Debates of June 17th, 2014

Justice

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we witnessed a remarkable admission from the justice minister. By moving Mr. Justice Mainville from the Federal Court, with a brief stopover at the Quebec Court of Appeal, he indicated his clear intent to put him on the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is clear that he has a legal duty to comply with not just the spirit but the letter of the Nadon decision. If the minister believes that he is acting constitutionally, will he now release the departmental advice he has received that validates his decision to move Justice Mainville from the Federal Court to the Quebec Court of Appeal?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, again, those are very convoluted, conspiratorial comments.

As the Prime Minister has just clearly indicated, this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court of Canada. This is about an appointment to the Quebec Court of Appeal. Mr. Justice Mainville, as I said yesterday, is an eminently qualified Quebec jurist, and under section 3 of the Judges Act, he is certainly qualified and eligible to join the Quebec Court of Appeal. We do not have a process in place to replace the Supreme Court judge next December.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why must the Conservative government spoil everything it touches, including the appointment of judges?

Although he is now denying it, yesterday, the minister suggested that he wanted Justice Mainville to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Does the minister realize that such an appointment—which comes just weeks after Justice Mainville transferred from the Federal Court to the Quebec Court of Appeal—would blatantly violate the Supreme Court's decision and result in another legal battle, once again depriving Canadians of a ninth judge for many months?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this coming from the architect of Kyoto and the stunning electoral victory of the Liberal Party, speaking of wrecking things.

As was already indicated, yesterday's comments had nothing to do with the Supreme Court of Canada. They had everything to do with the recent transfer, on request, of a Federal Court judge to the Quebec Court of Appeal. That has happened, and with respect to a Supreme Court appointment in the future, next December, to replace Mr. Justice LeBel, there is no process in place as yet.

Tourism

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every dollar invested to support travel and tourism yields $56 in return. This is easy math, even for a mediocre economist.

Global travel is increasing, but Conservative cuts have knocked Canada from 7th to 16th place as a destination, making us one of just five countries to experience a drop in visitors. Instead of selling Canada as a destination point, Conservatives would rather sell Canada out by slashing the Canadian Tourism Commission by over 20%.

When are the Conservatives going to start promoting Canada instead of just promoting themselves?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, clearly my colleague was not in Vancouver a few weeks ago during Rendez-vous Canada, the Canadian tourism industry conference. This event was a great success. The entire tourism industry was in attendance, as well as international buyers.

This tourism conference was the biggest one that has been held in Canada for years. What was celebrated? The success of the Canadian tourism industry.

Privacy

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's inability to balance reasonable legislation with respect for the Constitution and the privacy rights of Canadians is getting embarrassing. The Conservatives ignore legal experts, reject amendments, and end up banging their heads against the Supreme Court, like last Friday, when the Supreme Court had to remind them that snooping on Canadians without a warrant is illegal. Well, quelle surprise.

This brings us to the cyberbullying bill. Why did the minister not listen to the experts, separate the cyberbullying provisions so that it would be passed through this House, and then allow us to amend the clearly unconstitutional parts of the Conservatives' agenda for snooping on the private rights of Canadians?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we received the Spencer decision from the Supreme Court a full two business days ago, but let me tell the member this. The Supreme Court's decision actually confirms what the government has said all along, that Bill C-13's proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant.

The Supreme Court's affirmation, in fact, of Mr. Spencer's conviction on possession of child pornography charges very much reinforces the long-held position of this government that children and Canadians in general must be protected from the scourge of cyberbullying, online criminality, and certainly sexual exploitation.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Supreme Court reiterated that police must obtain a warrant from the court to obtain a customer's IP address.

This decision casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of Bill C-13 on cyberbullying.

In light of this ruling by the highest court, will the government finally agree to the NDP's request to divide Bill C-13 in order to combat cyberbullying and prevent the law from being struck down because it infringes on people's privacy?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. We are reviewing that decision, which was made on Friday.

The letter from the Supreme Court confirms what our government has been saying all along, which is that Bill C-13's proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. It is absolutely essential to review this Supreme Court decision and pass this bill.

Justice

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be prudent to wait before moving forward with Bill C-13 and to conduct an analysis to see whether this works or not.

Under the Conservatives, and especially under this Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court appointment process has become a real farce, and I would go even further. The Prime Minister does whatever he wants without any regard for the Constitution or the courts.

The Minister of Justice, who is supposed to be standing up for our justice system and our Constitution, cannot even tell the difference between the Quebec Superior Court and the Supreme Court.

Why is the Minister of Justice trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision on Justice Nadon?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are doing no such thing, as the Prime Minister has already said, and as I repeated yesterday. It had nothing to do with the Supreme Court of Canada. It had everything to do with the appeal court of Quebec. That is what I said in the House. That is what I said outside the House.

Mr. Justice Mainville is an eminent jurist. He is someone who is highly qualified and eligible to take up his position as an appeal court judge in the member's province of Quebec.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the Prime Minister not only does not take the Chief Justice's phone calls, he does not open her letters, because she already informed the government that Justice LeBel will be gone by November. Mr. Mainville and Mr. Nadon may be fine jurists, but that does not mean they meet eligibility criteria to sit on the Supreme Court.

The court was clear: Federal Court judges are not eligible for Supreme Court appointments. Moving a judge to the Quebec Court of Appeal for a few months is not respecting the letter and the spirit of the law. There are laws. Will the Minister of Justice respect the law, or will he—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have already clearly answered that question, as has the Prime Minister. Mr. Justice Mainville has been appointed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court of Canada.

I must admit, however, that the justice critic for the NDP from Quebec seems to be siding with a downtown Toronto lawyer who appears to be trying to block and limit the pool of jurists who are available to be appointed to superior courts in the province of Quebec.

Northern Development

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, various elements of the Arctic Archipelago are separated from one another and the Canadian mainland by a series of waterways collectively known as the Canadian Northwest Passage. However, questions continue to be raised about Canada's sovereignty in this area.

Canada's north is a fundamental part of our national identity and vital to our future. Could the Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and chair of the Arctic Council explain to this House whether Canada has any proof that there is sovereignty over this land?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, a new atlas of the Arctic was released last week that shows Inuit discovered the Northwest Passage even before we thought of it. There are trails and place names that are hundreds of years old and are still used by Inuit today. This proves that the Northwest Passage is very much a part of Canadian history. We will continue to claim this area as ours and ensure that northerners continue to occupy these lands today and into the future.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with tragic events in Iraq, the Syrian refugee crisis is getting worse and here we are having a hard time getting straight answers from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, so let us put it in context.

Sweden has over 14,000 Syrian refugees; Germany, 19,000; and the Canadian government has promised to help 200, and still cannot tell us how many are actually here.

It is a simple question for the minister: How many government-sponsored refugees from Syria are here in Canada today?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, once again that member is misinforming the House; his question is completely wrong.

I met with a senior German official today who confirmed to us that the large number of Syrians that Germany is taking are going to be there on a temporary basis. Canada has accepted 1,150 Syrian refugees since the beginning of the crisis. They are all here in Canada, and we are prepared to do much more, building on our very strong credentials as the fourth-largest donor to the humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis and the country that refugees around the world rely on to resettle one out of ten—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can pretend not to understand the question and throw all these grand figures at us, out of context, but that does not change the fact that we still do not know the number of refugees.

It is simple. The Syrian Canadian Council tells us that in fact, the government will probably not reach its targets. We want proof that these 200 refugees that the government promised to sponsor will be here, if not yesterday, then today or tomorrow. Can the minister tell us how many of the 200 refugees he promised to sponsor are here in Canada right now?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, why do our hon. colleagues insist on focusing on such a small number when there are already 1,150 Syrian refugees in Canada? Why does the opposition not talk about the more than 18,000 Iraqis, almost 20,000 in fact, who have settled in Canada since the conflict in Iraq in 2003? Several thousand of them began as refugees in Syria and are now in Canada.

Countries like Sweden, Germany and our European and United Nations partners know that Canada is a world leader in this regard.

Employment Insurance

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because of the changes made by the Conservatives to the Social Security Tribunal, wait times for EI appeals have quadrupled. The unemployed who have to deal with the new tribunal must wait an average of eight months with no benefits. That is unacceptable. Ironically, the Conservatives got rid of the previous system, claiming that it was slow and ineffective.

Do they realize that they have implemented a system that is even slower and more ineffective, and that the unemployed are once again the ones paying the price for their mismanagement?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tribunal did receive a large number of cases from the legacy tribunal. Having said that, it has a plan in place to get these cases through in a faster manner, and we are going to support it in that.

However, the member is misleading the public in terms of the wait times. It is not as extreme as she is saying and it is disappointing that she would do that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives thought it was a good idea to replace 1,000 referees with just 39 tribunal members. Here we are a year later and wait times for employment insurance appeals have quadrupled. These are unemployed Canadians who paid into EI their whole lives, but when they need help, their government abandons them.

Why have Conservatives destroyed the social security appeal system?