Debates of May 14th, 2019

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20

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

Mr. Chair, on various occasions, both the minister and the Prime Minister cited a desire to protect SNC-Lavalin jobs in Canada as the motivating factor as to why they unethically, and possibly illegally, interfered in a criminal trial.

However, no less of an authority than the chief executive officer of the company said that it was not true. What is more, the lion's share of work done by SNC-Lavalin would not be impacted by any potential ban the federal government might impose on conviction. For example, its work on Bruce Power or Ottawa LRT—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I am just wondering, Mr. Chair, is the floor mine or am I sharing it with my colleagues across the way?

Who misled the minister to think that jobs were at risk and that it was appropriate for the government to put its finger on the scales of justice?

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

Mr. Chair, I reject the premise of that question.

First, I do not believe I was ever someone who cited the jobs figure in any sort of way. Having been Minister of Justice and Attorney, I maintained a certain distance from the file for the same reasons I have already given this evening, which is there is ongoing litigation and anything I can say might have an impact on the course of the litigation, and therefore I will not say anything. It is covered by litigation privilege and the sub judice rule.

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

Mr. Chair, I see one of the hon. members for P.E.I. is over there and he has a lot to say, so maybe he can help the minister with this.

Gregory Cann was appointed as a judge in Prince Edward Island. His wife has been a Liberal donor, perhaps to that member, and was on the judicial advisory committee that appointed him. Is it a normal practice for this to occur?

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

Mr. Chair, we have set up a rigorous process of judicial advisory committees across Canada that are made up of a variety of different people from different walks of life, including members of the bar. That is the first step, the first winnowing that allows candidates to progress.

The quality of our judicial appointments is outstanding. People are entitled to make contributions to political parties in Canada, and it is not a factor in their appointment.

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

Mr. Chair, did the member for Malpeque speak to the minister about that appointment?

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

Mr. Chair, I do not believe I was minister at the time.

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

Mr. Chair, in a matter related to SNC-Lavalin, the Federal Court ruled that the independence of the Attorney General was essential and fundamental to our criminal justice system. Retired Justice Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond did appear at the justice committee. She also said that she believed that what occurred in the SNC-Lavalin affair was a “constitutional crisis”.

We also heard from former Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant. He said that it “confirms the public’s worst fears about the justice system.”

Does the minister agree with these accomplished legal minds?

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

Mr. Chair, I will neither agree nor disagree, because, as I have already said, anything I say in this matter could be used in ongoing court proceedings.

I will point out that there are competing versions of the interpretation of the Shawcross principle, and they were evident at the committee.

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

Madam Chair, the disgraced former Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, told the minister's predecessor that the Prime Minister was “quite determined” to see SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal trial.

Has a similar message been relayed to the minister?

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

Madam Chair, as I have said on a number of occasions this evening, I was not privy to the conversation in question. I have said publicly on more than one occasion that I have not felt any such pressure in this or any other matter.

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

Madam Chair, some have mused about a plan to prohibit certain firearms by an order in council to be announced prior to the election. Since this is a regulation that would fall under the Criminal Code, I would like to know if the minister is aware that any such actions are planned.

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

Madam Chair, that question would fall under the usual strictures of cabinet confidence.

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

Madam Chair, there are currently more than 50 outstanding judicial vacancies, largely in Alberta and Ontario. Is the problem that the minister cannot find enough people with positive rankings in the Liberalist to provide recommendations of names to appoint?

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

Madam Chair, I want to add one thing to the previous question. Cabinet privilege means I am not going to discuss whether we discussed it or did not discuss it. I would counsel the other side not to draw inferences other than that I am not going to answer the question because it might be covered by cabinet privilege.

With respect to justices, we have put together a process across Canada with judicial appointment committees in both Ontario and Alberta. We have made a number of appointments there. We are working through those appointments. We had a number of very good applicants, and we have made a number of outstanding appointments.

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

Madam Chair, I have a two-for-one question for the minister.

Has the minister explained to the Prime Minister why it is important not to politically interfere in cases before the court, or does that fall outside of his description of his role to the Ethics Commissioner as purely “ceremonial”?

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

Madam Chair, I think the question is evidence as to why two-for-ones are never a good deal.

If there were two questions there, I reject the premise of both of them.

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

Madam Chair, at least the minister did not say he could not recall.

The chief of defence staff met with the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, disgraced former operative and best friend Gerry Butts, to discuss the Vice-Admiral Norman case, but he kept no notes of the meeting.

Is this normal and in keeping with access to information procedures?

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

Madam Chair, I was not privy to that meeting. People have different practices with respect to the way they take part in meetings.

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

Madam Chair, I expect there are standards that need to be applied, and perhaps this is another case in which someone experienced things differently from the law.

During hearings on Mark Norman, the judge presiding over the case said, “So much for the independence of the PPSC.”

Can the minister stand here and say he truly believes there was no political interference?

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

Madam Chair, as I have said a number of times this evening, the director of the Public Prosecution Service has said on at least two occasions, including at the announcement of the stay in proceedings, that she felt there was no political interference of any kind whatsoever in the proceedings and in the decision to either lay or stay the charges. The prosecutor in charge of the file herself has said that there was no political interference.

[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?