Debates of April 14th, 2008

Judges Act

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

The Conservative government and all of the members opposite were sure that there would be an election within six months. They did not do anything; they just waited. All of a sudden, nine months later, they said that they would wait another three months, and then there would be an election. But no election was triggered. Their only goal was to do things for the short term.

The truth is that we are here to run a country. We are not here to run it for the short term until the next election. We, the Liberals, are looking to the future. Just as we have always done in the past, we are looking to the future.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I can hear the Conservative members acting up. That is what we call lack of respect. Once they have listened to the interpretation, they will understand what I just told them. The truth is that there has to be respect not only in the House, but in everything.

Let us look at the situation. With regard to Bill C-31, it is clear that if the government had met its obligations over the past two and a half years and had filled positions equitably as it went along, we would not need to discuss certain things today.

Today, we are talking about a bill that aims to increase the number of judges, because it is important that Canadians be treated equitably. It is also important that the government have a legal system in place so that people who have needs and want to defend their rights can do so, and not just when it suits the government.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives sometimes tell people that they can go to court whenever they want to, even if they have no money, because that is not a problem. In the end, if people do not have any money, they will not be treated equitably in this country. We do not understand that in the same way. We want to make sure Canadians have the services they need so that when they want to defend their rights, the tools are in place in the government or the legal system. In this way, Canadians will be able to defend their rights, which is crucial.

The comments my colleague opposite made before he posed his question are deplorable. The fact is that the Conservatives are not equipped or capable to debate a bill like Bill C-31. They are forced to make personal attacks on individual members. This is unfortunate, but in recent months, the Conservatives have been embroiled in one scandal after another.

We can talk about Bill C-31 if the members want to, but the members opposite are going to have to be much more serious when making their comments. One thing is clear: either they have not listened to anything that has been said or they have not understood anything that has been said. Perhaps it is a bit of both or something else.

The fact is that there are concerns about Bill C-31, and they are justified. Access to justice must be provided equitably. Decisions about judicial appointments must be made equitably and not in a partisan way, as the Conservatives have been doing for the past two and a half years.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer should know that there are three and a half minutes remaining. If the question takes three minutes, the answer will take 30 seconds, and vice versa.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that you would make assumptions, because you know that I like to get to the point, and that I want some answers from my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche.

Earlier, my colleague alluded to bilingualism and the fact that the judges appointed in New Brunswick ought to speak French. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what would happen in his province if the government appointed judges who spoke French but not English?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. That is an excellent question. As I was saying earlier, it is a matter of respect, and it goes both ways: francophones towards anglophones, and anglophones towards francophones. We do not want judges to be appointed solely for their ability to serve francophones. We also want the judges appointed to be able to serve anglophones. As I said, we must be fair.

Fairness implies that if a judge could provide a service in English within a given period of time, then the same should be possible in French within that same period of time.

Thus, it is important to be fair and to ensure that all Canadians have access to justice. That is what we, the Liberals, want to do.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we could get this bill over with, because I want to speak on the next bill, but the committee asked the Conservatives to do three things.

First, was to consult to ensure the judges were given out regionally and appropriately. Has the member heard if the Conservatives have done that?

Second, there are only 14 judges. That is less than one per territory. Is less than one judge enough to fill the backlog in Quebec?

Finally, has the member been told of a plan to ensure that linguistic implementation and allocation is appropriate, especially for provinces like New Brunswick and Quebec?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has 40 seconds to respond.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has certainly asked some excellent questions, and I will try to answer them as quickly as possible.

To answer his first question, it is obvious that consultation is not the Conservatives' strong point. It is strange, each time they hold a consultation, they always do the opposite of what is suggested. They consult the public, ask people their opinion, but they do the opposite.

So I do not believe that there are many consultations taking place. The reality is that they are not listening at all.

Certainly, this is the reality for all Canadian citizens in terms of linguistic issues.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Criminal Code

[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.

[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 would like to thank the member for giving me the opportunity to carry on because I could not finish in the 20 minutes with the important parts, the items I wanted to talk about. There are things I do want to see in the bill, if I can answer the question that way. Once again I want to compliment the government on this particular amendment.

In general, for a warrant to be executed in another territorial division or province, authorization and endorsement must be obtained from a judge of that division. To expedite this proceeding, the bill enables the law enforcement organization, through any telecommunication, to endorse such a warrant.

At present, the original warrant has to be taken across the province in written form. I was shocked when I heard that. Why would we let criminals get away while we are doing that? This particular amendment allows us to use any method to transmit that electronically.

There are also amendments that allow for more logic regarding to whom individuals can appeal if they disagree with an order respecting seized property. It is just one of those technical amendments that make logical sense in the justice system.

Another one is related to private proceedings. Normally, a provincial crown attorney lays charges at the start of a case and brings forward the information. However, in theory, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed an indictable offence may lay the information before a judge.

Obviously, the judge will want to know that the attorney general of the province has been given all this information and is notified of the upcoming hearing. That is already accounted for in the Criminal Code, but what is not accounted for is where the bill provides that the person must also inform the federal attorney general if it is the latter's jurisdiction with respect to the alleged offence, such as cases of fraud.

The last amendment is related to gambling and betting. Currently, for a person to be convicted of the offence of providing information in connection with bookmaking, pool selling, betting or wagering, the person must use radio, telegraph, telephone, mail or express.

To reflect the current and future technological advances, the bill does not list the means of telecommunications. Consequently, the use of any means of telecommunication may result in charges under this offence.

In the same vein, clause 6 of the bill replaces the word “telephone” with “any means of telecommunication” to extend the legality of pari-mutuel wagering on horse races, regardless of the means of telecommunication used to transmit wages to a regulated race track betting theatre.

Once again, society's technology ability has increased. We do not want criminals to have the advantage. We want the advantage in order to prevent the criminal from finding new ways to get around the law.

Finally, to speed up the process, the bill also allows the provision, in the case of defendants with two different languages, to allow a bilingual judge to proceed with the case in both languages. That speeds up the system and helps remove the backlog that, as I mentioned earlier this afternoon, could be as long as up to eight months, and I referred to the child case in New Brunswick. It now allows the judge to proceed, instead of having two separate trials in the different languages of the accused, causing more backlogs in the system.

[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.

[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.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this evening's adjournment proceedings arise from a question I asked the Minister of the Environment on February 1, 2008.

Scientists at Environment Canada are being muzzled by the minister, and I am afraid this represents a continuing trend of censorship by the Conservative government, which moved me to ask the question.

In April 2006, Mark Tushingham, a scientist from Environment Canada, was releasing his science fiction novel about global warming. Tushingham was scheduled to speak about his book and to talk about the science behind it. However, the environment minister at the time stopped the scientist from speaking publicly about his own fiction book. What would we call that? Censorship.

In January 2008 this trend of censorship continued. The Conservatives fired the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission just hours before she was set to appear before a parliamentary committee to speak about the Chalk River isotope crisis. Canadians were prevented from hearing her important testimony on an issue which concerned public safety. The Conservatives fired her out of a partisan interest and interfered with an independent government agency.

These are not isolated incidents. Last February, Dr. Arthur Carty resigned his position as national science adviser for being censored. The Prime Minister trashed his advice and refused to listen to his recommendations. He was ignored because his views on global warming were not consistent with the agenda of this environmentally unfriendly government.

Finally, just last month the well-known British environmental journal entitled Nature made reference to this censorship of which I speak. The journal criticized the Canadian government order given to Environment Canada that all correspondence be routed through the minister's office for an approved response. It is appalling to know that Canadian scientists must have their information vetted by Ottawa political hacks before being able to speak to the media. This type of censorship is unacceptable in a free and democratic country. Canadians have a right to know what these experts have to say.

This pattern of behaviour by the Conservative government is as frightening as it is unacceptable. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are two fundamental values of Canadian society. Conservatives have put these values at risk for their own political purposes. In the end, it is the environment and the health of Canadians that will suffer now and in the future.

This government has failed to show any concern for the environment. It has refused to endorse the Kyoto accord, even going so far as to not attend a ceremony to honour Canadian scientists who won the Nobel Peace Prize for their report on international climate change. What will it take for the government to accept that global warming exists? It continues to let Canadians down with its lack of commitment to address climate change.

The government promoted a culture of transparency, but not when acting as stewards of the environment. Will the minister stop muzzling these experts and allow them to voice their opinions? Will the government exhibit openness and inform Canadians of the truth? Will the minister stand up for our environment and for Canada?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was quite right when he said that Environment Canada has within its ranks some of the brightest and best scientists in the world. I actually got to meet many of them, and celebrated and congratulated them for their successes, as he pointed out, as Nobel Peace Prize winners on the environment. He also knows this government is very committed to seeing the end of 13 long years of Liberal neglect on the environment. This government is very committed to getting it done on the environment.

As I said, the hon. member is quite right that the brightest minds are right here in Canada. We are very proud of them. The rest of what the hon. member said was simply not true.

The fact is that the media relations policy exists to support and to ensure that media inquiries are addressed quickly, accurately, and in a consistent way right across Canada. I encourage the hon. member to take a closer look at the federal government's communications policy which was first introduced when he was a minister, when his Liberal Party was the government of the day.

If he reads it, he will find the following, “Institutions must ensure processes and procedures are in place to assist managers and employees in responding to media calls”. Actually, his party was government when this was the policy, and it continues to be the policy.

Environment Canada's policy merely responds to the requirement set forth in the communications policy. It also falls in line with the policies that guide and govern media relations practices in all the federal government departments. There are very similar communications policies used in the private business and not for profit sectors. To be clear, Environment Canada asks that requests be run through its media relations officer in order to better ensure that subject matter experts are made available to speak to the media on complex and technical issues, and to be kept fully informed on what is being asked of its employees.

Scientists will continue to be able to speak directly to the media on their specific areas of expertise. Environment Canada's media relations policy is quite clearly based on the elements of good government and common sense. We are there to meet with the media. As I said at the beginning, the claims of the member are not true.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no matter how the hon. member chooses to gloss his communications policy, it is all-controlling and certainly smacks of censorship. It is just not acceptable.

As a northern country, Canada is particularly vulnerable to climate change. This gives Canadians an even greater responsibility to protect the planet, a responsibility that the Conservative government has unfortunately abandoned.

The consequences of climate change are likely to be catastrophic. Canada must be a leader at the international negotiations on the next phase of the Kyoto protocol. Reductions in greenhouse emissions must be achieved globally.

Canadians can depend on the Liberal Party of Canada to promote cooperation between progressive parties and progressive countries so that each of us at home and together internationally can work toward a richer, fairer, greener world for the citizens of today and the generations of tomorrow.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that climate change is a very serious issue. That is why this government is now taking action. It is unfortunate that for 13 long years the previous government did not do anything. However, now we have the toughest target in Canadian history, and that is an absolute reduction of 20% by 2020. Also, we are seeing greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 150 megatonnes. Those are the toughest targets in Canadian history. We are already seeing the positive results of getting it done.