Debates of May 14th, 2019

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Chair, in the 2015 Liberal election platform, the Liberal Party committed to removing a host of minimum sentences from the Criminal Code, and while I am most thankful that at least in this area they have not got around to doing great violence to the Criminal Code and destroying years of good work by the previous government, I am interested in knowing whether the minister's plan to introduce legislation on minimum sentences prior to the election will happen.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, as I have stated a number of times, we are committed to reviewing the question of minimum mandatory sentences. They have been found in a number of circumstances to be completely counterproductive. We did commit in the platform to look at them, and we will commit to look at that question at some point in the future.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, I will speak to two issues: access to justice in both official languages, and genetic discrimination. I will speak for about 10 minutes. Then I will ask the minister questions in both official languages.

One thing I do want to say before I begin is how much I have appreciated the opportunity to work with the Minister of Justice. Since he has been appointed, he has been nothing but a pleasure to work with, and I want to thank him for that.

One of my concerns is the issue of access to justice in both of Canada's official languages. I represent a bilingual riding where two-thirds of the population speaks English and one-third speaks French.

In my view, all Canadians from all provinces and territories should have access to justice in both of Canada's official languages.

One of the things that I was pleased with is that at the beginning of our tenure at the justice committee, we proposed a unanimous report that asked for the reinstatement of the court challenges program, with both an official language component and an equality component. That program was restored by this government, and I appreciate that, because it allows official language minority communities throughout the country to seek funds in order to challenge government rules that pose a challenge to their charter rights. That is something that the government did that I really appreciate.

We looked at that at the justice committee. At the justice committee, when we were doing our access to justice study, we also proposed that funding be offered to allow provinces to create templates for lawyers that allow them to enter into contracts in both official languages throughout Canada. It was actually frightening to hear that in some provinces, contracts could not be drawn up in both official languages because lawyers did not have access to templates. One of the things I am really pleased with, which I will get to a little later, is that the government has offered funding to improve that access.

Another thing that is very important is for judges to be able to hear witness testimony in both official languages.

The government's action plan for official languages delivers on many of the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages and his counterparts in Ontario and New Brunswick in the 2013 report entitled “Access to Justice in Both Official Languages: Improving the Bilingual Capacity of the Superior Court Judiciary”.

Our action plan takes a multidimensional approach that guarantees that participants in Canada's justice system have better access to justice in both of Canada's official languages.

First, in many cases, access to justice would be moot without a justice system capable of rendering justice in both languages. To that end, in October 2016 there were reforms to the Superior Court appointments process, and those measures are contained in the action plan to enhance the bilingual capacity of the Superior Court judiciary. These changes have increased the transparency and accountability of the appointments process while laying the groundwork for a longer-term vision for continuous improvement, including in the area of bilingual capacity.

The other important change regarding judges is the process for appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. Our government set out to make this process more open, transparent and accountable and to ensure that judges appointed to the Supreme Court are truly bilingual.

We followed that process when we appointed Justices Malcolm Rowe and Sheilah L. Martin. I am sure that we will do the same thing when we find a replacement for Clément Gascon.

Ultimately, it is very important to ensure that all judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada are bilingual, and one day, that might be the case for appeal court judges as well.

I am really proud of that progress.

I would also like to talk about a couple of other things we have done with respect to bilingualism. The justice committee, once again unanimously, amended Bill C-78 so it would ensure people have the right to divorce in both official languages across Canada. One of the things we heard from witnesses from British Columbia and a couple of Maritime provinces such as Newfoundland was that one could not obtain a divorce in French in those provinces. That is shocking.

A divorce proceeding might be the only encounter a person has with the justice system, and it is a very emotional time. As a witness, a person would not want to have to talk to a judge about such emotional things in a language that is not their mother tongue. That is what was happening in some provinces in Canada.

I am proud that the Standing Committee on Justice unanimously recommended changing Bill C-78.

I am proud that the government agreed to that recommendation. That is what passed this House of Commons and I hope will pass the other place.

I also want to talk about the enhancement of the access to justice in both official languages support fund under the action plan for official languages 2018-2023. This grants and contributions program provides funding to not-for-profit organizations, post-secondary institutions and provincial and territorial partners, including provincial courts, to improve access to justice in official language minority communities.

Beyond the existing amounts, our government has committed to additional funding of $13.75 million over five years to improve access to justice in both official languages. These new investments will enable the consolidation of current access to justice activities for official language minority communities, the creation of new fields of activities and the re-establishment of operational core funding for eligible community organizations.

In addition to this funding, consultation with stakeholders is key.

I know that our Department of Justice organizes an annual meeting as part of the advisory committee on access to justice in both official languages. This advisory committee brings together legal representatives of official language minority communities and spokespersons for these communities, such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Quebec Community Groups Network.

I know this money will go to a good cause. We heard from these groups how difficult it was in certain cases to obtain access to justice in both official languages. Despite constitutional and legal rules, people who come from a small rural community often have a difficult time finding an attorney and a court that will hear them and work with them in their language. The more tools governments across Canada, including our federal government, can offer to this process, the better the chance all Canadians will have of seeking access to justice in their official language.

I also said I wanted to talk about one other thing, which is genetic discrimination. This House, by majority, adopted a law to prohibit genetic discrimination. That was a proposal that was unanimously adopted by the justice committee. The previous minister of justice did not agree with that, and a factum was filed by the Government of Canada in the Quebec Court of Appeal, saying that the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act adopted by a majority in Parliament was not within the criminal law power of Parliament.

I have noted with interest that the government has now filed a factum in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, which highlights the importance of privacy and the chance that such a law would be intra vires the privacy interests or the right of Parliament to legislate on privacy issues.

Madam Chair, I am going to ask my first question to the Minister of Justice now. Mr. Minister, could you explain to the House the privacy arguments advanced in the factum on the genetic discrimination bill before the Supreme Court of Canada?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he should still address the questions to the Chair.

The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee. With respect to the power to regulate insurance, the legal argument has not changed. On that particular point, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled five to nothing in favour of provincial jurisdiction.

However, what we have done in the argument is admit that, should there be a privacy basis for the grounding of such a right to the information generated by genetic testing, we would be open to that. That is quite an important opening and is very respectful of the will of Parliament.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, I very much appreciate that explanation, because it is important for us to recognize that the federal Parliament may indeed have a role to play in preventing genetic discrimination. Regardless of the constitutional or legal argument we use, the objective is the core that I want to reach here.

I very much appreciated the government's decision to support the committee's amendment to Bill C-78 related to access to divorce in both official languages. I wonder if the minister could tell this chamber why the government feels that the right to divorce and the right for other court cases to be heard in both official languages are important to Canadians.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, as the hon. member knows, I was born in Port Colborne, Ontario. Much like Welland, this is a city outside Quebec that has a large francophone population. It is a very proud community.

Growing up in Port Colborne, I learned that it was important to protect the right of access to justice in one's first language. This is particularly important during a stage of life that may be quite difficult, and even more so when the best interests of the child are involved. We understand this as a government. We accepted this suggestion and put money on the table.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, I have one more question. With the resignation of Justice Gascon, there is now a vacancy on the Supreme court of Canada.

Can the minister tell us how he plans to replace this judge? Will he use the same process used for the previous two appointments?

Can he assure the House that the judge appointed will be functionally bilingual?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, I can assure the House that bilingualism is a central consideration in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. I worked there for a year as a law clerk, and it was one of the best years of my life. I understood how important it is that judges be able to hear cases in either official language.

As for the process, I am not at liberty to announce that. However, as I have already said this evening, we will have a clear and transparent process in which Quebec can participate.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, as the minister is aware, the current study before the justice committee relates to the criminalization of the non-disclosure of HIV. Recently, a federal prosecutorial directive was created, but it applies only to the territories.

I have two questions for the minister.

First, if the committee recommends that the minister meet with his provincial counterparts to seek to convince them to adopt provincial directives that are similar to the federal directive, combined with any recommendations the committee makes, will the minister be willing to do so?

Second, in order to have an even playing field across Canada and to find a way to make it less stigmatizing for people to get tested for HIV and to get treatment for HIV, if the committee comes forward with recommendations to change the criminal law to remove it from the area of sexual assault, will the minister be open to considering such changes?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, I say with a smile, after refusing to answer a number of hypothetical questions from my colleagues on the other side of the House, that I certainly will not answer a hypothetical question even if it is coming from my own side of the House.

What I will say is that we are committed to making sure that as many people as possible get tested. We think this is important. As I said in an earlier response to questions, and as we heard in an earlier speech, this is critically important, and I will work with my provincial counterparts in any way, shape or form to advance those goals.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, I would never presume to require the minister to answer a hypothetical question, so let me ask a concrete question. The other study we are working on is on online hate. Can the minister talk about some of the actions the government has taken to combat online hate?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, again, I could tell the House that the Prime Minister is travelling to meet with the Prime Minister of New Zealand as well as the President of France to discuss this issue. It is a priority for our government. Increasingly, in an online world, it is an exceptionally important challenge and if we do not meet that challenge, we have seen the very tragic consequences.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Chair, I would like the minister to comment on a statement by his parliamentary secretary, made in this House on February 8, in which he said that “at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister [or members of his cabinet]”.

Is that accurate?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, I believe that question has been answered in the House in an official ruling and I will leave the answer at that. I have said a number of times this evening that I certainly have felt no pressure in my role as Attorney General or Minister of Justice.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Chair, is it possible that if there was no political interference, if that is the case, the reason was that the former attorney general stood up to that pressure?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, again, as I have said a number of times this evening, I was not privy to those situations. I only have noted that in front of the justice committee there were competing versions, and it is possible that everyone was telling the truth with respect to those competing narratives.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Chair, in the recording of the December 19 phone call between the former attorney general and member for Vancouver Granville and Michael Wernick, the former clerk of the Privy Council, over the SNC-Lavalin affair, the former attorney general warned the clerk that the Prime Minister was “interfering with one of our fundamental institutions [and] breaching a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence” by trying to intervene in this case.

Does the Attorney General agree with that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, as I have said a number of times, I was not privy to that phone conversation, which had been taped without the knowledge of one of the parties.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Chair, in the context of the Vice-Admiral Norman affair, there was a comment made by the Prime Minister, who appeared to assume that a charge would be laid before a charge was actually laid. That was characterized by one of his colleagues, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement as “not the best framing of words”. What are Canadians properly to infer from her comments?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, I have no comment on the actual statement itself.

As I have said a number of times this evening, and I think it is fundamentally true, in this particular case the institutions of our Canadian society have worked well. The RCMP did an investigation. The prosecution service with the RCMP decided to lay charges. They proceeded with the proceedings and ultimately stayed charges, and Vice-Admiral Norman had defence throughout.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Chair, from the perspective of the counsel for Vice-Admiral Norman, in her memorable phrase, the government put its fingers on the scales of justice in that case. The government contested the release of information, and National Defence staff avoided using the name of Mr. Norman as a way to keep records out of the public domain, as a way to avoid the legal requirements of the Access to Information Act. If that is accurate, does the minister consider that practice lawful?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, I reject the premise of that question and the various conclusions that are drawn from it. As I have described a number of times this evening, the Department of Justice had a role in the proceedings to fulfill obligations on third party records applications. As I have described in greater detail this evening, there was a rigorous process put together for a wide scope of documents and a huge number of documents in a very short period of time, and the judge complimented us at the end of the case.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Chair, that is not exactly what I asked, so. I will ask it again.

Earlier today in question period, the minister informed us that the decisions on redaction of documents in the case were made by public servants. If it was public servants who used code names in an effort to avoid the statutory requirements of the Access to Information Act, as our Minister of Justice, is it is his view that this practice is legal?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, as I have stated in the House and this evening in the proceedings, public servants had a role in identifying whether there might be privilege attached to the documents.

However, the ultimate final decision on whether a document would be produced or whether and how it would be redacted and on what basis was given to the judge. That decision was delegated to the judge in a rather extraordinary but fundamentally indicative way in which we were complying with the court process.