House of Commons Hansard #18 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was unions.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I was not consulted on whether or not I thought my union dues or my union should be endorsing a separatist party in Quebec. Clearly my answer would have been completely different from my union's.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Resuming debate. I will let the hon. member for Prince Albert know that there are only about five minutes remaining in the time allocated for government orders for the afternoon. I will give him the usual signal in five minutes. He will have the remaining time when the House gets back to debate on the question.
The hon. member for Prince Albert.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all day and I am curious in trying to understand a few things. I think of the constituents in my riding of Prince Albert, and I ask the member for Durham why now? Why would the Liberal government in this scenario, in our environment of unemployment, job losses, ISIS, security issues in Canada and abroad, and Syrian refugee issues, say that this is going to be one of their marquee first bills? Why now? What is so important?
When I talk to union members, they are glad to have this piece of legislation in place to protect them. So why now does the Liberal Party want to remove it? Obviously the answer is that there were some backroom deals made between the Liberal Party and some union bosses. The reality is that we can go back to two weeks ago and the Elections Canada finding that union bosses were putting people into the Liberal campaign to make sure that he looked good for his pictures, the photo ops. They were convicted, tried, done. So why now?
Obviously there is something in that legislation that really bothers the union bosses. What would that be? What do they not like? Is it accountability? What is wrong with accountability? I have to be accountable. We all have to be accountable as members of Parliament. We have to tell our constituents what we are doing. They get to see my expenses and how I vote in public, as they should, because I am a public representative for them. Who benefits? The members do not benefit. Absolutely not. They lose all sorts of ability to see exactly what their union bosses are up to. They do not get to scrutinize the balance sheets to see what is going on. They did with our piece of legislation, but with what the Liberals are proposing they will not have that opportunity. Who benefits? It is obvious that it is the union bosses. Why do they benefit? What is their rationale behind that?
The other thing in the background with the union bosses is their known support for the NDP. If we go back to the previous convention of the NDP, it was the union bosses who funded a good chunk of that convention. Again, there was no transparency there. It was not until Elections Canada became involved and it was settled out of court. We never did see how many thousands of dollars were spent on that convention by the union bosses for their NDP colleagues. Here are parties that have a vested interest in seeing this legislation go forward, both the Liberals, because of what they have done with the Prime Minister and the way the unions have been supporting them, and the NDP, because of previous actions and commitments they made to their union bosses. We can see exactly what is happening here and why there is an urgency to covering up what is going on with the unions.
My other question is about the secret ballot, which is a no-brainer. When we elect different presidents and vice-presidents for parliamentary associations, we do it by secret ballot. When the Speaker is voted into this office, it is done by secret ballot. Why would the union bosses not want a secret ballot? I have heard from different members of unions that they want the ability to intimidate the outcome of the vote. They want to be able to shame a person into voting a certain way. They want the membership to follow the party line. If someone is an NDP member, that is what they do; they follow the party line or the union line. If members are there to question it, which has happened in the past, they are not represented in a dispute with their bosses. All of a sudden the union does not show up or provide the service and support that they should be providing as their representatives.
What else is done? We have heard of intimidation tactics where unions have gone into workplaces at lunchtime and told members to vote for a party because the party is the union's party. Is that appropriate? Is that an appropriate use of their power as union bosses? A union boss is supposed to be there to represent the members of that union. If there is a dispute over a work condition or labour standard or wage, that is what union bosses are there for. They are not there to put on political activity regarding what is going on in Israel or to go to a junket in Brazil or South America to look at some labour congress issues. They are there to represent that member.
What are unions doing with that money? We do not know because we do not have transparency, and we will never know because of this legislation that the Liberals are bringing forward. It is a cover-up. First of all, the Liberals do not want the union members to understand how their money is being spent, so that the union bosses can spend it as they see fit, whether it supports the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party.
The Liberals want to make sure union bosses stay in place, so they want to make sure that the secret ballot stays in place. Again, that group is tightly knit. If we look at all the options and what is going on here, there are obviously some other things going on in the background—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Prince Albert will have four and a half minutes remaining in his time when the House next resumes debate on the question.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to follow up on a question that I asked on January 29, 2016. At that time, I asked the current government about bilingualism and respect for the Official Languages Act. Some problems have come up recently. One of them is related to the Translation Bureau. We have been hearing more and more concerns in this regard lately. Another problem is the fact that immigrants have to pay more for language tests in French than in English.
This raises some questions, including some about the Translation Bureau. As members know, the Conservative government has a very poor track record when it comes to supporting official languages. In the past four years, 400 translation jobs have been cut. If things go on this way, another 140 jobs are expected to be lost by 2017-18, which would represent 17% of the Translation Bureau's staff. We are heading in a very worrisome direction. In addition, the Translation Bureau is contracting out more and more work, a practice that is questionable in terms of efficiency and, ultimately, the quality of the translated texts.
Unfortunately, the Liberal government did not mention its intention to change the 2015-16 plans and priorities for the Translation Bureau. That is one of my questions for my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary. Does he intend to change the Translation Bureau's 2015-16 plans and priorities? Unfortunately, year after year, we keep seeing more and more cuts when in fact we need a strong Translation Bureau to uphold and respect the Official Languages Act.
That being said, questions were also raised recently about the new machine translation tool that will be launched on all computers on April 1, if memory serves me correctly. This has raised a lot of questions, not only within the Translation Bureau, by the union and the employees, but also by various stakeholders who work to protect the official languages. Among others, there is Linda Cardinal, a minority languages expert at the University of Ottawa's School of Political Studies. As we know, we have a very good department at the University of Ottawa that has been doing research on official languages for a very long time. This is what Ms. Cardinal had to say about the translation tool being installed on every computer:
To me, this type of translation does not translate the spirit of the Official Languages Act, which is to promote the equal status of English and French in Canada.
Later she adds:
The purpose of this technology is to replace humans. I would say it does nothing to bring the two large linguistic communities closer together.
As we can see, this is quite worrisome and the stakeholders, experts, and academics are talking about this concern. That is why I am rising again in the House to ask the parliamentary secretary what he plans to do to ensure that the official languages are respected and that French continues to be protected across Canada. That is what I would like my colleague to answer.
Randy Boissonnault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We had a very productive meeting this morning on a number of issues that were raised in the House today.
As a Franco-Albertan, I am very proud of our Canadian heritage and Canadian francophonie. The official languages are a wealth and heritage that Canadians are proud of. Our government intends to reinforce the importance of both our official languages. Canada benefits greatly from its diversity and its social cohesiveness.
Our government believes in the need to encourage and promote the use of official languages within Canadian society, and the development of official language minority communities is particularly close to my heart as a Franco-Albertan, and that of our government.
In order to support these fundamental values of our Canadian society, the government is committed to developing a new multi-year plan to enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities, to establish access to a free, online service for learning and maintaining French and English as a second language, to ensure that federal services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act, to modernize and restore the court challenges program, and to restore and enhance the annual funding to Radio-Canada/CBC after consulting with the broadcaster and Canada's cultural community.
Hon. members can count upon the full commitment of all ministers in this government, in this regard, in particular, the hon. Minister of Public Services and Procurement, giving full attention to the quality of linguistic tools available to the public service.
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has a mandate to develop a new multi-year official languages plan to enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities. Public consultations will be held before this plan is developed. Our approach will be based on respect, openness, and sincere collaboration with all key stakeholders.
An announcement on the upcoming consultations will be made in the next few weeks. The minister is also looking at the best ways to make online learning services more accessible so that all Canadians can develop their language skills in their second official language. Our government will provide the leadership necessary to advance both of our official languages. That is our duty, and we take it seriously.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thought the meeting this morning was very productive. It was a good open approach. It is important to work collaboratively to advance the rights of official language minorities. I am going to continue to work on that.
However, the situation at the Translation Bureau remains extremely problematic. There are medium-term action plans, but something needs to be done in the short term. We need clear answers quickly.
Here is an email that a Translation Bureau employee sent me to make me aware of the urgent need for action. It reads:
The bureau was created to serve public servants. It is not there to compete with private translation companies. Since 1995, federal government departments have been allowed to get their texts translated by anyone. They often deal with private companies that charge lower rates.... Our translations are generally more accurate and of higher quality. Obviously, that costs more. We are the experts, but many departments do not care and are choosing the cheaper options.
Does my hon. colleague intend to act quickly in the specific matter of the Translation Bureau?
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I accept his invitation to work together because collaborating with our colleagues of all stripes is central to our government's mandate.
With respect to the Translation Bureau, it is important to work with all departments to ensure quality translation and also to ensure that the service makes sense financially. We are responsible for ensuring that Canadians in minority language communities have access to services and activities in their language.
Our government is committed to introducing a new style of leadership through open collaboration with members from both sides of the House, parliamentary committees, the civil service, and all our partners.
We will establish a constructive dialogue with Canadians, civil society, and all stakeholders. We are proud of these commitments, which are key to the kind of government we want. We are determined to act on them and to respect the rights of people in minority communities as well as official language rights.
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now, there has been a crisis in Quebec that affects our girls. On an almost daily basis, we hear about another girl who has disappeared from a youth centre. Our girls are being targeted not only in youth centres, but also near schools, bus stops and malls. This is a stark reminder that human trafficking is real and is happening here at home. From Laval to Jonquière, no region has been spared. Nobody is safe from this. We must do everything we can to fight sexual exploitation and human trafficking. We must take preventive action, support our girls and ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the resources they need.
The Government of Canada has a role to play. It must make life more difficult for those who exploit our girls. Former MP Maria Mourani, a criminologist and sociologist, did remarkable work to move a bill against human trafficking through the House.
The bill imposes harsher punishments on exploiters. It amends the Criminal Code to achieve three objectives. First, it allows for harsher penalties for exploiters, because it imposes consecutive sentences. Exploiters convicted of several charges today are sentenced only for the most serious of the charges. Under the new legislation, those exploiters would be sentenced for all the charges. Second, the legislation makes it possible to reverse the burden of proof, placing it on the exploiters. Currently, as we heard from a police officer, it is hard to charge someone with sexual exploitation or human trafficking, because it is hard to prove and victims are often reluctant to testify. Lastly, the legislation allows for the seizure of proceeds of crime from anyone convicted of exploitation or human trafficking. This is already done in the case of drug trafficking. It only seems logical that the same sanction apply to human trafficking.
Exploiters are very familiar with the limits of the existing laws. They take advantage of the system while unscrupulously exploiting our girls. It is up to us to stand up and say “enough is enough”.
Bill C-452 was studied and passed by Parliament. All parties voted for this legislation, including the party now in power. Only an order in council is required for this legislation to take effect. That is all, it is simple, and all that is lacking is the will of the government.
Yesterday, Marjolaine Aubé, the mother of a runaway under the thumb of a pimp, who fortunately was found, gave the Prime Minister's office a letter asking him to implement Bill C-452. The letter is signed by five other parents of residents of the youth centre and is a heartfelt appeal. The parents said:
The current situation cannot be tolerated. There are real predators who are attacking young, vulnerable girls...
The broad parliamentary debate has already taken place and the law is ready. We are writing to you as Prime Minister and as a father, so that Law C-452 be applied without delay...
What does the government have to say to the parents? Will it take action to protect our girls?
Sean Casey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, our government is closely following the situation in Quebec, where young women have disappeared. Our thoughts and prayers go out to these young women and their families.
We take human trafficking and the exploitation of women and girls very seriously. We are determined to build on the action we are taking to address this problem, so that some of the most vulnerable members of society have better protection. That is why we promised to hold an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.
Regrettably, the recruitment of children for the purposes of sexual exploitation and human trafficking remains a serious concern. It is a tragedy when a child disappears, particularly in circumstances that suggest the possibility of exploitation. The whole country shares the relief of parents whose daughters have been safely recovered in recent weeks. We are committed to working with provinces and territories, indigenous communities, law enforcement, and community organizations to combat exploitation and to support victims and potential victims.
While we support the principle of Bill C-452 to strengthen our criminal justice system's approach to human trafficking, there are some parts of the bill that raise concerns.
If the bill were to come into force, it would require that the sentence imposed on a person for the offence of trafficking in persons be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event.
There is a real risk that this provision could violate the charter, if applied in combination with the harsh mandatory minimum sentences established in 2014 for the offence of trafficking in persons under the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, the former Bill C-36.
In conjunction, these two provisions, which impose mandatory sentences, could result in sentences that are disproportionate to the offence and to the justice system's approach to other offences.
This disproportion could infringe on an individual's right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, as set out in section 12 of the charter. In other words, there is a real risk that this bill could be unconstitutional.
We have committed to carefully review changes to the Criminal Code brought in over the last decade, with a view to determining their compliance with the charter and consistency with our values. We take this commitment very seriously. We will, therefore, take the necessary time to review the bill to ensure that we do not enact anything that may, in the end, be found to be unconstitutional.
We will strengthen our efforts to address human trafficking, which is a complex issue that impacts on some of the most vulnerable members of our society, but we must do so responsibly, in a way that reflects our values and respects the charter. Accordingly, we are currently examining new ways to address this very important issue.
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, we obviously want to abide by the Constitution.
However, we are in the middle of a legal debate. The Canadian bar has concerns, but the Barreau du Québec says that the law is enforceable, whereas the government's lawyers seem to say the complete opposite.
While the lawyers bicker, our girls are falling into the hands of the scum of the earth. We are doing nothing and our police forces are not getting any additional resources to help find our girls and get them out.
The public is demanding concrete action. With Bill C-452, we can take action right now. Will the minister implement this legislation? All it would take is one signature, so that we can start to help instead of continuing to bicker.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, our government is determined to take measures to better protect victims of exploitation and those at risk of exploitation.
We are also determined to ensure that traffickers properly answer for the crimes they commit against some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
We support the important objectives of Bill C-452 and we are reviewing it on a priority basis in order to determine how the amendments it contains can be implemented. This review requires an in-depth analysis of the impacts the bill will have in relation to the charter.
Examining these important issues is a priority, but in the meantime, I would like to point out that existing criminal law provides for heavy penalties for human traffickers, including lengthy mandatory minimum sentences.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)