Evidence of meeting #92 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank my colleague for his comments. First of all, I agree with him that there are many litigants and lawyers who speak only English or French or who write in English and speak another language, whether it be an indigenous or other language. That's all true. However, we're talking here about appointing commissioners who will play a quasi-judicial role. If we want all these people to whom Mr. Garrison refers, lawyers and litigants who are unilingual English or French, or people who speak several languages but neither official language, to have access to a fair judicial review, we at least have to ensure that the commissioners can work effectively in both official languages.
If a commissioner speaks Cree in addition to English and French, so much the better. Whether it's Italian or any other language, that's desirable—
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Yes. It could be Portuguese too. I love Italian, as you know, Mr. Mendocino. I don't speak it, but I love hearing it.
In short, in Canada, we've been given two official languages. Hundreds of languages are spoken in Canada, and we have to respect them all, but there are two official languages, and our courts, even if they are quasi-judicial tribunals, must necessarily reflect this principle of linguistic duality.
While I respect Mr. Garrison's argument, I think we need to ensure, first of all, that the commissioners are highly proficient in both official languages.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We are back. Thank you so much.
The committee normally would conclude at 10:15, but if need be, we can go 10 minutes extra. We hope we don't need to, but that's just in case we do.
I'm not sure who was speaking last. We were at BQ-1.
Were there any other speakers or is there a vote?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We'll have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
You counted six nays and I counted five. Four Conservative members plus Mr. Maloney; that makes five.
Pardon me, I forgot Mr. Garrison.
We're abandoning bilingualism in Canada. I'm sorry about that.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Madam Chair, I'd like to move the motion.
I just want to say briefly that it was the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies that brought to our attention a dilemma that's created for those who believe they're wrongly convicted, because in order to avail yourself of services in the Canadian correctional system, you have to take responsibility for your actions, as it's called. Those who continue to say “I'm innocent” are often denied privileges and programming within the correctional system. All this intends to do is let the commission advise or notify Corrections Canada so they know a case is being seriously considered, in the hope this will not cause people to suffer additional penalties while they're waiting for an adjudication of their application.
I know a subamendment has been suggested. I'm completely supportive of the amendment. I think it's better wording, perhaps, than my original. I hope to see us deal with this expeditiously.
Thanks.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Maloney, I will go to you. You've submitted a subamendment to NDP-3.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I believe the subamendment has been circulated in both languages—
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
—so I won't take the time to read it. As Mr. Garrison has already indicated, he's supportive of the subamendment.
I'll just leave it there.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you to both of you.
Shall the subamendment to NDP-3 carry?
(Subamendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall NDP-3 carry as amended?
Go ahead, Mr. Fortin.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
That went quite quickly. I'd like to correct something. I agreed on the subamendment, but I'll vote against NDP‑3.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Shall NDP-3 carry as amended?
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)
There are no amendments to clauses 5 to 20. I will group them together for the vote with unanimous consent.
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Shall clauses 5 to 20 carry?
(Clauses 5 to 20 inclusive agreed to on division)
Shall the short title carry?
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
On division.
