Brian Murphy

[Official Languages Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on this bill, which I will be voting against.

History is repeating itself in this House. In 2008, the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion in this House, which read as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec's Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

That was in 2008. Now we have Bill C-307, which is far broader than the motion I have just read. As a federalist, a Canadian and a friend of the Official Languages Act, I am opposed to many aspects of Bill C-307.

There are four major points in this bill that are of great concern to me. First, it implies that the French language is in decline in Quebec. Second, there is the matter of what goes on in federally regulated institutions in Quebec. Third, are they thinking about the anglophone minority population of Quebec? Fourth, and most important to me as a representative of the Acadian people, of the French speaking people in a country with linguistic duality, there is the Official Languages Act.

Should this bill become the law of the land, what would happen to the francophone minority Acadian populations in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, in Prince Edward Island? What will happen to the French speaking minority populations in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, for instance? To the francophones on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River? To the people who attend the Collège Saint-Jean d'Edmonton in Alberta? What will happen to the people of Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan?

When I sat on this Parliament's Standing Committee on Official Languages, I was amazed to learn that there were 50,000 francophones in Vancouver, B.C. What would happen to them if Bill C-307 were adopted? This worries me somewhat.

In her speech, my friend and colleague from LaSalle—Émard said that the Bloc clearly lacked solidarity with the Canadian Francophonie, and in this case, that is true. It is true because this bill would be very problematic for Acadians, for example.

If all federal institutions were to be subject to Quebec's Charter of the French Language, then why not have a Charter of the English Language in other provinces with minority francophone populations?

Why could we not then have an English language charter in a province where there is a francophone minority? What if, in the province of New Brunswick, a government said that the province shall have an English language charter and that English shall be the language of all federal institutions in the province of New Brunswick?

In the history of New Brunswick, there have been riots over political events, hockey victories and defeats, and over quotas for fisheries in parts of our province. One would never see a riot such as there would be if such a law were brought into the province of New Brunswick. It is because I live in a country that respects two languages, two languages under the Official Languages Act that are of equal value and merit, that I so strongly oppose this bill.

The Bloc has falsely stated that the French language is undergoing a catastrophic decline in Quebec. However, the 2006 census and the report of the Office québécois de la langue française, both published in 2008, suggest otherwise. It is not true that the French language is undergoing a catastrophic decline in Quebec. In Quebec, the French language is alive and well, and Quebec's culture is alive and well, thanks in part to the presence of federal institutions that protect the country's two official languages.

It is important to note that Statistics Canada says that the number of people who speak French as their mother tongue increased 1.6% between 2001 and 2006. There have been other increases in the quality and number of French speakers throughout this country. Evidence that bilingualism is one of Canada's core values is so evident in surveys conducted on Canadians by Canadians. It is the very essence of what we are as Canadians.

I want to move on to the question of what happens to federal companies and institutions that are situated in the province of Quebec. In the past, words have been used against the Official Languages Act. The real meaning of what a federal institution is or what a federal company is has come into play throughout this debate. The bill's main result would see that the Canada Labour Code would be amended so that companies operating in Quebec but under federal jurisdiction would be subject to la Charte de la langue française, a provincial charter.

The Bloc is trying to impose la Charte de la langue française on companies under federal jurisdiction under what it would call a regulatory vacuum. Clause 34 in part 5 of the Official Languages Act states:

English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part.

What is meant by that is that Canada is a bilingual country. We have the protection of the Official Languages Act. The party on this side has always stood for the core value that we are a bilingual country protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act. It has not always been the case that all parties in this place have thought of the country this way. We think it is a core value and we think it is worth fighting for.

We must stop this bill so that we will not see any riots in any parts of New Brunswick or other provinces in Canada over something as fundamental as taking away the guarantee of bilingual rights in our great country.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in two or three past budgets, the Conservative government changed the equalization formula for all the provinces. In New Brunswick, that means far less money for social services, crime fighting and rehabilitation services. That is very clear. But that is not what we are talking about today.

We are talking about the amendments proposed in Bill C-15. It will mark a small step in the war on drugs. I am in favour of that. But I am totally opposed to the steps the Government of Canada has taken with the provinces and against New Brunswick. There is not enough money and there are not enough resources to implement this system. Bill C-15 will place a very heavy burden on the provinces. It is clear—

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member was present in committee when we heard evidence from justice officials that the law exists to penalize that but it also exists so that for serious trafficking offences large sentences will be meted out.

All this bill says is that if people grow 200 plants, they will receive a minimum sentence of six months if it can be proven that those plants were intended to be used for the purposes of trafficking. Selling 200 marijuana plants for commercial purposes to users who are then themselves subject to the minor offences that my friend would lead the House to believe are covered by this act, is scare-mongering of a different kind.

We get scare-mongering from the Conservatives all the time. They prop up a bill and then do nothing about the underlying root causes, rehabilitation and treatment. However, the scare-mongering of the other kind is to say that it is okay to grow 5 to 200 plants for commercial purposes, be proven under the existing code that it is trafficking and not to be penalized when we are at war with drugs.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the proposed amendment to Bill C-15.

Bill C-15, like many of the other Conservative bills, purports to be a cure, the be all and end all, a large solution to an even larger problem. It is a very small step in the war on drugs, Canada's new anti-drug strategy. There is Republican-like language to the war on drugs. There is Conservative-type language to the national anti-drug strategy. The real issue is about the amendment to the bill, which is but a tiny step toward the overall goal of dealing with drugs in our communities, the abuse of drugs and the treatment with respect to drugs.

This bill provides minimum penalties for serious drug offences. My hon. colleague from Alberta who is on the justice committee fairly summarized those steps forward. It increases the maximum penalty for cannabis or marijuana production, which in fact is what this amendment is mainly targeted at eradicating from the bill. It also moves certain drugs from one schedule to another, recognizing the more serious nature of their abuse, which again my friend from Alberta on the justice committee made very clear and very convincingly so.

It also requires that there be a review of the act undertaken and reports submitted to Parliament. This was as a result of an amendment at the justice committee. It is a very good step toward dealing with that lacuna, the lack of evidence we hear with respect to the efficacy of mandatory minimum sentences.

I find it ironic and actually funny that people unknowingly say “mandatory minimums” or “minimum mandatories”, but the people who are against mandatory minimum sentences perhaps slip into a Freudian thing where they want a minimum of mandatory sentences. However, it is actually a mandatory minimum regime which has been used in the United States with conflicting evidence, for sure, and it is being imported with increasing regularity by the Conservative government.

Let us keep in mind the historical context. We have had mandatory minimums for a long time in this country, and there ought to be some evidence about how they are working. That is one aspect that is very good about the bill. Finally there is a reporting mechanism back to Parliament, as there was with the Anti-Terrorism Act. That is a good thing about the bill.

Finally, it is the first time in the three and a half years that I have been here that there will be an alternative to the mandatory minimum sentence for the convicted trafficker, let us say, by going to the drug treatment court. This is an option of an accused and convicted drug trafficker. He or she will have the choice to go to a drug treatment court, which is a diversion from the criminal justice system of incarceration, perhaps without treatment, as our colleague from the NDP suggested. It is a very novel approach for Canada, because unlike its introduction in the United States some 20 years ago, and it flourishes in the United States, we have a very sparse distribution of drug treatment courts in Canada.

We can handle this part of the bill. We can say to criminologists that this is a way to avoid the imposition of the mandatory minimum in that an accused can say that he or she will go to the drug treatment court and will try to get better.

Those drug treatment courts should be expanded. They should be resourced. They are not adequately geographically dispersed throughout this great country of ours. They are in major centres, but where they are, they have met with some success.

At committee, we did not get to hear from the Attorney General of Manitoba. He sent us a very complete brief on the subject, about 20 pages of suggestions. He lauds the Winnipeg drug treatment court and hopes that the government takes seriously this anti-drug strategy by resourcing it, by making sure that we get to the cause of drug abuse and that we get to issues of treatment with respect to drug abuse.

I have heard from various law enforcement officials, the chief of which was the Chief of Police of this fine city of Ottawa, who is responsible for making sure that, unlike D'Arcy McGee, we get home safely every night from this place. He was very compelling in suggesting that drug treatment courts work, but the government has to take seriously the issues of prevention and cause and treatment. Everyone knows that, yet the statistics are quite boggling.

I can support Bill C-15 for the minor steps it takes, but I want to discourage members from supporting the NDP amendment. The amendment attempts to say that if someone is convicted of growing 5 to 200 marijuana plants for the purposes of trafficking, which means trying to sell those drugs to people like my children, the person should not be given a mandatory minimum sentence, when we are at war on the issue of drugs.

To say that we support the bill does not in any way say that we are stepping away from our obligations and the government's obligations to be serious about studying the root causes of crime, and in particular drug crimes and drug abuse. It does not mean that we are stepping away from our obligation and the government's obligation to be more serious about combatting organized crime, which feeds for its lifeblood on the growth of drugs, including cannabis and marijuana.

There seems to be an attitude coming from that side of the House over to my left that it is cannabis, it is a joint, and if it is given from one friend to another, they will be trapped by this legislation. The bill is very clear to me. If someone grows 200 plants and that person is caught for trafficking, that is, selling those plants to people like my children, that person is going to do a minimum sentence in this country. That does not seem all that shocking to me.

What is shocking is that in the three and a half years I have been here the government has stood up time after time saying that the bill would go toward its national anti-drug strategy and achieve success. It is right to ask where the evidence is on mandatory minimums. It is right to ask where the evidence is on the efficacy of drug treatment courts. What is missing is a response on those two questions.

There has been a fairly long history of mandatory minimum sentences. There has been a long history with respect to drug treatment courts, as sparsely dispersed as they are throughout the country. There ought to be some compelling evidence from the government that these are worth resourcing, and yet they are not being resourced to the level that is needed.

There is no drug treatment court in my province of New Brunswick. I laud the bill because it would give someone an opportunity to pick drug treatment court. For the average person who has an addiction and does a property crime and perhaps is perhaps convicted under this offence, that person will not have a chance to take advantage of a drug treatment court, not because of this law, not because of the Criminal Code, but because there has not been the élargissement, the widening of the drug treatment court program.

As much as we support the bill and reject the NDP amendment, the bigger issue is when the federal government spends, and these figures go back some years, $426 million on drug programs, and $164 million goes to the RCMP, $157 million goes to corrections, and only $8 million to $15 million goes to Health Canada for treatment. The 90% that goes into detection and corrections heavily outweighs what is spent on prevention, rehabilitation and finding out how we might stop people from using and abusing drugs. We know from all the evidence we have heard that is the goal here.

We need to know whether the government will stop flouting bills on the 5 o'clock news and saying it is doing something, and stop ignoring the idea that a lot of these programs, such as drug treatment programs, have to be resourced. They have to be expanded. We are a country from sea to sea to sea. There are drug abuse problems in all parts of this country, not just in big cities. Drug abuse is as prevalent in rural and poorer areas of our country as it is in big cities.

Where is the access to the drug treatment courts to make Bill C-15 more effective? Why does the NDP think that being convicted of selling 5 to 200 marijuana plants is some small offence when really that is all the bill is aimed at?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has appeared with us at justice committee, arguing her case with respect to this issue. However, she was not with us in British Columbia when the committee travelled there to hear about the scourge that drugs had played on society there.

She pretends that the bill is not about trafficking. Her amendments are largely about trafficking in marijuana. One of the amendments made was to increase the lower threshold to five plants, from zero plants, but still growing for the purposes of trafficking. The Criminal Code has a definition of what trafficking means.

As the father of three young girls in school, trafficking is probably a bad thing. She is saying that higher levels of trafficking are worse. I do not disagree with that. However, the government is only offering us a few tools. Why do we not embrace this, recognize that drug treatment courts are an option to avoid sentencing and get on with pressing the government for more meaningful attacks on the war against crime.

[Taxation, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party and their leader continue to show that they have no clue how to help Canadian families during this economic downturn. Recently, the Conservative leader said that he is not going to bring in another budget “until we need to raise taxes”.

We thank the Conservative leader for finally being honest. Now we know that the Conservatives want to hike taxes on Canadian families during a global recession. We also know that they increased income taxes during their first budget and they put a devastating new tax on income trusts. The Conservatives and their leader seem to like taking money out of Canadians' pockets.

Will the Conservative leader stand in the House and finally come clean with Canadians? Which taxes will the Conservatives raise? By how much will they raise them? Who would be forced to pay these new taxes?

[Supreme Court Act, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise on Bill C-232, which amends the Supreme Court Act. I am in favour of this bill not only because it was introduced by an hon. member from New Brunswick, where I come from, but also because I think official bilingualism is very important for New Brunswick and the entire country. Bill C-232 is intended to amend the Supreme Court Act in this direction.

Judges will be chosen from the people described in clause 1 and will have to understand French and English without the help of an interpreter. Canada’s francophones have a right to be served in their own language, especially in the courts and most especially in the Supreme Court. That is a basic right for all Canadians, regardless of whether they live in Quebec or in my riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

Like many other francophones in Canada, the Acadians in my riding are not all bilingual by any means. They find it hard to express themselves and understand various expressions in English. We speak English or French depending on how we learned our mother tongue. I learned French on the rinks and in the schools of New Brunswick, and I married an Acadian woman. It is the language I support here.

The Supreme Court justices should be able to understand and speak French. Canada is a bilingual country and who better to set an example than the judges of the highest court in the land? I think that all members of Parliament should understand the importance of this bill and support it. Canada is a country that was built by the French and English. We should ensure, therefore, that everyone is served in the language of his or her choice, especially before the Supreme Court.

There are laws in this country guaranteeing linguistic rights. The first is section 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says that “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges...”. It is a matter of equality. This was not the situation in 1986 when the Supreme Court heard the case of the Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, and when the Supreme Court wrote that there was no equality right for French in this country. That was corrected, however, in the Supreme Court’s Beaulac decision. In addition, section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says “...both language versions [French and English] are equally authoritative”. This means there is equality under Canadian law.

In English, the Official Languages Act says that any journal, record, act of Parliament, et cetera, shall be made, enacted, printed, published and tabled simultaneously in both languages, and most importantly, both language versions are equally authoritative. This is the law of the country.

In the case of Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents, it was not accepted that an accused had a right to translation when being presented with a criminal charge. As I mentioned, this was corrected by the decision in Beaulac, a 1999 Supreme Court decision, under the pen of then Mr. Justice Bastarache. It was decided to completely reject the law in the case of the Société des Acadiens and say that, “To the extent that Société des Acadiens stands for a restrictive interpretation of language rights, it is to be rejected”.

That has been the law of the country with respect to accused persons since 1999. There were two judges in that decision, the late Antonio Lamer and the current sitting member, Justice Binnie, who disagreed with the decision, but on the grounds that a criminal case should not be purported or extended to make constitutional law. Whether or not we agree with those justices is a matter of debate here.

That is the first and best reason why we should follow this bill. There is another reason though and it is the best evidence rule. This is a common law-created rule which suggests that from the 18th century forward, the best evidence is to be used. What does that mean? It means that the best the nature of the case will allow is the quote from the 1745 decision of the English courts.

What better evidence can there be before a judge of the highest appellate court in this country, who wants to interpret what is being said, other than to understand exactly what is being said? It goes to the very nature of advocacy before our highest court.

In a bit of a segue, we are talking about all nine judges of the Supreme Court being able to understand, not necessarily speak but understand, both languages. Imagine that if there were judges who came from the province of Quebec or parts of New Brunswick where there are only unilingual French-speaking candidates, imagine the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. If an English litigant hired the best lawyer he could find in Ottawa to make an argument at the appellate level on a very important case to that litigant, and the judges were divided four-four and it came down to one judge who could not understand English, there would be an outcry. The English litigant would say, “He is not listening to my argument. He is listening to the interpreter”.

We all admire our interpretation people in this Parliament and across the courts. It is a wonderful instrument, but the very nature of interpretation means that they are taking words and forming them in their own artistic belief as to what the speaker intends. That may work in solemnizing marriages. It may work in giving out change in an arcade, but it does not work at the highest level of advocacy in this country.

The advocates who are before the Supreme Court of Canada will tell us that 90% of the cases that are decided by the court are decided when a judge of the court asks them a question, and their response wins or loses the case for them. If that answer has to go through an artistic interpretation of what the advocate meant, justice is not being done.

There is an argument that maybe the best qualified individuals will not be chosen. That is like saying that eight of our nine Supreme Court justices right now are not the highest qualified judges in the country. I think they are.

The level of bilingualism in law schools all across this country has greatly improved over the years.

Many law faculties across this country teach common law in French and civil law in English, and the two marry quite well together.

Just a final word on the evils of translation. Translation is impossible. Interpretation is an art. An English language recording of a conversation may be put into evidence in court, but so will the transcript. That proves that in courts of law across this country, more evidence is better. Better understanding is the best evidence rule, and as I said at the beginning of my speech, all of that sensible, irrefutable, logical argument that we have to have the best evidence and the advocates have to be understood in the language they use is trumped in this case.

Canadian law reflects the equality of Canada’s two official languages, that is to say, English and French.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Etobicoke North one simple question. To her knowledge, is it true that first nations groups are working on the panoply of rights they want for their own communities?

The right of self-determination is very clear in the United Nations declaration for aboriginal peoples. The Indian Act is something entirely different, which puts a fiduciary duty on the Government of Canada. I am speaking of rights with respect to making their own laws, not only with respect to matrimonial property, but with respect to access, with respect to child and family services and with respect to the best interests of the child as we know it.

First nations groups are working on these rights. The Conservative government seems to be in a drive-by legislation mode, whereby it drives a big truck through a community and throws a piece of piecemeal legislation off the back. The Conservatives take this approach with justice issues and aboriginal issues.

Are first nations not offended by this approach because they are working on solutions to their own problems in their own way and in their own time, as they are guaranteed to do by law?

[Marine Liability Act, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question was going to be similar to that.

I want to bring an east coast perspective to this. The Irving Whale was raised in 1996, after its 1970 disaster. There were 4,200 tonnes of oil and PCB contaminants contained in the hull, and three-quarters of that was recovered. In 1996, the costs were $42 million. That disaster was not to the same extent as the Exxon Valdez spill. Therefore, is the $150 million limit appropriate?

With respect to enforcement, the act designates officers who would be responsible for enforcement, but there does not appear to be any succinct indication about where those officers would come from or what resources would be provided to finance their work. While I laud the member for his support of the bill, could he elaborate on what needs to be done with respect to enforcement of the bill? A bill that is well meaning and well intended and supported does not necessarily have efficacy if it cannot be enforced.

[May 13th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there was no answer to the question of why it took two months to respond the grieving mother's representative. There was no answer to the question about what happened to access to the video of the last moments of a grieving mother's daughter's life. Access to a video of Ashley Smith's last moments were denied to the grieving mother, and access to a comprehensive report by Dr. Margo Rivera with respect to the psychological treatment given to Ashley Smith was denied.

There is a saying that if one does not know what one has done wrong, one cannot correct things. Mr. Sapers went far. He has more work to do. Why will the government not let Mr. Sapers continue and finish his work? Why will it not regard the grieving mother's wishes with more respect?