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.

Topics

8:25 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Chair, are code names acceptable under our Access to Information Act?

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

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.

8:25 p.m.

NDP

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?

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, it would be a pleasure. As the Prime Minister has stated, we are the party of the charter and we will defend individual rights at every stage.

With respect to the particular process that is now going on in Quebec, it is within the purview of the national assembly in Quebec to go through the legislative hearing stage. That is where it is at. Therefore, we do not yet know what the final parameters of the bill will be, if and when it passes into law. When that happens, we will make a decision at that stage with respect to how we will react. The Prime Minister has enunciated the principles in which we believe. As the Minister of Justice and as a Quebecker, I am watching that process carefully. I am following it.

We will be prepared to act when we have a final product, but for the time being it is in the hands of the national assembly. It is its jurisdiction. There is a robust debate going on within Quebec by Quebeckers on that very issue.

8:25 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Chair, in an answer to a question I posed in this place to the minister on December 6, 2018, he told me that academic writing had pointed out, in particular an article by Lorraine Weinrib, “ that...it ought to be used only as a last resort and after the courts had struck down a piece of legislation.”

Does the minister still agree with that? If so, will he be intervening for a declaration that the use of the notwithstanding clause is premature at this stage?

8:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, I would clarify that at the time I gave that answer to the hon. member, I was not the Minister of Justice. What I said about the article remains true.

8:30 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Chair, I stand corrected. It is true that he was not at the time the minister. I was wondering if his views had changed since he became one.

On a different topic, that is the topic of judicial appointments, The Globe and Mail reported earlier this year that 91% of those people who had sought an appointment to the courts had in fact made donations to the Liberal Party of Canada, 90.9% of those amounts made payable to parties were paid to the Liberal Party. Is that a coincidence?

8:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, I dispute the figures that were used in that question. I read the same article and those are not the figures I recall.

As I have said, we set up a rigorous process for the appointment of judges through judicial appointment committees across Canada that evaluate candidates in a very transparent way on a number of different factors. It has led to outstanding appointments that have increased the diversity of the bench, and we are very proud of that process.

8:30 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Chair, a quarter of the 289 judges appointed since 2016 had donated to the Liberal Party. A total of $322,000, or 90.9% of the total amount donated, was paid to the Liberal Party. I do not understand what the premise of the question was. Those are the facts. I would like to ask whether or not that can be reconciled with the notion of a merit-based appointment system.

8:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, it is a right to donate to political parties in Canada and we have made appointments of people from all political parties. I appreciate that the “orange party” has never been great at math, and that certainly was clear this evening.

We have set up a rigorous appointment process. That process is working well. The quality of the appointments is outstanding. The diversity of the appointments is outstanding. The judicial appointment committee has worked very hard at making sure that the first stage is appropriate.

8:30 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Chair, the Supreme Court of Canada has announced that it will hear two cases in the city of Winnipeg in September this year. Under section 32 of the Supreme Court Act, the court will determine appeals and “shall hold, in each year, in the city of Ottawa, three sessions.” There is apparently the ability under the statute to change the dates of the sessions, but nothing that would seem to suggest there is a possibility of doing what the Supreme Court of Canada has said it wishes to do. I would like the Minister of Justice's comments on that.

8:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, I will take the matter under review. However, the intentions of the chief justice of Canada are quite honourable. When I was a professor of law at McGill, the Quebec Court of Appeal began to sit once a year in the moot court of the law faculty at McGill. It was an outstanding occasion for students to see the way the court operated. Both counsel and judges felt it was a positive experience for a legal outreach.

8:30 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Chair, in the last fiscal year, in the province of British Columbia, the Legal Services Society, which distributes legal aid, had a budget of $86 million. The federal government's contribution was less than $17.5 million. Just this past month, we saw the province of Ontario's legal aid funding slashed. More specifically, when it came to issues of refugees and immigration matters, a matter that is 100% within federal jurisdiction, a small portion of that funding came from the federal government.

Is the minister satisfied with the state of affairs of legal aid generally, and specifically in the context of refugee and immigration matters?

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, as I have stated this evening to a question by one of my colleagues from this side of the House, I am looking at that matter very carefully and understand its importance.

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Chair, I am not sure what that meant. I understand from a quote in a newspaper attributed to the minister that he is deeply disappointed to see the sweeping cuts that have been made to this important program. Why should the federal government not pay all of the legal expenses insofar as refugees and immigration matters are 100% federal in nature, whereas criminal law and family law are shared? In this one area, why should the federal government cut the budget entirely for that matter and simply stand by? Should it not pick up the tab so that these very important services can be provided to people in those dire circumstances?

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, I stand by my previous answer and the citation of my views in the press that the hon. member mentioned. It was accurate. I am watching the situation very carefully.

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

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

One of many things this government has done since taking office is to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis in Bill C-45. This is one of the biggest and most transformative public policy shifts in recent history.

Before this legislation came into force in October of last year, Canadian law enforcement agencies were spending billions of dollars annually to enforce the prohibition against cannabis while organized crime was reaping billions of dollars in illegal profits. It was easier for young people to buy cannabis than cigarettes. This situation was neither defensible nor responsible.

From the beginning, public health and public safety have been the primary objectives throughout the policy development process and the implementation of the new legislation.

Our government has always been focused on protecting youth from the known health risks of cannabis and working to keep those who are under the age of majority from accessing it. In fact, keeping cannabis out of the hands of young people was one of the primary, driving policy objectives of the Cannabis Act. That is why only adults who are 18, or 19 depending on province of residence, are able to legally purchase or possess cannabis. It is also why the Cannabis Act prohibits advertising designed to encourage youth to use cannabis. It also prohibits selling or providing cannabis to youth, and imposes serious criminal penalties on people who break the law.

In addition to protecting youth, our government's approach to legalizing cannabis has provided adults who use cannabis, or who want to use cannabis, with a lawful, regulated and safe environment in which to do so. Providing a regulated and legal alternative for purchasing cannabis will ensure that the product is safe and will significantly reduce organized crime's share of the cannabis market.

When our government embarked down the path of cannabis legalization, we did so with the recognition that such a seismic shift in the Canadian social policy landscape could have far-reaching impacts, including in the area of road safety. That is precisely why our government strengthened the criminal law with respect to drug-impaired driving at the same time. In fact, in recognition of how closely linked these two issues were, the bill to legalize cannabis and the bill to strengthen the Criminal Code impaired driving regime were introduced on the same day.

Among the many changes to the criminal impaired driving framework was the creation of three new driving offences for having prohibited levels of cannabis' primary impairing component, THC, in the blood. These offences are more objective and will be easier to prove than the long-standing offence of driving while impaired by a drug. In addition, the new law has provided law enforcement with the authority to use roadside oral fluid testing devices as another tool to detect drug-impaired drivers.

One drug screener was approved by the Attorney General of Canada in August last year, and I note that a notice has just been made of the intention to approve a second drug screener. I understand that the public comment period with respect to this second drug screener will close on May 20, at which point the Attorney General will make a final decision, taking into account any comments received. This is very encouraging news for the law enforcement community, as they will have more tools at their disposal. In addition, all Canadians should be aware that the police are well-equipped and well-trained to detect drug-impaired drivers.

It is also important to note that police were not starting from zero in detecting drug impaired drivers. Police were intercepting and arresting drug-impaired drivers long before cannabis was legalized. In fact, since 2008, police have been authorized to conduct sobriety tests at the roadside and at the police station to determine if a driver is impaired by drugs. As part of the response to cannabis legalization, more officers have been trained to detect drug impairment and more will continue to be trained in the coming months.

I think we can all agree that the previous approach to cannabis did not work. In my view, the new legal framework, accompanied by stronger impaired driving laws, is a reasonable and responsible approach.

I would like to compliment our government for its robust public awareness campaign in sharing messages on several key elements of these legislative changes, including how to safely use cannabis, the dangers of using cannabis before driving or while on the job, the rules that remain around cannabis and the border and how important it is not to take cannabis across international boundaries. This extensive public awareness campaign was available on social media, online, on television and elsewhere to counter persistent myths and misconceptions about cannabis and cannabis impaired driving.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to mention the collaboration between the federal government and the provinces and territories who help make this profound public policy shift a success. As we know, the federal government is responsible for legalizing and strictly regulating the production of cannabis, setting standards for health and safety and establishing criminal prohibitions. On the other hand, the provinces and territories are responsible for licensing and overseeing the distribution and sale of cannabis. Our provincial and territorial partners play an important role in helping to achieve the ultimate public policy objective of ensuring that young people do not have access to cannabis and that those who sell outside the legal framework face stiff criminal penalties. The federal government will continue to work in partnership with the provincial and territorial governments to ensure the continued and effective implementation of these legislative reforms.

That said, can the minister expand upon what else was contained in the impaired driving legislation, Bill C-46, and what are the major measures included therein that will help reduce fatalities on our roads as a result of drug and alcohol impaired driving?

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for his work.

Our government is proud to have delivered on one of its key promises to strengthen our laws on impaired driving by punishing more severely those who are driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs. This has been the first significant reform of the Criminal Code transportation regime in more than 40 years. We have strengthened law enforcement's ability to detect drug impaired driving by authorizing the use of roadside oral fluid screening devices. The hon. member was correct to say that there are two currently being tested and also that the police had already developed means over the years to try to identify the behaviour. We have also placed limits on impaired driving defences, thereby closing two loopholes in the law, specifically for particularly highly risky driving behaviour. It is an approach that is used in 16 states in the U.S. and has been upheld by courts and will save lives and will be compliant with the charter rights of Canadians.

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Madam Chair, I have also heard a lot of discussion about mandatory alcohol screening. Why does Bill C-46 allow for it? What others countries use mandatory alcohol screening and what have their experiences been in deploying it?

8:45 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, mandatory alcohol screening will support the police in deterring and detecting impaired driving. The evidence clearly demonstrates that mandatory alcohol screening will deter impaired driving and save lives.

The law does not give police any more powers than they already have under common law and provincial law to stop drivers at random to determine their sobriety, but when investigating impaired driving away from the roadside, police, as always, must form a reasonable suspicion to believe that a driver has committed the impaired driving offence before they can demand a breath sample. This kind of screening is authorized in more than 40 countries around the world, including Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands.

8:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Madam Chair, I believe that the minister touched on this question already, but I will ask it again more specifically.

After the coming into force of part 2 of Bill C-46 last December, there were some media articles on the application of the new rules relating to the offence of driving over the legal limit, the over-80 offence, which were broadened to capture drivers who were over 80 within two hours of driving. Can the minister explain the reasons underlying this change and further explain whether a police officer can now come to someone's house and arrest that person for impaired driving hours after the person operated a vehicle?

8:45 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, as with any criminal offence, the police have the power to investigate a possible impaired driving offence at someone's home. However, the police, as they did before this legislation existed, have to form reasonable grounds to believe that the driver has committed the impaired driving offence before they can demand a breath sample. If the driver had no reasonable expectation of being asked to provide a sample and their blood alcohol concentration was consistent with not being over the legal limit, they would not be convicted under the new law.

8:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Madam Chair, continuing along in this vein, I wonder if the minister can comment on the charter implications relating to unreasonable search and seizure as pertaining to this kind of alcohol testing.

8:45 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Chair, as I had begun to state in one of my previous answers, this kind of legislation already exists in 16 states in the United States. It exists in Ireland, where it is credited for saving lives. It has been tested in the United States under American constitutional law, and we believe it will pass muster under the charter.

8:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Madam Chair, I wonder if the minister could give me some examples of cases in which a person might be drinking in his home and have no reasonable expectation of being tested.