Subcommittee on Private Members' Business Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2018

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I think there's enough to go on division.

The vote needs to be called, but it will be carried on division, in any case.

[The Chair]

Right.

(Motion agreed to on division. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move on to Bill C-421.

[David Groves]

This is another bill that would raise the same criteria, that bills and motions must not clearly violate the charter. It would be presumably the same provisions of the charter—section 16 and section 20.

Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act on adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, would amend the Citizenship Act to require that permanent residents who reside in Quebec would, in applying for citizenship, be required to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of French. Typically, under the act, permanent residents are allowed to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of either French or English.

I would first note that as with my comments with Bill C-420, subsection 16(3) of the charter allows for laws that “advance the equality of status or use of English and French”, and that courts in the past have found that the promotion and protection of French—which is arguably the purpose behind this bill—is substantial and pressing. I would also note that Quebec has a great deal more control over immigration than other provinces and so has some unique powers in that regard.

Of course, immigration and citizenship are not necessarily the same, but it's to say that this is a slightly different relationship between the federal and provincial governments. As such, it could—could, again—be argued that this presents a minimal and justifiable intrusion into the section 20 rights of permanent residents who would then be applying for citizenship.

It could—could—also be argued—and again this is hypothetical and simply being offered for this analysis—that the intrusion is particularly minimal since it does not bar a citizen who took the test in English in Ontario or elsewhere from subsequently moving to Quebec. Section 6 of the charter is about how once you become a citizen you can move within the country freely, and that would be untouched by this bill.

As with Bill C-420, there are complex constitutional issues raised by this bill. I would nonetheless, in my assessment, assess that it could be determined not non-votable, but as always, that standard is not mine to interpret or apply.

[The Chair]

Any comments?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

This raises an issue that we had in the last one.

[The Chair]

There are citizens in Quebec who speak English and who have permanent resident status. I know many of them. Does this mean that these people could no longer be permanent residents?

[David Groves]

It would apply to—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Permanent residents.

[David Groves]

Yes, they could be permanent residents. Yes. They wouldn't be allowed to apply for citizenship and then ask that their demonstration of competence in language be done in English. When you apply for citizenship, you have to demonstrate competence in a language, and then I also believe you have to demonstrate knowledge of Canadian civics.

[The Chair]

There are permanent residents in my riding who would like to apply to become Canadian citizens, but they speak English. That would mean that they wouldn't be entitled to.

[David Groves]

Yes, that's right, unless they were to move or learn French. They would have to move to a different province.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I would like to make a point on that.

My wife speaks five languages. French is not one of them. When she got her Canadian citizenship, we had just moved to Quebec. I had already lived there; she came to Quebec with me. She would have had to return to Ontario or stay in Ontario to get her citizenship, and I think that's against the values of our Constitution, our charter. I cannot support that on constitutional grounds. I cannot vote to allow this to be votable.

I therefore move:

That Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), be designated as a non-votable item.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

As a person who ran an organization that served newcomers to Canada for many years, I remember helping people in our very anglophone part of the world, in B.C., who spoke only French, and they would still be able to get their citizenship by using the French language, so I am not going to vote in support of moving forward with this, because it simply is not...well, I don't think it's constitutional, and it totally undermines the fact that Canada is a multilingual country. That's something we should all be proud of.

[The Chair]

So this would be non-votable?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Exactly, and this gives the mover a right of appeal.

[The Chair]

Okay.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That's non-votable, yes.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair]

Bill C-266 remains.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have no objection to this bill, but I think the analyst has some comments.

[David Groves]

It's the last one, as far as I know.

Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to increasing parole ineligibility, seeks to amend the Criminal Code so that a person who has been convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering someone is ineligible for parole for at least 25 and at most 40 years. This would raise the period of parole ineligibility for individuals who commit this pattern of crimes from where it sits now.

Bill C-229, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts with regard to life sentences would, among other things, have amended the Criminal Code to make parole entirely unavailable for individuals who are convicted of certain types of crime. This would have included individuals who are convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering someone. Bill C-229 was considered by the House and defeated at second reading on September 21, 2016.

To summarize, Bill C-266 would extend the period of parole ineligibility that would apply to someone convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder. Bill C-229, among other things, would have prevented someone who is convicted of sexual assault and murder or abduction and murder in respect of a single individual from parole eligibility entirely.

The reason I'm flagging these two is for the same reason that I've flagged others today: it's because private members' items must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament. There's a possibility, then, a question that Bill C-266 concerns a question substantially similar to the question contained in Bill C-229, on which the House has already voted. Both would reduce parole eligibility for a certain type of offender.

There are, however, differences. Bill C-229 would have covered a much broader array of crimes and would have removed parole eligibility entirely. Bill C-266 is more targeted to a specific type of crime and would provide for an extended period of ineligibility to be determined at the discretion of a judge.

The mechanisms are different in that one would have been automatic and would have lasted for life, while the other is an extension that has some flexibility within it at the discretion of the judge, after considering submissions from a jury, if they would like to make those submissions.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I won't support the bill, but I don't have a problem with it being votable, if I can put it that way.

I therefore move:

That Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), not be designated non-votable.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I concur. Well, I support the bill; I concur with your analysis of letting it be votable. I don't want Mr. Bezan tracking me down on this one.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

There would be minimum sentence for him; don't worry.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I concur as well.

[The Chair]

So it would be votable.

(Motion agreed to. [See Minutes of Proceedings])