Debates of Feb. 6th, 2008

Criminal Code

[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 want first to thank the hon. member for Beauséjour for his question and congratulate him on this new position. He is now my boss, actually, as the justice critic.

In regard to his question, it is obvious that we have to fight for our rights. That is the history of greater Moncton, of New Brunswick and of Acadia. When I was young, there was not much sign of the French language in the cities and courts. Now these rights are enshrined in the Canadian constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the statutes of New Brunswick, and the by-laws of the City of Moncton. That is why it is very important to remember how enormous these challenges seemed at the time. These successes are due to the work of a lot of people but also to such programs as the court challenges program.

The enshrining of language rights or any kind of rights is the result of struggle against people who do not want the minority to have rights. That is why I am very proud to be a member of the Association des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick, because those people are totally opposed to this government’s decision to cancel the court challenges program.

For these reasons, I am very proud to support this bill. It is too bad that this government took so long to bring it forward. That is the truth. I am very ashamed to be a member of this House, because the government cancelled the court challenges program. It is horrible.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments on the bill and then on the process.

First, I certainly appreciate one item in this bill, which originally came from Liberal consultation. It is the power to delay sentencing proceedings so an offender can participate in a provincially approved treatment program. We say it all the time that treatment is more of a solution than is incarceration, especially crimes involving drugs, a point that will be made a great deal stronger in the next bill once we finish with this one, which will be shortly.

In relation to this bill, at one time I asked the committee to make it mandatory to present the accused with the short court documents containing charges in the person's language of choice. The committee did not agree because there would be too much paper and yet it would only be maybe less than a couple of dozen papers a year.

The parliamentary secretary said that one Senate amendment could not be accepted because the federal Attorney General would not have the information as to whether a trial was conducted in English or French. One just has to read the record. It would be pretty easy to see that something is written in English or French.

The other thing I want to comment on is the whole ridiculous diatribe on the process from a government that has held up Bill C-2 for so long and in so many ways, as the member outlined, through proroguing Parliament. We had many witnesses. I am sure the minister is being chastised in the Senate today for how long he took, much longer than the Senate probably will to review a bill. The Senate has made many changes.

We will remember that the government not very long ago passed a bill that would disenfranchise the majority of people in a number of constituencies in the country.

[An hon. member]

Only in the rural areas, was it not?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, in the rural areas. The government does not think it should have a review of its bills. That was pretty ridiculous. That member could talk about the process.

We have a two party House and, whether we like or not, we must respect it.

Yesterday in committee, derogatory personal comments were made by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the NDP justice critic about a member in the other House and I would hope they would apologize.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe had quite a lot of assistance with his answer. I do not think he needed it. I think all hon. members should remember that when someone is answering a question, we should give him the respect and allow him to do so in peace.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, has debate resumed?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before the hon. member for Hochelaga takes the floor, pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Mount Royal, Darfur; the member for Gatineau, Official Languages; the member for Outremont, Airbus.

Resuming debate.

[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.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the speech made by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. He made a very interesting suggestion. He talked at length about the court challenges program. I will ask him a few questions on that subject.

Would he agree with the idea that the federal government would give money to citizens groups to challenge provincial legislation in Quebec? We, on this side of the House, believe that it would be an encroachment into provincial jurisdictions. If that is the Bloc's position, will the member call his boss, Pauline, to ask her if this is a new change within the sovereignist party?

I would like to mention that Mike Harris, when he was premier of Ontario, created 12 French-language school boards throughout the province. Never in Ontario history had a premier done such a thing. Moreover, again thanks to Mike Harris and for the first time in Canadian history, there was equity in education funding. For more than a century, French-speaking students had been receiving less funding, and it took a Conservative government to correct that. I would also add that, as Ontario minister of francophone affairs, I was very proud to say that the Montfort Hospital would stay open.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, for his question. However, I cannot help but notice that he becomes emotional at the mention of Mike Harris' name. I urge him to remain rational in this debate. I want to remind him that the court challenges program has to do with guarantees under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. We are not suggesting that the court challenges program allow provincial legislation to be challenged. Correct me if I am wrong—in which case I would like the minister to show me one case where provincial legislation was overturned—in my understanding, this has to do with federal responsibilities and the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.

Let us talk about the Conservatives' record when he was minister. Apparently he was quite close to Mike Harris and it is even said that the Minister of the Environment has three idols: Brian Mulroney, Mike Harris and Stephen Harper. I hope he remembers that when we look at the Harris government's record on francophones outside Quebec, there was the issue of the Montfort hospital. The hon. member, chair of the caucus, had to get funding. There was an unprecedented mobilization of francophones because that government wanted to close the Montfort hospital. I hope he is not saying that this was something positive and that the Harris government has a good record when it comes to francophones outside Quebec, because that is the furthest thing from the truth. The hon. member for Richelieu-Yamaska even had to appeal to Bloc members, who contributed with great pleasure. The Bloc members were involved in saving the Montfort hospital. We reached into our pockets and we donated money to keep the Montfort hospital open. That was a total lack of sensitivity by that government.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, this week's theme is the failure of the Conservative government's agenda on crime, resulting in them being very soft on crime.

I know the member is are a very intensive member of the justice committee, but I will give him nine quick areas where he can show how the Conservatives have been a failure and soft on crime, and I know he can think of these himself.

First, we found out in committee the Conservatives were not following the recommendations of the justice department.

Second, expert after expert showed them how to be tough on crime and they went totally against their recommendations and would not withdraw the bad legislation.

Third, they would not be tough on crime by following the court challenges program and supporting it.

Fourth, they would not be tough on crime by supporting law reform, fixing up the law through the Law Reform Commission.

Fifth and sixth, by trying to remove alternative sentencing and restorative justice, which were reducing crime, they are soft on crime.

Seventh, they had terrible written laws. One law was seven words. As members know, it has taken a whole year because it was so bad and the Conservatives did not consult.

CBC had a wonderful program last week about our prisons. Prisons are where we can be hard on crime and stop the reoffending, but they do not have the educational or anger management courses.

Eighth, the Conservatives have done nothing to reduce the overpopulation of aboriginal people in the justice court, which is another way they have been soft on crime.

Finally, the Conservatives prorogued Parliament. From which department do the majority of bills come? The Department of Justice. Once again, they were being soft on crime.

There are a lot of areas the member could talk about on how they could improve the government's agenda and actually reduce crime in Canada.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last June, my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and I put forth about 12 proposals that will become a bill. We think the priority should be to put more money in the crime prevention program to help community agencies do their work.

We also believe that it is important to examine the issue of parole. We believe in the principle of rehabilitation. However, on the issue of accelerated parole review, we believe that if a court of law sentences an individual after a fair and equitable trial, it is perhaps too early to release that individual after he has served only one-sixth of his sentence. We also made proposals about section 719 of the Criminal Code. We asked that members of criminal organizations be prohibited from wearing crests.

Even though there is a law defining criminal organizations, it is not right that in our society, the Hells Angels can walk around wearing their crests. We proposed measures so that once a group is recognized as a criminal organization, its members cannot wear symbols to identify themselves.

The Bloc Québécois has a number of ideas when it comes to justice. I thank my colleague for the question.

[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--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Keep going. That's good.

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

The environment minister wants me to keep going on this. The thing is that it was his government that gave the Senate the chance to do that. The government keeps attacking the Senate but it keeps giving the Senate the chance to do this. If it were really serious about dealing with the Senate, it would do what the NDP has advocated for decades now and abolish it so that we are not faced with this kind of delay to legislation that our country badly needs.

Let us look at some of the things that are in the bill. The government talks about being tough on crime. There is a section that is badly needed for our judges to be able to deal with the plague of child pornography. Right now the Criminal Code has no provision that gives a judge, once someone has been convicted of child pornography, to seize the equipment that the person used to create the child pornography, whether it is photographic equipment or computer equipment. None of that can be ordered seized by the court after a conviction.

The section is there now but it should have been law by now. However, because of the determination by the government to prorogue Parliament and cause further delay to some of the crime bills, this one in particular, we do not have it yet. That is added to by the other chamber being grossly irresponsible in further delaying the bill. The government gave the Senate the opportunity to do it and the other chamber took the opportunity to further delay. It is really sad to say that our criminal justice system is, in this case, at this stage.

There are provisions in the bill that would allow for the expeditious use of technology today to obtain warrants and have other paperwork processed rapidly and transferred among the provinces. We have a major problem with this and have for a long time. Paperwork needs to be done in a very limited, specific way that really hinders the work our police officers are doing across the country because of so much more paperwork they have to do.

A number of the amendments would help clear that up and bring it into the 21st century. The amendments would allow the police officers to produce paper from computers and emails rather than having to rely on printed material, having to send it through the mail or having it delivered by messenger. It is crazy that we are at the stage that we have not changed this a long time ago.

We cleaned that up and made it possible for them to come into the 21st century and use technology much more efficiently and process the files much more efficiently. It is sitting in this House. I suppose only someone with much more wisdom than I will figure out whether it goes back to the Senate and it decides to do further amendments.

There are other provisions in here that were necessary for the law to be clarified. As we heard from my colleague from the Bloc, some provisions with regard to the rights to have a trial in the other official language other than the dominant one in the province where the charges were applied. Again, this is one area where there were some good amendments at committee and they were passed on to the Senate. The Senate has now decided that it wants to tinker with this more and further delay the use of it.

One other amendment that my colleague from the Liberal Party has referred to was the need to update the level of fines. It was an amendment that the government brought forth to increase the fines up to $10,000. I, quite frankly, got an amendment at committee that reduced the fines to $2,000 from $5,000, given that these are for more minor crimes. They are crimes that would be more likely to be committed by people who are unable to pay a fine of $10,000 and would have ended up spending extended periods of time in jail simply because they were in the lower economic classes of our society.

We got all that through. There was a fair amount of work done on this at the justice committee and then sent back to this House, passed in a democratic process and sent on to the Senate to involve itself in a totally undemocratic process.

The Senate has put forward six amendments. The government is prepared to accept them, which is wrong. I have to say, on behalf of my party, that, because the bill is so important and we need it so badly, we will accept these amendments, the four the government recommended and the fifth amendment that the Liberal Party has now moved. I would have taken the sixth one because generally these amendments do not do anything of any importance and, to avoid further delay, we would support it.

The other chamber felt that it had the right to tell this chamber that we should do a review of this bill, ignoring the reality that the justice committee is responsible for, by last count, something like 20 or 25 laws on which we are supposed to have done reviews and that we are behind in doing.

By imposing on us a mandate, which the government has accepted to do, that in three years we will review this law, it is impractical. We will not be able to do it given how busy the schedule is for the justice committee. However, that is one the government accepted.

Amendment No. 1 would impose a responsibility upon the judges. I have heard from the other opposition parties that they are prepared to accept this. I want to say that this is not the process that I see that should be applied by judges.

The existing law requires a judge to ensure that the persons before him or her is aware of their right to have a trial in the other official language. The Senate now says that is not good enough and wants to impose this duty on the judiciary to tell individuals their rights.

I want to take issue with my colleague from the Liberal Party who said that this is usual. It is not usual. This is not the role of the judiciary. It is the role of defence counsel, the legal aid system and it may be the role of the prosecutor. The role of the judge is to ensure that it happens but it is not the judge's responsibility to give legal advice.

Amendment No. 1 from the Senate would impose that role on our judiciary. It is extremely rare for the judiciary to tell the petitioners before them their rights. That is a role to be played within the advocacy system that we have, either by the defence or the prosecutor. This amendment is wrong in law and wrong in terms of the practice it would impose on our judiciary. On top of everything else, it is meddling by an unelected, irresponsible body.

Some of the other Senate amendments are technical because of the initial amendments it made. Other amendments needed to be made in order for the legislation to make sense and be cohesive.

I have one final point to make with regard to the amendment, which I think all of us are opposing. The amendment would impose the responsibility to gather data on the provinces. Under our constitutional framework, the administration of justice, which would include gathering this statistical material, is the responsibility of the provinces. If that duty is to be imposed upon them, it must be imposed, in my opinion, by the legislatures of the provinces, not by this federal legislature. I do not know if the Department of Justice has actually looked at that amendment from that vantage point, but it is definitely improper in my opinion given the constitutional relationship between the federal government and the provinces.

An argument could be made, although I do not think it would be sustained, that under our criminal law we, in this legislature, have the right to impose that responsibility on the provinces. The administration of justice power given to the provinces is the dominant one here, so that amendment is wrong and would be found to be unconstitutional.

As a result of the government's own ineptitude, it has caused a further delay in the passage of badly needed legislation that would affect a number of our laws that have needed to be amended for a number of decades. It delayed the legislation by several months because of its prorogation decision. The legislation finally gets to the Senate where that unelected body decides to tinker with it unnecessarily and produces amendments that are either unconstitutional or unnecessary and of a minor nature. However, that does not in any way justify the delay that we have been put through and will continue to be put through, especially if an election intervenes. We all know we are sitting on the edge.

Therefore, as a result of a really bad decision by the government and gross misconduct on the part of the other chamber, the bill may not even get through this Parliament and be delayed again, not just months, but it could be delayed again for another year or two before we can access its benefits.

We are dealing with a bill that is badly needed in a number of areas. We are also dealing with an unelected body that is obviously intent on meddling in and delaying this legislation just simply to justify its existence.

It has been a long time practice, when speakers from my party have risen in the House, to use the opportunity to emphasize the need to get rid of the other chamber, to bring us into the 21st century, to recognize that this is a democracy and should be a full democracy. I hope I have been able to convey that message clearly today on behalf of my constituents and my party.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a note for the record. There is another correction I would like to get in the bill, but not at this time. I will wait until the next round, but I want to ensure that people are aware of it.

Under section 530.01, it talks about a trial being in the official language of the accused. That is great. Then it says that once it is in that language, the information of the indictment, which is the small document with the information on the indictment, will be translated but on the application of the accused. That should be automatic. Why would the accused not be given this short document?

Arguments were made in committee that it would be too onerous for the provinces. However, the witnesses from the Department of Justice said that it could only be one or two pages. It could be a couple of dozen pages in an entire year across the country.

In the rights of justice, in the future I would like to have paragraphs 530.01(1)(a) and 530.01(1)(b) altered with that minor improvement to make it more just for the person. I hope if this comes up some time in the future, the member will support that change.

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

Mr. Speaker, this did elicit a fair amount of debate in committee exactly along the lines that he suggested. Why is it necessary? If in so many other areas the accused person is entitled to the material in writing, then why here would the accused have to make a special application?

We ended up leaving it alone because the limited information we could get our hands on at the time was that it would impose an onerous responsibility. My colleague from Yukon and I had some doubts about that, but rather than impose further responsibility on the provincial governments to respond to this, we left it alone at that point, expecting at some point in the future we would revisit it and perhaps at that time have more information as to whether this would impose an onerous duty on the provinces.

We have seen more than enough downloading by the present government and the previous Liberal government on the provinces in terms of shifting responsibility to them without providing additional financial resources to meet that responsibility. Overall, the committee felt it was simply not prepared to do that in this case without having more specific information.

[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.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with my colleague's experience with respect to Woodbine. Woodbine really is a premier facility. All Canadians can be proud of it.

My question is related to the point that my colleague has made with respect to illegal Internet betting. He has made it very clear that there is a lack of enforcement and that lack of enforcement is also compounded by the fact that there is not a clear definition of criminal activity and the linkage with the activity that is going on.

The banks could be given the responsibility under the code to report, and I think that is a good idea. How would it benefit Woodbine if there was not some form of licensing that it could apply for--and of course governments love to tax, as we know--so that all of the betting activity, even though I am not one to engage in that, would also be a source of revenue? How could that be enhanced such that the public could benefit not only from the enforcement but from the licensing provisions?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although Woodbine Racetrack is once removed from the member's riding, it still creates opportunities for employment and economic activity that positively impact his riding as well.

The member makes a very good point. These offshore activities are not attracting any revenues for the treasury in Ottawa or indeed at the provincial level. If we created a level playing field, we would find that it would create more tax revenues for the federal government and for the provinces, and it would be a very positive thing.

With respect to the idea of involving the financial institutions, when people are betting on the Internet, they are invariably using debit or credit cards. If people play these poker games--and I am not one to gamble, although I do go to Woodbine Racetrack and I bet on the horses--the reality is that people put up their debit cards or credit cards. The bill that I was looking at would cause the banks to intercept those transactions and disallow those payments to proceed through the payment system. It is a circuitous way of getting at the problem, and I think the more effective way would be to either have Criminal Code provisions that are enforced or to create a level playing for everybody and bring it out into the open. As the member for York South—Weston points out, that would actually be a source of revenue for the federal government, for the provinces and perhaps for the municipalities as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. It being 5:45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Official Languages Act

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

moved that Bill C-482, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-482. I would like to explain what Bill C-482 sets out to amend. First, it would amend the Official Languages Act to recognize French as the official language and the common language in Quebec. Therefore, the federal government would be required not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language within Quebec.

As I begin my speech, I would like to review the elements that led to the creation of Bill C-482.

The starting point was the decision by the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation more than 140 years after Canada became a country.

The Quebec nation existed long before it was recognized. There has been consensus on that for some time now. The fact of the Quebec nation has transcended eras, political parties and debates. In 2003, well before the House of Commons finally decided to recognize it, Quebec's elected representatives in the National Assembly unanimously reiterated the fact that the Quebec people form a nation.

Long ago, the province of Quebec designated the place where elected representatives would sit as part of the National Assembly. The city in which the assembly sits has been given the noble and evocative title of “national capital”. The House of Commons' recognition of the Quebec nation, though slow in coming, was simply to be expected.

The decision to recognize a nation has consequences. Recognizing a nation means recognizing its institutions, its emblems, its traditions, its history, its territory, its culture and, inevitably, its language. The people of Quebec are well aware of this. They saw their government recognize first nations, a step that resulted in the signature of a historic agreement known as the Peace of the Braves.

Recognizing the Quebec nation means also recognizing the predominance of the French language. That predominance is ensured in Quebec by a piece of legislation, Bill 101, which makes French the official language throughout Quebec, except as concerns the federal government, which has two official languages. What we are asking the federal government is to be consistent in its decision making. After recognizing the Quebec nation, it is only natural that it should recognize and abide by the Charter of the French Language in Quebec in the Official Languages Act and comply with the spirit of the charter in regard to the language of signage and of work in related legislation.

Some people will say that such an arrangement is impossible. The question is whether Canada is the only country in the world to face such a situation. The answer is no.

Long before us, democracies such as Spain and the United Kingdom proved that it is possible to successfully combine multiple nations within a state. To do so, they relied on creative solutions that respected the coexistence of the national communities within and equipped themselves with the tools they needed to manage the areas where those communities differ.

No later than November 2006, Quebec's Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs delivered a speech on the subject of the Quebec nation in which he stated:

Quebec and Canada can learn from these experiences in other countries and find unique solutions adapted to their reality. These examples also demonstrate that, far from being a thing of the past, Quebec's desire to be recognized as a nation within Canada is more current than ever. Its legitimacy and feasibility are confirmed by the developments we have seen in other federations or quasi-federations. By respecting and recognizing sociological and political differences instead of denying them, and by translating them into special rights within their political system, these democracies avoided any futile or counterproductive social conflicts.

We must be creative in our pursuit of recognition. We must stop denying the complex character of our society and our national identities, and stop placing them in artificial categories. The reality of those countries experimenting with multi-nation states is just as complex as that of Quebec and Canada. We must not be tempted to abandon the debate, simply because it is a complex question, on the contrary.

Let us remember that those words did not come from an elected member working on Quebec's sovereignty; they came from a minister of a federalist government in Quebec City.

We find that Bill C-482 constitutes an original response that is adapted to the reality of Quebec and Canada. Recognizing the specificity of Quebec is not a whim; it is an overriding duty.

I want to remind hon. members that the Bloc Québécois bill is nothing new. The specific mention of provincial legislation in the text of federal legislation is possible and even common. We are talking about statutory reference. In other words, the government recognizes the provisions of another Canadian legislative assembly.

Take for example the Canada Labour Code, which sets the federal minimum wage according to provincial minimum wages. Section 178 states:

Except as otherwise provided by or under this Division, an employer shall pay to each employee a wage at a rate:

(a) not less than the minimum hourly rate fixed, from time to time, by or under an Act of the legislature of the province where the employee is usually employed and that is generally applicable regardless of occupation, status or work experience.

The Canada Labour Code is subject to amendment within the framework of this bill.

Federal or federally regulated companies are not affected by the Charter of the French Language, particularly insofar as the language of work is concerned. For example, interprovincial transportation companies, maritime transport and ports, air transport and airports, broadcasting, telecommunications, banks and certain companies declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada are exempt. Some of these companies choose to abide by the charter, but it is all entirely voluntary.

An estimated 200,000 Quebeckers work under the Canada Labour Code, or more or less 7% of workers in Quebec.

The amendment to Part I of the Canada Labour Code states that federal companies are subject to the Charter of the French Language when they operate in Quebec. This responds to the request made in 2001 in the Larose report:

The francization of the workplace in Quebec also concerns the workplace of the federal government and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. That is why the Government of Canada should take the necessary measures to ensure that these workplaces respect language legislation when they are in Quebec.

This amendment does away with the legal void whereby federal work, undertaking or business can ignore the Charter of the French Language as concerns language of work. It is, however, important to note that many federal businesses decide on their own to commit to Quebec's Office de la langue française's program of francisation.

But what about those that decide to circumvent Bill 101? The response is distressing. Federal companies and companies under federal charter failing to comply with Bill 101 do so with impunity. Since 2000, 147 files have been closed at the Office de la langue française in Quebec. Its hands were tied because the companies were under federal jurisdiction. This figure includes only files arising from complaints. If no one complains, there is no file. So we can assume the number of delinquent businesses is greater.

This is taking place as a number of studies on the state of French in Quebec are being released. According to 2006 census figures, French has lost ground right across Canada, and in Quebec as well, even though more immigrants than ever speak French at home.

While the number of people with French as their mother tongue increased between 2001 and 2006, from 5.33 million to 6.29 million, their relative importance decreased, and they now represent only 22.1% of the population. This is from Statistics Canada. The figure was 22.9% in 2001 and 26.1% in 1971.

As regards the language used predominantly at home, the proportion of French is declining consistently, dropping from 26% in 1971 to 21% in 2006. The proportion of English rose in 2006 to the figure it stood at in 1971, of 67%. This figure reached 69% in 1986, shortly before the strong influx of immigrants speaking other languages. In the light of these figures, we cannot sit idle. Quebeckers, it is true, must do their part to change things.

I congratulate the leader of the Parti québécois on her courage in introducing a bill in the National Assembly on Quebec identity. The media made a great deal about it. This bill, to its credit, dares to look the facts in the face. It proposes better teaching of French to ensure the quality of French written and spoken in Quebec and promotes an understanding of Quebec's history, a mastery of spoken and written French and the enhancement of Quebec culture.

The bill on Quebec identity aims to help Quebec express its identity, through the passage of legislative provisions to ensure the preeminence of the French language as the language of work and economic activities and education in Quebec. Legislation will be passed to ensure the quality of written and spoken French in Quebec. I am proud to recognize and pay tribute to this initiative.

Bill C-482 will require the federal government to recognize the Charter of the French Language within Quebec and extend its application to businesses under federal jurisdiction.

An amendment to the Official Languages Act is needed to eliminate all ambiguity. It must be clear in the act that French is the official language of Quebec. We therefore consider it important to amend the preamble so that it provides that the federal government recognizes that French is the official language of Quebec and the common language in Quebec.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-482 proposes to amend the Official Languages Act, among other legislation. This bill seems to assume that the Official Languages Act is a barrier to the promotion and use of French in Quebec. And yet the last census, in 2006, disclosed a number of positive developments in this regard, such as the fact that a majority of recent immigrants, 75%, have adopted French, and that the proportion of the population that knows French has now reached 94.5%.

How can the Bloc Québécois demonstrate that the Official Languages Act and the existing rules governing language amount to an obstruction of the French fact in Quebec?