Debates of May 14th, 2019

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, does the minister believe that the Prime Minister commenting on a case that is likely to proceed to trial before it actually happens is respecting the independence of the justice system?

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

Mr. Chair, once again, these institutions in Canada are robust. We are very proud of the RCMP and the prosecution service, which is newer but was a welcome contribution from the Conservative government at the time. We think it was a good thing, and it is working well.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, does the minister understand that Canada's international reputation was tarnished when the OECD referred the SNC-Lavalin case to its working group on bribery?

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

Mr. Chair, once again, I take note of the hon. member's question. I am aware that the OECD said it would follow it, but it is a fairly routine procedure for the OECD to look at a number of different cases in a number of different countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That will conclude the third part of the first and opening round. We are going to go now to the next round of speeches.

Before we do that, I want to commend all hon. members for the way they are observing the rules of this committee of the whole. The flow has been excellent. If we could stay on that track, we are going to have a good meeting this evening.

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will take your comments to heart and continue in the same vein the committee of the whole has proceeded to this point.

I will be providing 10 minutes of remarks, followed by some questions.

I am very proud today to take the floor to share with Canadians some of our government's accomplishments in recognizing, promoting and protecting the equality rights of LGBTQ2 communities.

From the beginning of our government's mandate, we have demonstrated our commitment to diversity and inclusion in the hope that all Canadians can participate fully in Canadian society and be recognized as deserving of the same respect, deference and consideration. This commitment equally extends to members of the LGBTQ2 community.

Canadians expect their government to respect their human rights and to promote these rights. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs once stated in this very chamber, LGBTQ2 rights are human rights, and human rights have no borders. It is a commitment our government takes very seriously abroad and here at home.

ln budget 2017, the Government of Canada set aside $3.6 million over three years for the creation of the LGBTQ2 Secretariat within the Privy Council Office. The secretariat works with LGBTQ2 stakeholders across the country. This important work keeps our government informed about the challenging situations affecting LGBTQ2 Canadians and the potential solutions.

The secretariat also supports the integration of LGBTQ2 considerations in the day-to-day work of the federal government across all ministries. These efforts really help the government ensure that federal policies, programs and laws related to gender expression, gender identity and sexual orientation are all within the same spirit and the same view to equality, inclusion and diversity.

ln November 2016, I was honoured to be appointed the Prime Minister's special adviser on LGBTQ2 issues. My role is to advise the Prime Minister on how to develop and coordinate the Government of Canada's LGBTQ2 policies and laws. This includes informing cabinet, parliamentarians and committees and engaging with LGBTQ2 organizations from across the country and around the world to promote equality, and listening to LGBTQ2 people and communities and identifying solutions to improve their lives.

In addition to the excellent work of the LGBTQ2 Secretariat, all ministries of our government have a responsibility to improve the lives of LGBTQ2 Canadians, and that includes the Department of Justice.

Early in our government's mandate, we also introduced and passed Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. This bill conferred greater protection on members of LGBTQ2 communities who experience discrimination and even violence because of their gender identity or expression. Bill C-16 added gender identity and expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This law promotes the principle that all individuals should have an equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, without being hindered by discriminatory practices.

Bill C-16 has also expanded hate crime offences in the Criminal Code to protect groups that are targeted because of their gender identity or gender expression.

Unfortunately, in Canada, transgender people are at high risk of verbal or physical violence and sexual harassment. Given this high degree of violence or threatened violence, it is only fair that our criminal law specifically denounce violence committed against a person as a result of the person's gender identity or expression.

The Prime Minister's apology to LGBTQ2 communities was another significant milestone in recognizing LGBTQ2 communities and protecting them as equal members of Canadian society. On November 28, 2017, the Prime Minister delivered a formal apology in this very House to individuals harmed by federal legislation, policies and practices that led to the oppression of and discrimination against two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Canada.

The Prime Minister apologized specifically for the shameful LGBT purge, the historical unjust treatment of LGBTQ2 federal public servants, including those in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This discriminatory treatment resulted in the loss of livelihoods, dignity and even lives.

There was a time in this country when people could be charged, prosecuted and criminally convicted simply because of their sexual orientation. To address this grave injustice, this government introduced Bill C-66. Now records of convictions involving consensual sexual activity between same-sex partners of legal age can be destroyed.

We are hopeful that this change will provide some relief to the many LGBTQ2 Canadians for whom the pain, trauma and fear have been all too real for all too long a time. Such discrimination has no place in Canada today. With Bill C-66, we took responsibility for recognizing and rectifying this historic injustice.

Since the government is taking measures to rectify historic discrimination based on unfair laws and policies, it is taking steps to remove from the Criminal Code an anachronistic offence that was used to target consensual sexual activities between gay men.

Under section 159 of the Criminal Code, unmarried persons can consent to engage in anal intercourse at age 18. The age of consent for any other form of non-exploitative sexual activity is 16 years old. Section 159 makes an exception for consensual anal intercourse between married spouses if they are of the opposite sex, but not if they are of the same sex. This is discriminatory policy, and several appellate courts have found that this provision violates the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the charter. Repealing section 159, as Bill C-75 proposes to do, will prevent the laying of charges against people who engage in non-exploitative, consensual anal intercourse.

The Attorney General of Canada recently issued a directive on the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases for federal prosecutors, which applies in our territories.

Presently, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is undertaking a study that deals with the issue of HIV criminalization. The committee has heard from numerous witnesses about the negative impacts, not just on people's lives but on the public health system, of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure. I look forward to the continued work of the justice committee and to its report, and I look forward to the government's responding in a robust way to this very serious issue.

Returning to the directive, I note it is based on current scientific evidence regarding the sexual transmission of HIV and applicable criminal laws, as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mabior case. The directive recognizes that the non-disclosure of HIV is, first and foremost, a public health issue. It is also important to note that public health authorities have many tools at their disposal to ensure that people do not engage in reckless behaviour. Those tools would not require that such a provision be in the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General of Canada also issued a directive on the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases for federal prosecutors, which applies in our territories. It is important that we work with the provinces. Right now, Ontario and British Columbia have policies and directives, but there are several territories in Canada that do not have such a directive. The directive is based on current scientific evidence regarding sexual transmission of HIV and the applicable criminal law.

Today I have touched on only a few of the many actions our government has taken to advance the full recognition, protection and participation of our LGBTQ2 communities. Our government will continue to demonstrate its commitment to promoting an inclusive society that works for all Canadians.

Before I get to questions, it is important to note that when we open up committee to civil society organizations and hear witnesses from coast to coast to coast, we let people who are not within 15 minutes or even two hours of Ottawa know that this government is their government. We let them know that the House and our parliamentary committees are designed to understand the issues that matter to them. It is important that we continue to open our committees to a diversity of voices, such as indigenous voices, the voices of depressed and marginalized people, and the voices of the LGBTQ2 community.

The health committee is right now wrapping up a study that was unanimously accepted by all members, about the health indicators of LGBTQ2 people. Our health indicators for this group are only slightly above those for indigenous people.

We have a lot of work to do in this chamber. We have a lot of work to do in advancing legislation and a lot of work to do to make lives better for all Canadians.

Now I have a few questions for the minister.

Could the minister share with us why it is important for us to continue our work on the prosecutorial policy directive as it pertains to the prosecution of HIV disclosure?

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for giving me the answer to the previous question, as I had missed section 159.

Our government is committed to reducing the stigma and discrimination experienced by people living with HIV or AIDS. That is why, on World AIDS Day, we were pleased to release our report on the criminal justice system's response to non-disclosure of HIV.

This directive will guarantee that prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure will be based on the most recent scientific evidence in this area and on the realistic possibility of transmission. Canada's efforts to detect and treat HIV have made it possible for most people living with HIV in Canada to know their status and receive appropriate treatment.

Appropriate medical treatment considerably reduces the risk of transmission, and the directive reflects this reality. Criminalization can lead to an increase in infection rates because it deters Canadians from getting tested and treated.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say in English what I said in French, which is that the the directive the minister is talking about is important, and we have heard from witnesses that it is important because it is a step in the right direction. It says that the government needs to follow the science, that prosecutors need to follow the science, and that when somebody is undetectable, they are untransmittable and should not be charged or prosecuted for non-disclosure of HIV status.

Equally important is the fact that because it is federal jurisdiction, the directive applies to the territories. British Columbia and Ontario have since issued a similar directive to their Crowns. However, I think it is important that we work at the federal, provincial and territorial level to include and encourage other jurisdictions to issue similar policies and directives.

Also, it would be important for us to look into the justice department. We have section 159, and we have the vagrancy and bawdy house provisions in Bill C-75, and I am looking forward to seeing it come back from the Senate. Could the minister share with the House and the committee of the whole other accomplishments that the department has achieved to make the lives of LGBTQ2 Canadians better?

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

Mr. Chair, we are proud of Canada's diversity and inclusion. Our government believes that all Canadians should be safe to be themselves. In that regard, the major accomplishment was passing legislation that adds gender identity and expression as prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as adding gender identity and expression to the list of distinguishing characteristics of an identifiable group, so that they are protected by the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.

My colleague has mentioned section 159, the bawdy house and vagrancy provisions, in Bill C-75, which are also very important. We are proud to recognize these historic challenges that have been faced by the LGBTQ2 community, and we are committed to making their lives better. Indeed, equality is what we are committed to, so that people can live their lives and flourish as they wish to.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, sometimes the law and the Criminal Code, as vast as it is, is a blunt instrument. Sometimes it shields people, and sometimes it means that they run into the law.

I wonder if the minister could share how he sees the law as a tool to protect vulnerable and minority populations in Canada.

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

Mr. Chair, the law establishes baselines in things like the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, it is also the manner in which we interpret the law and the structures we put in place, not just to deal with transgressions but to deal with the victims and groups within society that are targeted. It is not simply about the written law but about the attitude we take to those laws.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am going to devote most of my time to questions to the minister and hope for a few answers in the process.

Minister, it is good to see you here tonight.

In your opening remarks in response to questions from my colleague, the MP for Milton, you mentioned that, as minister, you have asked the Department of Justice to do an overview to ensure you met obligations with respect to disclosure in the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman matter. Is that correct? Did I hear you properly?

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

Mr. Chair, the actual detail is that I was briefed on the Norman matter.

I would remind my colleague that there was document disclosure between the prosecution and the defence in this matter. However, my department was only involved with respect to third party record applications. We set up a process in order to meet those obligations to the court.

I was satisfied after that briefing from my department that we had begun and were maintaining a rigorous procedure to try to get through these complex decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the next question, I would remind all members that while committee of the whole is a little less formal, we still ask members to direct their questions through the Chair and use the third person in the usual fashion. However, there is some informality here and we will allow some latitude.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand from the minister's comments that he feels that his department met its obligations with respect to the report. Could the minister table the report the department provided with respect to disclosure obligations?

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

Mr. Chair, it was part of an oral briefing.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, did the minister say “oral briefing”? I could ask him what his code name is, but I will not do that.

For Canadians and members in the committee of the whole to get an understanding, as our chief legal officer, the Minister of Justice is responsible for all lawyers in the federal government. I would ask the minister to confirm that as the chief legal officer, all the lawyers in the federal government are under his mandate.

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

Mr. Chair, that is true, as Attorney General of Canada.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like the minister, who as attorney general is responsible for all lawyers, to tell me what Privy Council Office lawyer Paul Shuttle meant in communications with the prosecution in the Norman matter when he used the term “engineer the issues at stake”. Could the minister, as chief legal officer, explain what the engineering of issues in the Mark Norman matter referred to?

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

Mr. Chair, I believe that lawyer is part of the legal team for the Privy Council Office, which serves the Prime Minister.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like the chief legal officer of our country to now clarify that there are lawyers who, he is now appearing to suggest, do not work for him. Could he clarify? Are all lawyers, including Privy Council advisers to the Prime Minister and lawyers in that capacity, under his purview as minister?

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

Mr. Chair, my understanding is that all lawyers in the justice department are, but not all lawyers in the government.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, as chief legal officer for the country, does the minister think it is appropriate that lawyers in the Privy Council Office were communicating with the director of public prosecutions with respect to trial strategy?

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

Mr. Chair, I am not prepared to accept the premise of that question. I have no comment on it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I quote: “So much for the independence of the PPSC.” That is not my quote about the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. That is a quote from Justice Perkins-McVey, the judge in the Norman trial.

Does that comment from the judge who was presiding over the trial before the charges were stayed concern the minister? Does he feel an oral report to him is sufficient to look into that?