Questions on the Order Paper May 10th, 2013

With regard to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism’s visit to Iraq: (a) what is the complete list of everyone who accompanied the Minister; (b) what was the time, date, location and nature of all government business conducted by the Minister; and (c) what was the total cost of this trip, including but not limited to, airline tickets, accommodations, meals and security for the Minister and everyone who accompanied him?

Business of Supply May 9th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech and I think I heard him say that the money would appear, that somehow it is going to materialize. That is interesting. We will wait to see how that all works out. However, I would like to ask him a question about money that we know exactly how it was spent, and that is money that relates to government advertising. I would like him and his colleagues to listen for a second and then explain how he can justify this when looking into the eyes of his constituents.

The government has erected 9,000 billboards at a cost of $29 million. It is running economic action plans now on an annual basis at about $100 million a year. It spent $23 million doing media monitoring for 60% of the backbench MPs in the Conservative caucus. It is spending $90,000 per advertisement on each and every ad during the hockey playoff series. That alone would pay for 40 to 50 additional summer student jobs. Can the member and other members of the Conservative caucus, who I am sure are ashamed of this, explain to Canadians how this is possibly defensible given the situation we are in now economically?

Petitions May 9th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table a petition signed by local residents who are urging the government to impose a moratorium on genetically modified alfalfa.

There has yet to be a transparent process established to determine the genetics, preservation or production of GM organisms, nor are there any measures for establishing the possibility of co-existence or cross-contamination or for appropriate mechanisms for transportation.

I am pleased to table this petition. I look forward to the government's response.

Taxation May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the government increased taxes on Canada's poorest people, but it did so on the sly. The Conservatives are surreptitiously digging into middle-class Canadians' pocketbooks in order to pay down the deficit. They have increased the tax on EI, which is generating billions of dollars. They have increased taxes on many everyday items.

Why are the Conservatives so bent on increasing taxes while reducing the front-line services that are so important to the middle class?

Taxation May 2nd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, small businesses got hit with a $2.3 billion tax hike in budget 2013.

To help them cope, the Conservatives are slashing the Canada Revenue Agency's business assistance program. The budget will force victims of violent crimes to pay GST on medical records they need for court. Meanwhile the Conservatives have slashed border services programs, like the K-9 units, that help stop guns and drugs at our borders.

Why are everyday Canadians being forced to pay higher taxes for fewer of their cherished public services?

Taxation May 2nd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will pay nearly $2 billion more this year because of increased EI premiums.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have closed every youth employment centre in the country. The Conservatives' tariff hikes mean that Canadians will pay more for hundreds of everyday items. At the same time, they have lost the protection of search and rescue centres on both coasts.

Why are the Conservatives forcing middle-class families to pay more taxes while receiving fewer services in return?

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act April 29th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, our role and our obligation as members of Parliament in the House is to seize every available opportunity to try to make a positive contribution, which is precisely what we are doing today.

It is simply too important to be, in my view, tangled up in procedural wrangling. This is an appeal to the Government of Canada, and particularly the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who as I alluded to earlier I believe is in breach of his own code of ethics, his own responsibilities as a member of the bar.

We are saying that we can get this better on behalf of the men and women in the Canadian Forces. We owe it to them.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act April 29th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I will try to take those in order.

First, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is now saying that the Liberal Party's amendments would pass in the committee, we should have that discussion. However, given the actual behaviour of the government in the last several years, amendments in committee never see the light of day because, with all due respect to my good colleague from Ajax—Pickering, he has no authority here. All the shots are being called by the Prime Minister's office.

Second, with respect to looking to other judicial traditions, the member is either not a lawyer or is disparaging of the Baltic States, of a 1,000 year old legal tradition. I am not prepared to disparage Lithuanian legal jurisprudence.

Of course we stand on our own two feet. Of course Canada is a wonderful contributor. However, we look to other jurisdictions because we admit our limitations and we know there are really good valuable lessons to be had in other jurisdictions.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act April 29th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, it is an important debate we are having today. This is about the men and women in the Canadian Forces, full stop. It is about whether they will be treated like every other Canadian citizen. It is about whether the government is manifesting what I would describe as stubborn pigheadedness when it comes to improving the military justice system that is in place.

It is impossible for me to speak about this criminal justice bill without being reminded of the typical conduct of the government under the Conservative Party. It is a government that consistently has refused to be bound by its responsibilities under section 4(1) of the Department of Justice Act. For Canadians watching, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, a lawyer, went to the bar when he was sworn in and pledged an oath to uphold the law. When he was sworn in to the role as a lawyer in the province of Ontario, he was sworn in to uphold the law for his entire legal career.

I would argue that since the arrival of the Conservative government, in some quarters described as a regime, it has seen fit to consistently leave aside its responsibilities in this regard. I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada may, for example, be in breach of his own code of conduct and his code of ethics as a lawyer. However, that is not what we are debating today.

I am reminded of the words of David Daubney. Mr. Daubney, for my colleagues in the Conservative caucus who do not know, was a member of Parliament with the Progressive Conservative Party. He then went on to a very distinguished career as a lawyer in the Department of Justice, where he served in his last post as director of the criminal law policy unit.

Two day after retiring from his distinguished career, he lashed out at the Conservative government in terms of its conduct with respect to the use of evidence, analysis, research, things that we would rely on as parliamentarians to make the right calls for everyday Canadians, in this case, everyday members in our Canadian Forces.

Mr. Daubney went on to say that he was extremely disappointed and that was one of the reasons why he left his career. Despite the fact that with his team he delivered hard evidence and good analysis to the government, particularly in areas like mandatory minimums, the government would not hear them. It was more than tone deaf; it simply shut it off.

Here we have another example of a bill. I would like to go back to some words spoken earlier by the MP for Ajax—Pickering, who stood up and boasted that Canada was the envy of the world. He is right. I could not be in more agreement with my colleague, but he knows better. During his time serving as a young ambassador in Afghanistan, he knew that one of the foundational documents we were trying to inculcate into the Afghani system of criminal justice was to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the baseline.

For Canadians who are watching or following, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now the number one document used in the world for strengthening the rule of law for helping to amend and strengthen constitutions all over the world. When I trained in the former Soviet Union after the wall fell in over 20 countries, I used the Charter of Rights. When I was in the Ukraine last fall, strengthening its legal system, I used the Charter of Rights. Many jurisdictions now look to Canada and look to our charter as the foundational document.

When my colleague for Vancouver Quadra rose to express her concern about the human rights implications in the bill, she was right. I know many members in the Conservative caucus know in their heart of hearts that the bill is incomplete, but it is capable of being, not perfected, but certainly improved, which is why the Liberal Party of Canada is raising these important foundational questions today.

This is about the average man and woman in the Canadian Forces. Should they make a mistake, should they make the wrong choice, as so many Canadian citizens do in their lives from time to time, we want to make absolutely categorically sure that these citizens have the same protections afforded to them as any other citizen living in Canada and walking our streets today possess.

This was why I raised questions this morning around why, for example, the government of the United Kingdom, the British government, had ensured that the requirements for independence and impartiality were woven into its domestic criminal justice system so it was in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a powerful precedent for Canada and for this Parliament, and I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada knows that.

In the U.K. context, the British government has ensured that the accused may be represented by counsel and entitled to an appeal under a newly created summary appeal court. It has ensured that the summary appeal court would be presided over by a civilian judge, yet assisted by two military members who were officers or warrant officers to ensure adequate military representation. Also, as a general rule, it has moved to ensure that imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the offender is not legally represented in court or in a court martial. This sounds to me to be an important and powerful precedent that we should look to weave into our amendments to the criminal justice system.

Comparatively, beyond our common law founding mother ship United Kingdom, why have countries like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and dozens more all moved to ensure that independence, impartiality, fairness and justice are hallmarks of their amendments and improvements to the criminal justice system?

Why only here are we seeing, as I described earlier, the stubborn pigheadedness that seems to find its way into every justice bill the Conservative government brings forward? When in the face of so much evidence, in the face of the opportunity to get it better, why is the government not seizing the opportunity and doing right by Canadian citizens, and more important, doing right by the men and women in our Canadian Forces?