Debates of Oct. 20th, 2014

Public Safety

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to reiterate my comments that I made the first time.

I would also like to mention that our government works co-operatively with the provinces in these areas. It is our Conservative government that has consistently supported search and rescue first responders, RCMP, and all types of law enforcement agencies across the country, despite the opposition from those parties.

International Trade

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our government has always stood with the livestock industry in opposing the United States discriminatory country of origin labelling. After a successful WTO challenge by our government, the U.S. refused to alter its country of origin labelling to make it fair to our Canadian livestock producers. Canada was once again forced to put another challenge to the WTO.

Today, the WTO released its latest report. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture please inform the House of the latest decision of the World Trade Organization?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for his work on this important issue.

Today's WTO report reinforces Canada's long-standing position that the country of origin labelling is blatantly protectionist against Canadian meat products. We will continue to strive for a fair resolution, including seeking authorization to implement retaliatory measures on U.S. products if necessary.

Our government will continue to stand up for our farmers, ranchers, and workers against this type of discriminatory practice.

Canada Post

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that it is this Prime Minister and this Conservative government who led the charge to get rid of door-to-door delivery. To make matters worse, we now have the government saying that Canadian companies are not even allowed to participate in the replacement of those community mailboxes.

The question is, why is the government not allowing Canadian companies to participate in the tendering process?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this is from a member who thinks there is no crisis with respect to the plummeting rates of mail delivery in Canada. Canada Post does in fact have a significant problem facing it. The way Canadians are communicating has drastically changed in the digital age, and Canada Post is struggling to keep up.

When it comes to the implementation of its five-point plan, obviously Canada Post operates at arm's length from the government in how it executes that particular plan.

Housing

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again today, the Conservatives are refusing to commit to renew the funding for social housing. They are carrying on the Liberal tradition of federal disengagement on this issue. In fact, this morning, FRAPRU held a demonstration in Montreal in front of the member for Papineau's office.

Will the Conservatives put an end to previous governments' years of indifference toward the poorly housed and commit right now to renewing the funding for social housing and helping low-income families?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, this government has made unprecedented investments for the most vulnerable who are in need of housing, whether it is our homelessness partnering strategy with the focus on housing first, or our investment in affordable housing whereby we are combining and partnering with the provinces in terms of social housing and making sure that adequate housing is available.

While the NDP and the Liberals want to create big government programs, raise taxes, and vote against every good investment we make, we will continue to work with the provinces and get results for Canadians.

Foreign Affairs

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians like Ernest Lang, Farid Rohani, and Majed El Shafie are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and Syria. They have arranged a public forum, on October 25, in Vancouver.

UNICEF's Anthony Lake recently praised Canada's efforts, noting “...investing in educating the minds and healing the hearts of Iraqi and Syrian children is both a humanitarian priority and a strategic imperative...”

David Morley, UNICEF Canada's president, said that Canada's contribution reflects the generosity of Canada in supporting some of the world's most vulnerable children.

Could the minister update the House on our contributions in the Middle East?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been a world leader in the response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding because of the brutal conduct of ISIL. In particular, we spearheaded the No Lost Generation initiative in Iraq.

I am pleased to inform the House that Canada is now the fifth largest contributor of humanitarian aid in this crisis. That is fifth overall, not per capita.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the only French-language library at Fisheries and Oceans, which was at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, shut down. This shows how little importance the Conservatives attach to scientific services in French. The Commissioner of Official Languages harshly criticized plans to dismantle the library and asked the government to reverse its decision. It was clear to the commissioner, as it is to us, that this closure flies in the face of the Official Languages Act. Why is the government ignoring the needs of francophone scientists and shirking its responsibilities regarding official languages?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, we are updating government with 21st century technology in order to be more responsible to Canadian taxpayers. Library users are asking for digital information, which is clear when our libraries average only between five and twelve in-person visitors a year. This is not an efficient way to deliver service to Canadians.

We have carefully reviewed the commissioner's report and we are confident that we are fulfilling our official language responsibilities. We do believe that the new library service model enhances the availability of French services across the country.

[Jean-François Fortin, Independent, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirmed the MLI library closure, in violation of the Official Languages Act and against Commissioner Graham Fraser's advice. The government chose to break the law. Does the minister know that Dartmouth does not have the space or the budget to house the 61,000 items, that no staff has been added to make the collection accessible, that the cost of relocating those items is more than the savings achieved, and that the only documents to be digitized will be the department's documents, which have no copyright and make up only 10% of the collection? Does she realize that she is not telling the truth?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, 70% of DFO's French documents at the library have already been digitized, and the work will be done by the end of the year. That will make French scientific documentation more accessible than it has been in the past to people right across the country.

As I said, with five to twelve in-person visits in the run of a year, it is hardly an efficient way to deliver service to Canadians.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Dean Del Mastro, Independent, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has smartly prioritized skills training in order to respond to critical labour shortages as well as to create more opportunities for individual Canadians. In this regard, first nations citizens across Canada have accessed the aboriginal skills, employment and training strategy as a way to improve their skills and contribute toward the Canadian economy.

I note that recently the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development recommended that the aboriginal skills and employment training program, or a similar program, be renewed for a minimum of five years, a suggestion I support.

Can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please comment on this program?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peterborough for the question.

Indeed, the ASETS program is administered by Employment and Social Development Canada. I have just completed six months of consultations with first nations communities and employers on the renewal of the aboriginal skills and education training strategy. I look forward to an announcement in the months to come, but it clearly is our intention to renew and improve aboriginal skills development programs.

We have an enormous opportunity, if we can get this right, to address the underemployment of aboriginal Canadians and many of the labour shortages that we are facing. We intend to do exactly that through smart investments to help aboriginal Canadians get gainful employment.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2012 the Conservatives have spent $13.5 million harassing charities that have been critical of their policies, especially environment, social justice, and anti-poverty groups. Now the government is wanting birdwatchers—yes, birdwatchers—in southern Ontario to stop their apparently partisan activities.

Does the Minister of Finance really think that spending millions of dollars to audit birdwatchers is a good use of taxpayers' money?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, that question, being as fact-free as it is, is for the birds.

The member should know that the CRA looks at charitable activities at arm's length. There is absolutely no political interference in this process. The rules regarding charities are very long-standing. In 2012 alone, as I have mentioned before, over $14 billion was receipted to over 86,000 charities.

Charities must respect the law, and it is the CRA's obligation to make sure that they do.

Presence in Gallery

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the 2014 Governor General’s Awards in Commemoration of the Persons Case: Mary Elizabeth Atcheson, Louise Champoux-Paillé, Tracy Porteous, Chantal Thanh Laplante, and Emilie Nicolas.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 38(9), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 23 petitions.

Notice of Motion

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Redress for Victims of International Crimes Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-632, An Act to amend the State Immunity Act (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or torture).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that would amend the State Immunity Act to allow Canadian victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or torture to seek justice in Canadian courts.

At present the act immunizes foreign states and their officials from civil suits in such cases. The current state of the law is such that Canadians can use Canadian courts to enforce commercial contracts with foreign governments but not to seek redress for heinous crimes such as torture.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court recently found that Iran could not be held accountable for the torture, sexual assault, and murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi. The court made it clear, however, that the power to remedy this injustice rests with Parliament, and I trust that hon. members will join together to exercise this responsibility.

When I last introduced this legislation in the 40th Parliament with the support of members of all parties, it never came to a vote. Given my place in the order of precedence, that risks being the case once again.

I therefore invite the government to adopt this legislation as its own so as to ensure that Canadian law no longer shields foreign states that commit horrific crimes against Canadians while securing justice for victims of such crimes.

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

Justice and Human Rights

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

moved:

That the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Tuesday, April 28, 2014, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, the Statutory Review of Part XVII of the Criminal Code Report says the following:

The 8 November 2012 order of reference from the House of Commons provided “[t]hat the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code.” During the subsequent parliamentary session, an identical order of reference was adopted by the House of Commons on 16 October 2013.

Section 533.1, added to the Criminal Code (“the Code”) upon passage of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) in 2008, reads as follows:

(1) Within three years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Part shall be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.

(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that the committee recommends.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (“the Committee”) began its study of Part XVII of the Code (Language of Accused) on 27 May 2013. It held five meetings and heard witnesses from the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law (FAJEF), the Language Rights Support Program, lawyers Gérard Lévesque and Steven Slimovitch, law student Geneviève Lévesque and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

On 5 November 2013, the Committee wrote to all the provincial and territorial ministers of Justice asking for information on their experience administering Part XVII, including best practices and problems identified. They were also invited to give evidence. The Committee received seven replies, which, according to the ministers, is to serve as their evidence. These letters are appended to this report.

I am reading part of the report on the accused. This is important, because there was a review and five years have passed, but there are still problems with the right of the accused.

Despite a few regional issues and differences, these letters state that Part XVII of the Code is generally being administered without any major difficulty. However, there is still room for improvement.

This report outlines the main issues raised by the witnesses. It is not a comprehensive review of all issues pertaining to language rights in criminal law. That is why the Committee recommends that the Department of Justice continue working with the key actors and that a parliamentary committee follow up in five years with a review of Part XVII of the Code and its administration.

The background on Part XVII is as follows:

Part XVII, enacted in 1978, gradually came into force, province by province, and finally throughout Canada in January 1990. In Beaulac, the Supreme Court of Canada found that equal access to designated courts in the official language of the accused is “a substantive right and not a procedural one that can be interfered with.” It is Parliament’s responsibility to determine the extent and scope of language rights under Part XVII. These rights are distinct from the right to make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).

Under Part XVII, on application by the accused, a judge will order that the accused be tried before a judge, or judge and jury, as the case may be, who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused. If the accused speaks neither English nor French, a judge will order that he or she be tried before a judge, or judge and jury, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony. Courts are also required to make interpreters available to assist the accused, counsel and witnesses.

Before Bill C-13 was introduced, studies by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and an inquiry conducted by the Department of Justice identified barriers to full and equal access to the criminal justice system in the official language of the accused’s choice. The amendments proposed by Bill C-13 were designed to help reduce these barriers and the problems of interpretation that had been identified.

Bill C-13 made various amendments to the Code, some of them related to provisions concerning the language of the accused. In particular, it stated that a bilingual trial might be warranted in the case of co-accused understanding different official languages. On 29 January 2008, the Senate passed Bill C-13, with, among other things, an amendment requiring a comprehensive review within three years of the provisions of Part XVII of the Code coming into force. It is this review that the Committee undertook.

The Senate also sought to amend the bill so that the presiding judge would remain responsible for personally informing the accused of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice. However, this amendment was not adopted. Bill C-13 received Royal Assent on 29 May 2008. Part XVII came into force on 1 October 2008.

...

2.1 OBLIGATION TO ADVISE THE ACCUSED OF HIS OR HER RIGHT (SUBS. 530(3) OF THE CODE)

Before the adoption of Bill C-13, the presiding judge was required to inform the accused of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice only where they were not represented by counsel. Bill C-13 removed this condition, meaning that the judge must now ensure that the accused is informed of this right in all cases. However, the judge is not obliged to inform the accused personally, but must ensure that the accused is informed of his or her right — by counsel, for example.

Therefore, the judge is responsible for making sure that the accused has been informed of his or her right to a trial in the language of their choice.

2.1.1 FAILURE TO ADVISE

The Committee heard that in practice, it is desirable to have some flexibility in how the accused is advised. It is the failure to advise the accused that is troubling. In some cases, subsection 530(3) seems to “fall between the cracks” and simply no notice is given. As noted by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, James Cornish, in his letter to the Committee, “[i]t appears, however, that this level of compliance with s. 530(3) has not been accomplished across the board in Ontario (…) [F]urther effort is still required (…)”

This is 2014, and we are still trying to inform judges. It should not be that hard to inform the accused of his or her language rights. This is 2014 and we are conducting studies. Even well-known lawyers tell us that in the criminal law process, people are not informed.

The lack of “active offer” was also identified in 2012 by the French Language Services Bench and Bar Advisory Committee to the Attorney General of Ontario and was reiterated by the witnesses who appeared before the Committee. The witnesses suggested several reasons behind this failure to advise, such as the fact that certain judges are not informed or trained in that regard.

The Department of Justice has its work cut out for it, or else people, or judges, simply do not want to get informed. It does not seem that complicated to me.

The report even says that judges should get a note so that they do not forget to inform the accused. This law has been around since the 1900s, and this is still a problem in a country like ours. Forty years after the passage of the Official Languages Act, we are still arguing with judges and training judges to inform the accused.

For example, just because someone's last name is Doucet does not mean that French is their mother tongue. It is a question of choice, but often the judge sees the last name and assumes the person is francophone.

I will explain why I chose to use the name “Doucet” in my example. One of my colleagues, the former union president at the Brunswick mine—once I left the position—had the last name Doucet, but he did not speak a word of French. Everyone spoke to him and wrote him letters in French, and he always responded by saying he did not speak French.

If the judge relies on a name like Doucet, Boivin or even Godin—there are some French-speaking Godins and some English-speaking ones—to determine whether the person is francophone or anglophone, he could be mistaken. In the justice system, it is important that people be able to express themselves in their own language. We cannot stress that enough. My bill about Supreme Court justices indicated that it is unusual that the justices sitting on the highest court are not bilingual. That shows how the government is still stuck on this. It agreed to make the Federal Court and the court of appeal bilingual. However, the government feels that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, does not need to be bilingual. That really worries me.

We have the report and the study. The study was positive. It worries me that even at the end of 2014, people are still asking questions about this and trying to convince judges to do what they are supposed to do in every province in the country and tell the accused that he has a right. It is the law. We are still trying to convince them. I do not think there should be any need to convince them. We should simply have to tell them that they represent justice and the law and that they have to follow the law or face the consequences.

I would like to compare this to the rules of the road again. If people drive faster than the speed limit, there are consequences. Nobody tells the offender that they hope he will soon learn to drive at the speed limit. I have never seen a police officer stop someone and tell him that he can do it another 50 times so that he can learn to drive at the speed limit or that even though he was driving 300 kilometres per hour, he still has time to learn.

The time has come for the Minister of Justice to step up and send a clear message to all judges about this.

The minister responded to the committee. To respond to the committee in a positive way is one thing, but what really matters is action, what happens on the ground. The act was passed in the 1990s, and we are still having problems on the ground today. I invite the minister to follow up with his department to make sure that when the next study is done, this will no longer be a problem. Our country's two official languages will have been accepted very respectfully and will be promoted. When both languages are promoted and respected, I can guarantee that the two populations will get along better than they do now. Furthermore, this has to come from above, from our leaders, our governments and the Supreme Court, for instance. This has to come from above and be practised on the ground. I guarantee that everyone will get along better at that point. As long as people know that bilingualism is not being embraced by those higher up, they will continue to fight one another down below.

As Antonine Maillet said, when the two ships left Europe, one came from France and the other from England. When they arrived in Canada, they fired their cannons at each other. One side won. We know that; it is why we are a minority. However, there were two founding peoples, the francophones and anglophones, along with our first nations. We are still fighting about official languages in Canada today. Some other countries have four, five or six languages. Parents tell their children that being able to speak several languages is a gift. Here we are still telling our children not to speak English or not to speak French. Both sides are guilty. I am not taking sides here. That is why I am sincerely saying that this must come from above, from the leadership, from governments and the Supreme Court, in order to demonstrate that learning both languages is not a sin.

I have children and I encouraged them to learn both languages. If they can learn a third, they should do so.

This is part of our history, when the two founding peoples came to Canada. We must build our country together respectfully. We are not asking anglophones to be francophones or vice versa. We are only asking that the two peoples be served in the official language of our country.

I am asking the minister to act immediately.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member feels very passionate about this subject matter. We could tell from the way he delivered the speech and the colour of his complexion as he was talking about it.

I sat through all of the justice committee hearings on this particular study. I recall that he might have shown up for part of one meeting. It is really too bad, since he is so interested, that he was not able to attend more of the meetings.

The committee prepared a report, which it tabled in the House. My recollection was that it was unanimously supported by all parties represented in the committee, including his. I wonder if he spoke to the NDP justice critic and his other colleagues from the NDP who were on the justice committee. Could he tell the House how they felt about the committee's report and whether they agreed with it?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I would have liked to attend more than one or two meetings, but they were held at the same time as those of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As deputy chair of that committee, I cannot be in two places at once. I had confidence in my NDP colleagues on the committee, and we talked about the discussions at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

My colleague wants to know whether my colleagues approve of this report, but I already talked about that in my speech. Indeed, the minister provides a response to the report, but these recommendations have to be put into action on the ground.

I am therefore calling on the minister and his department to follow up and ensure that Canada's judges inform the accused of all their rights before their trials begin. It is not the responsibility of the accused, who is already before a judge, a situation in which I would never want to find myself. It is the responsibility of the judge to kindly inform the accused of his rights and ask him whether he wants to be heard in French or English. That is why I am respectfully asking the minister to do his job. This is 2014 and there are still problems.