Hélène Laverdière

[Foreign Affairs, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Setsuko Thurlow, survivor of Hiroshima, and a great Canadian, will accept the Nobel peace prize on behalf of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Setsuko played a key role in the UN's adoption of the landmark nuclear ban treaty. She has described the Prime Minister's refusal to sign the treaty as a lack of courage. Will the Prime Minister wake up to the reality of this global threat to humanity, and join the nuclear ban treaty?

[International Development, October 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Mogadishu in Somalia are still responding to the horrific terror attack that struck last Saturday. Hospitals remain short of urgently needed medical supplies and families need more support. The world is responding with aid. The U.S., the European Union, Turkey, Kenya, and others have offered their assistance, but Canada has not. Will the government act as our allies have done and provide immediate humanitarian assistance to Somalia?

[Ethics, October 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. The finance minister's announcement has not dispelled Canadians' doubts about his judgment and integrity.

For two years, he let people think that he had already put his holdings in a blind trust. Now, he is taking action only because he was caught. He should have exercised some judgment and done that from the very beginning.

Why do the Liberals always wait for a scandal to break before showing the least bit of common sense?

[Supreme Court Act, October 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act regarding the understanding of the official languages.

Fair and equitable access to justice is one of the basic tenets of democracy. That is what this bill seeks to ensure, by requiring Supreme Court justices to be able to understand arguments in both of our official languages and enshrining that requirement in law.

Supreme Court justices play a major role in our democracy. They need to meet numerous qualification criteria. One of those criteria is, in my opinion, the ability to understand Canadian citizens in both official languages, which, I will point out, have equality of status under our Constitution.

The NDP is not alone in thinking that. I would like to quote some people who know much more about this topic than me. For example, Serge Rousselle, a renowned Université de Moncton law professor, said:

Bilingualism is a required skill for Supreme Court judges. To fully grasp an oral argument in a field where the subtleties of one official language or the other can be critical, the importance of being understood directly by the members of this court, without the assistance of an interpreter, seems obvious.

This is not a theoretical question.

Michel Doucet, another Université de Moncton law professor and a language rights expert, has argued many cases before the Supreme Court. He said:

In the week after I had argued a case before the Supreme Court, I had an opportunity to hear the English version of my arguments on CPAC, and I understood why I had lost the case five to four. The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English.

That is why bilingualism is essential to ensure equal access to justice, and why judges of the Supreme Court, the highest court, must be able to serve all Canadians in either official language. Once again, we are not the only ones saying so.

In his report on access to justice, Graham Fraser, former commissioner of official languages, said that since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, it is crucial that its judges be able to understand all the information and arguments presented, in both official languages without the help of an interpreter, including the nuances that can affect the outcome of a trial.

Mr. Fraser also strongly supported Bill C-232, which had exactly the same objectives and which the Liberals supported at the time.

I am running out of time and I see that I am going to have to cut my presentation short. I would like to point out that the Barreau du Québec and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada support this bill, which is very important.

Our Liberal colleagues are telling us that they promised to appoint bilingual judges. There is a small problem. Our Liberal colleagues always seem to think that they will be in power forever. That is the first problem. At some point, another government could decide to do things differently.

There is one more problem. The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said that yes, we are going to appoint bilingual judges, but that we also need some flexibility to not do it. This too seems like a very Liberal thing to say. They make a promise, but they may or may not keep it.

I think this is one more reason to recognize that this is a fundamental issue of access to justice and that this needs to be put in law. This bill could certainly be amended, but I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it so it can go to committee.

[Journalistic Sources Protection Act, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm reception. I am delighted to rise here this morning to speak to Bill S-231 on the protection of journalistic sources.

Journalists play a vital role in our democracy. Parliament is a fundamental democratic institution, but I believe that journalism is, as well. Just look at what programs like Enquête and The Fifth Estate have achieved. Those are two of the most commonly used examples, but they are not the only ones. All journalists, including our friends in the parliamentary press gallery and parliamentary correspondents—they all do extremely important work.

In order to do their job, however, they must be able to work freely, without undue interference. Unfortunately, we have seen a very troubling trend in that regard. There have been some disturbing examples, like the ones reported in Quebec, specifically in Montreal involving Patrick Lagacé and Joël-Denis Bellavance, but we have also seen a broader, long-term trend that should be setting off alarm bells among those who care about our democracy.

For example, under the Liberal government, Canada's global ranking for freedom of the press dropped 14 points. That raises a lot of questions. That is why Bill S-231 is a real step in the right direction, quite timely, and so important.

The bill will do a number of things. It will allow journalists to better protect their sources. That is important because when journalistic sources do not feel protected, they keep quiet. Speaking of sources, they are drying up. They are holding on to information that can sometimes be crucial, which prevents journalists from giving us the complete story and getting to the bottom of things.

Through the proposed legislative changes in this bill, a journalist could refuse to disclose information if he believes that the confidentiality of his source would be compromised. In fact, the onus is reversed. Now it will be up to the police to prove that the information they are looking for is more important for public safety than the right to protect sources. That is a key component.

We are also going to take the power to issue search and surveillance warrants away from justices of the peace. Obviously, we still need some judges to have this power, so it will be transferred to superior court judges. I think this is a very important change. I would like to cite one figure I find quite surprising: 98% of the search or surveillance warrants requested by Montreal police were granted. I think that is a very high success rate. It is not that I do not trust the police or think they are not being diligent, but that percentage seems a little high to me. I think it is a good idea to keep a close eye on this.

Let us take a closer look at what this bill is proposing. A judge will be able to appoint defence counsel, of a sort. Normally, when this kind of warrant is requested, the journalist or media outlet being targeted is not notified.

Obviously, someone who wants to conduct a search or surveillance is not going to notify the target. The target does not know what is going on. Having a special advocate to defend the rights of the journalist or media outlet will ensure that all perspectives are taken into account and result in a more fair and comprehensive legal process. There are other elements that I will not mention here today, but I think they are all very important.

Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that this bill is not perfect. During the Senate debates, the definitions of “media” and “journalist” were narrowed somewhat. We have so many platforms nowadays that it is hard to pin down who exactly is a journalist, who is a part-time or full-time journalist, and what counts as traditional media versus new media. It is important to work with fairly broad definitions of “journalist” and “media” even if that means judges have to make their own calls about that as necessary.

This is an important bill whose time has come. I know the Liberals slowed the process down a bit, but I think they eventually came around to our view that we really have to pass this bill quickly. I hope that this bill will be sent to committee soon and come back to us for third reading before too long. That is all I have to say.

[Indigenous Affairs, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Human Rights Tribunal was clear: the government must stop taking legal action against indigenous children who need medical treatment. That is clear and something that could be done immediately. However, the government spent more than $110,000 fighting a child over a $6,000 dental procedure. It makes no sense.

Will the minister commit to ending this fight immediately, covering the medical costs, and ending the systematic denial of services for indigenous children?

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. I was paying close attention.

The Conservatives and the Liberals sometimes tell us that we already have a very robust system for controlling the export of arms, but some aspects of that system are governed more by policy and regulations, rather than by the law itself.

Although the government is saying that we must not export arms to countries where human rights are being violated unless we are sure they will not be used against civilians, this strategy, in practice, is not very sound, since we are exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Is my colleague not worried that the same thing could happen with the regulations that would be passed since the bill itself is virtually hollow?

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I am not saying that India cannot help, but regional issues are always so complex. That is why it is important to work with all of our partners and not limit ourselves to partners in the region itself. Generally speaking, there can sometimes be existing tensions within certain regions. We have to figure which partners are the most appropriate in a given situation.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My colleague raised some of the same points I raised in my speech, including the need for effective sanctions. With respect to aid, I know some groups have talked about redirecting more assistance toward humanitarian aid. We agree on those issues. There is also diplomatic pressure.

In my short speech, I did not go into detail about the various kinds of diplomatic pressure we can bring to bear in connection with many different issues, but I did cover some of them. This is not just about pressure to end the violence; it is also about pressure to allow access for aid agencies and put an end to the threats against NGOs so that humanitarian workers can do their jobs. I think our suggestions are quite compatible with those of our colleagues, actually.

Let me reiterate, however, the urgency of helping the people in these refugee camps who need humanitarian aid right now, not next week.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, satellite images are a tool we can use to find out what is happening on the ground.

One of the problems we are facing is that the authorities in Myanmar are currently blocking access to humanitarian aid. A ship has been blocked. The authorities are refusing to let in teams who could act as neutral observers of what is happening on the ground. For example, when there are reports of villages being burned down, even if no team is able to travel there, the satellite images let us at least see what is happening. They are an important source of information.

There is an urgent need to put pressure on the government and deliver humanitarian aid, but there will come a point when we will need to put an end to impunity and immunity. There will come a point when we will need to come up with concrete measures for dealing with the people committing these crimes, and to do so, we will need very detailed, accurate information.