House of Commons Hansard #416 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
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?
Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
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.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Chair, are code names acceptable under our Access to Information Act?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Chair, I will not comment on hypothetical questions of that nature. As I have said this evening a number of times and described, we put together a process in fulfillment of our third party obligations, which was rigorous and efficient, and we were complimented for it at the end of the case.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Chair, I will not ask again in the interests of time.
I want to go to another important matter facing Canada, and that is the implications of Quebec's Bill 21, a government initiative that would ban newly hired public servants, including teachers, police officers, lawyers and judges from wearing religious symbols at work. Quebec will be the first jurisdiction in North America to do that.
According to the Prime Minister, this would legitimize religious discrimination. However, according to the Premier of Quebec, trainee teachers who wanted to wear religious clothing should choose a different career. We have something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it seems that the Quebec government has chosen to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
I very clearly would like to ask the Minister of Justice this. How does he intend to address this initiative when it comes before courts?