate amendment, it could have efficacious and fair language policy through the Criminal Code.

Sadly, the other Senate amendment respecting the reporting on official language requests is not one that the opposition can support. We cannot agree with it because it would require the Minister of Justice to report on the language of proceeding or testimony in criminal matters across this country.

There can be no way that all attorneys general in all provinces and in all territories would have the means to uniformly report on this. As the parliamentary secretary rightly commented, it is not the minister's mandate. In saying this, I do not mean that the Minister of Justice is not competent. I mean that he is not competent in the law to do such reporting. For that reason, we support the government in its opposition to that Senate amendment.

I understand the Senate's concern with ensuring that there is accountability in respecting language rights but we can surely do a more effective job in ensuring this by using the other resources that are in the community.

I know well-known jurists and hard-working jurists in my own province.

They are Sacha D. Morisset and Christian Michaud, who are both members of the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick. They often highlight the statistics with regard to French language trials in our province. If it can be done in New Brunswick, I am sure it can be done in Canada.

Again, we do not support that Senate amendment.

In short, we are very happy to get moving with this important legislation. We are happy the Senate took the time to improve the bill by suggesting that judges, who are the gatekeepers in our system, have the duty to inform an accused of his or her rights respecting language in this country.

It is bedrock in this community and this country that we offer services in both languages with respect, at least, to the Criminal Code of Canada and the criminal justice system.

On this one amendment from the Senate, I urge members of the government to agree with the Senate and with the Liberal Party and its justice team that it will make the situation with respect to the delivery of language rights in this instance a much better thing.

I am very proud to suggest that we support the bill and one of the amendments suggested by the Senate, which is one of the two that are excluded from the government's list in the final motion.

I want to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “agrees with Amendments No. 2, 4, 5 and 6” and substituting therefore the words “agrees with Amendments No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6” and by deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “disagrees with Amendment No. 1”.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly some of these provisions have been a long time in coming, decades in fact. We need to update and streamline our Criminal Code procedures.

We heard testimony on the old Bill C-23 and now Bill C-13 as to the impact that these changes would have and that they would be a positive impact on our criminal justice system to ensure timely access to the system for all. I believe that is a goal all of us share to ensure an efficient and effective criminal justice system.

The hon. member mentioned the Senate amendments. Yes, the Senate has dealt with this bill and has put forward six amendments. We are opposing two of those amendments as a government and supporting four of them. The hon. member is quite correct. My take certainly and the take of our party is that the Senate has been delaying Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

In my response to the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, I spoke a bit about what the act would do. I do not know how any member in this House could be opposed to what the tackling violent crime act does. In fact, it has passed this House.

It is necessary legislation to ensure the safety of our communities, the safety of our children, to get impaired drivers off the streets, to ensure that those who commit serious crimes with firearms are behind bars, to ensure that dangerous offenders are in jail rather than out roaming the streets preying on innocent Canadians.

We have handed this legislation off to the Senate. The Senate has not even begun to deal with it until today when the Minister of Justice will be appearing. There is no doubt in my mind there has been tremendous delay. We are urging the Senate to get on with it. We call on the leader of the official opposition to insist that Liberal senators pass the tackling violent crime act.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty with the government's position. It has repeatedly, I think as recently as this afternoon in question period, stood in the House and attacked the other place for delaying bills. Certainly, a strong argument could be made that that is exactly what is happening here with the old Bill C-23, now Bill C-13, where the Senate has amended this bill in its chamber and sent it back.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary does not see some contradiction in the government's position of accepting some of these amendments now and, at the same time, literally at times screaming at the other house for delay, which is the effect this has.

There are some provisions in this bill that the NDP would have liked to have seen, quite frankly, 20 years ago in terms of some of the amendments. This is a bill that is based on a number of different sections in the code. A number of them would make the enforcement of our laws, the conduct of police as well as our judiciary in our criminal justice system much more efficient. We now are seeing months and months of delay of this law coming into effect because of the amendments that have been sent back to us by the other house.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment on the apparent contradiction and also whether he is not exposing this House to seeing the Senate make amendments to Bill C-2, send it back and cause delay on that bill.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary and I would both know that former Bill C-23 was part of the Conservative justice agenda, along with all of the other bills, the five bills that are now part of Bill C-2.

My first question is, why was Bill C-23--we are discussing Bill C-13, the same bill--plucked from that raft of bills?

This bill deals with, for instance, taking away equipment and material from people who lure children through the Internet, the crime of Internet luring. It increases summary conviction fines from $2,000 to $10,000. It was agreed upon by all parties. Why are we sitting here in February, probably just before an election, why did we have to wait? Why was this bill, which also deals with language rights in his own province of New Brunswick, a bilingual province, why was it given such short shrift? Why was it put to the bottom of the order paper with respect to justice bills?

Finally, he said that his minister had consulted with provincial and territorial governments and it would be too onerous for them to require judges to instruct both represented and non-represented accused of their right to trial in the language of their choice. What evidence does he have of that? Could he be more specific? We would certainly like to know.

Those are the two short questions I have for the parliamentary secretary.

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

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

Bill C-13 was passed by the Senate on January 29 with six amendments. I will speak to each of them.

Four amendments to the language of trial provisions were made, including the creation of two new provisions. An additional amendment makes changes to the coming into force provision of Bill C-13, while the sixth amendment coordinates changes proposed to the same Criminal Code provision in both Bill C-13 and Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

Before turning to each amendment, I wish to underline the fact that, with respect to the language of trial amendments, both the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, a national federation representing the provincial associations of francophone jurists, are satisfied with the proposals found in Bill C-13 as passed by the House of Commons. The proposals in this regard were carefully studied by both the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

I will now turn to each amendment.

The first amendment proposed by the Senate is with respect to clause 18, a clause meant to ensure that all accused persons in this country are aware of their fundamental language rights. As members know, the current Criminal Code provision grants only unrepresented accused the right to be advised of their language rights by the judge.

As passed by the House of Commons, clause 18 proposed to extend this right to all accused, whether represented by counsel or not. In other words, clause 18 would broaden the right to be advised so that it would benefit all accused persons. This would heed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Beaulac case of 1999 as well as respond to a recommendation made by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This being said, clause 18 as introduced did not impose a duty on the judge to personally inform each accused of his or her language rights. Rather, the clause stated that the judge “shall ensure that they are advised”.

The amendment proposed to clause 18 by the Senate would now require the presiding judge, at the accused's first appearance, to personally inform each and every accused of their language rights. We do not agree with this amendment.

During the consultation on the proposals that led to Bill C-13, provinces and court administrators clearly told the government that a requirement for the judge to personally inform all accused, including accused persons with legal representation, would create a significant burden on judges and courts as well as considerably increase delays in criminal proceedings.

Obviously, further delays in criminal proceedings is something that all of us in this House should work against.

As many provinces developed efficient ways of ensuring that accused persons are made aware of their language rights, the government drafted Bill C-13 with a specific view to recognizing different provincial and territorial practices in this area.

Let us be clear. The duty continues to rest upon the judge. He or she must ensure that the accused is advised. The use of the words “shall ensure” does not, as some have suggested, dilute in any way the right that is granted.

In fact, it is an expression that is often used in federal legislation, for instance, in the Official Languages Act. For example, section 22 of that act states that:

Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from its head or central office in either official language....

Section 16 states that federal courts have the duty to ensure that judges can understand the proceedings in either English or French, without the use of an interpreter.

To use the wording of the Supreme Court of Canada, the right granted will continue to be “a substantive right and not a procedural one that can be interfered with”.

By ensuring that all accused, whether represented or not, are advised of their language rights, clause 18, as introduced and as passed by this House, not only avoided the possibility of accused persons exercising their language rights outside of the prescribed timeframe, but, more importantly, ensured that positive measures are taken to improve the means by which all Canadians can avail themselves of their language rights.

For all of these reasons, we disagree with this amendment, this being the first amendment.

The second amendment proposed in the Senate was made to clause 19, dealing with the translation of charging documents. Clause 19 of Bill C-13 grants all the accused the right to ask for a translation of the information or indictment. An amendment to the English version of clause 19 was made by the Senate, as it was felt that the wording needed to be changed to clarify that the entire charging document is to be translated.

I must say that this was the intent of the initial provision and as such, we do not think that the amendment is absolutely necessary. This being said, we do not object to the amendment, as it has simply clarified what was the original intent.

The third amendment adopted by the Senate is the creation of new clause 21.1. This clause calls on the Minister of Justice to prepare and table an annual report in Parliament on the number of bilingual trials, the number of trials held in French outside of the province of Quebec and the province of New Brunswick, and the number of trials held in English in Quebec.

I appreciate that statistics of this kind may be useful in assessing the implementation of the language rights provisions of the Criminal Code. Detailed statistics often provide indicators that are essential for an overall appreciation of the impact made by legislation. Indeed the department has explored with its provincial and territorial counterparts ways in which this could be accomplished and will continue to do so in the future.

I am sure that hon. members will agree that it is not good public policy to enact a provision that imposes responsibilities on those that do not have the means to fulfill them. Practically speaking, the amendment also fails to take into account the fact that in some jurisdictions, minority language trials will take place without any formal orders issued, pursuant to section 530 of the Criminal Code. These cases are thus difficult to track and call into question the accuracy of the data that would be collected.

However, the problem with this amendment is that it imposes a statutory duty on the federal Minister of Justice, whereas in fact it is only provincial and/or territorial attorneys general who have the ability to actually collect this information. In addition, provinces and territories have told us that they do not keep statistics related to the language of trial provisions in the Criminal Code.

As I already stated, we would be asking for, and enforcing in criminal law, provisions that the provinces are not at this time equipped to fulfill.

For all these reasons, we do not support this amendment, not because we disagree with the principle or the idea that statistics of this kind would be useful, but mainly because it imposes upon the federal Minister of Justice an obligation to provide information the minister does not possess or control.

Other informal avenues to collect such data will continue to be explored. However, we cannot support the inclusion of a legislative requirement in the Criminal Code to report on information that is not under the responsibility of the federal Minister of Justice.

The fourth amendment creates new clause 21.2. This clause requires a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code's language of trial provisions be undertaken by a parliamentary committee. I understand that the Senate committee considered it necessary to create this provision in order to ensure that monitoring the implementation of the new provisions, as well as of part XVII of the Criminal Code as a whole, will occur within three years of the coming into force of this provision.

Although we do not disagree with this amendment, we do not believe that this new section is actually needed in order for Parliament to review the provisions and operation of the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code.

Section 88 of the Official Languages Act specifically provides for the creation of a committee of the House, of the Senate, or both, to review the administration of the act. Two such committees currently exist and have the authority to study the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code.

The fifth amendment adopted by the Senate makes corresponding changes to the coming into force provision at clause 46. It provides that new clauses 21.1 and 21.2 will come into force in the same manner as other language of trial provisions. While I disagree with the creation of new clause 21.1, we support the amendment to the coming into force provision as it does not directly refer to clause 21.1.

Finally, a sixth amendment was made to create new clause 45.2 for the purpose of coordinating two sets of amendments in Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, and Bill C-13, both of which propose changes to the same Criminal Code provision dealing with impaired driving. This amendment is required and should be supported.

I would like to urge all hon. members to support amendments numbered 2, 4, 5 and 6, but not to support amendments numbered 1 and 3.

I hope that both Houses can come to an expeditious agreement on this very important piece of legislation that aims to improve many other aspects of the criminal justice system.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first Thursday question of the year, I want to formally welcome everyone back to the House of Commons. Hopefully, we will be even more productive in 2008 than we were in 2007.

Judging by the first sitting day, I think we will be.

So far, the House has passed Bill C-8, on railway transportation, and Bill C-9, on the settlement of investment disputes.

Moreover, Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act, and Bill C-27, on identity theft, have been referred to committee.

This is a rather good start.

We hope to keep up that level of productivity by quickly passing our legislation to strengthen the security certificates process, which started debate at report stage today. That is of course Bill C-3. We now have a House order to assist us in facilitating that debate. We will continue to debate the bill until report stage is completed.

While all members of the House do not understand the importance of the bill, I believe that the official opposition does. I hope that we can work together in a spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship to have it passed before the date identified by the Supreme Court of Canada as the date by which it would like to see the law passed, February 23.

Following Bill C-3 tomorrow we will continue with the unfinished business from this week, namely Bill C-33, renewable fuels; Bill C-39, the grain act; Bill C-7, aeronautics; and Bill C-5, nuclear liability.

Next week will be a safe and secure Canada week.

Debates will continue until the bill is passed by this House.

After that, we will debate Bill C-25, which would strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and Bill C-26, which imposes mandatory minimum penalties for producers and traffickers of drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children. We also hope to discuss the Senate's amendments to Bill C-13, on criminal procedure.

Finally, in keeping with next week's theme, I would suggest that my hon. colleague opposite explain to his colleagues in the Senate the importance of quickly passing the Tackling Violent Crime Act, the bill which is overwhelmingly supported by Canadians across the country, and which was the number one priority of the government throughout the fall session of Parliament and which passed this House last fall. It has already been in the Senate longer than its entire time in the House of Commons, yet the Liberal dominated Senate has not even started committee hearings on the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

While the elected accountable members of the House rapidly passed the bill, which I would like to remind everyone was a question of confidence, unfortunately it looks like the unelected, unaccountable Liberal dominated Senate is up to its old tricks again of delaying and obstructing in every way. Let me be clear. This government will not stand and allow Liberal senators to obstruct, delay and ultimately kill the bill. The Tackling Violent Crime Act was quickly passed in the House and Canadians expect the Liberal dominated Senate to act in the same fashion and pass it quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, 2007 has been a great year for Canada and a great year for the House of Commons.

Next week is the last week of the fall sitting and the last week before the new year. The sitting and the year have been extremely successful for the federal government, as we have introduced legislation in all of our priority areas and have delivered results for Canadians.

However, since we have only a few sitting days remaining this year to address important tax cuts, security issues and other priority bills still pending, Canadians are expecting us to work very hard in the coming days to produce results for them.

We want to see our priority bills passed in this House and sent to the Senate so that they may become law before Christmas. As a result, next week will be 2007, a year of results week.

We plan to build on our past achievements by debating and passing the budget implementation bill, which would lower taxes for all Canadians by reducing the GST to 5%, as well as by bringing in tax cuts for individuals and corporations.

We will debate Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, which must be passed by Parliament before January 1 to ensure that it is implemented and we can benefit from that.

We will also debate our railway transportation bill, Bill C-8, and our bill on the settlement of international investment disputes, Bill C-9. Both bills will help create jobs and provide economic certainty for Canadians.

Our government will continue to show Canadians that we are serious about tackling crime and strengthening the security of Canadians. Next week, we expect that our security certificates bill, Bill C-3, will be reported back from committee. The bill will then be debated at report stage and third reading. We hope the hon. members of the House understand the importance of passing this legislation so that it may be considered and passed by the Senate before the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court.

We will debate any amendments made to our Bill C-13 on criminal procedure, currently being examined by the Senate.

Speaking of the Senate, the government hopes that the tackling violent crime act will pass the Senate so Canadians can feel safer over the Christmas holidays knowing that the bill has been enacted into law.

Canadians also expect their institutions to be more accountable and democratic. We have built a record of results on this file as well, with the passage of the Federal Accountability Act and Bill C-31 to improve the integrity of the voting process. Next week we will continue with our plans in this area by debating Bill C-29, which closes a loophole in our campaign financing laws that Liberal leadership candidates used to bypass campaign contribution limits last year.

We would also like Bill C-6, on the visual identification of voters, and Bill C-18, on the verification of residence, to be sent back by committee. It is important for these bills to become law, so that they can be implemented in time for the next byelections.

Tomorrow I will also seek consent to send Bill C-30, the specific land claims bill, to committee. This bill to create certainty and allow land claims to be resolved more quickly is a welcome addition and the country will be better off the sooner its process is put in place.

This year, 2007, has been an excellent year for Canada. Our economy is booming, the country is united and there is integrity in government.

We have achieved a lot this year. Our government has delivered real results for Canadians in 2007 and will continue to do so next week and in the new year.

Criminal Code

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would l like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-23 at time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)