Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2012

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the Canadian Forces, I do appreciate the importance of trying to narrow the gap between the civil system and the military system, as I have referred to in the past.

One of the issues that has always come up is the issue of not being able to report in to work. There is quite a different consequence for someone in the military who does not report in to work compared to a civilian who does not report in to work. I am wondering if the member could just provide his thoughts with regard to that sort of disciplinary action. Does he recognize that there is a difference?

On the other hand, there are many different types of offences that could apply for a civil court system, such as representation for many of the summary convictions that other members of this caucus have made reference to.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, we acknowledge that when it comes to the Canadian Forces, to the military, it is a different institution, so for the example the member gave, it is obvious there is a propensity, and an understandable one, to deal with situations differently. That said, we really have to take a look, and I mentioned the stats of the use of summary trials, and see that this is an outdated method of dealing with justice for our military and it is time we respect the forces and the institution itself and modernize it.

As I said, this has been done in many other jurisdictions. The question is: Why can the government not provide that solution? Maybe Conservatives either do not want to or they have not done their homework to put forward a proposal on which we can all agree.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite happy a while ago to see a Conservative member finally get up and ask a question on the bill. The Conservative member wants to get the bill to committee.

My question for my colleague from Ottawa Centre is: Considering the fact that the House has passed dozens of bills, maybe hundreds, since the government became a majority and we have been able to make amendments to one bill, maybe two, can the hon. member tell me what the chances are of our making good amendments to Bill C-15, or are we not going to be able to do that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question because many people are wondering that. There is a question around the functioning of our parliamentary democracy right now, when we have time allocation used regularly, when we have omnibus bills brought in anytime the government wishes to get anything done, bypassing normal parliamentary scrutiny.

When it comes to committees, we have seen that going in camera is too often used. The rationale for Parliament to do its job is to be able to provide scrutiny and alternatives to bills and amendments. I sadly say to my colleague that it is very unlikely that government would accept the amendments. We have tried that. We have made the case here, and as we have said before, please take our ideas, adopt them, let us get some results happening.

Conservatives have said it will happen later. There is a certain trust on that. We have not seen support for putting forward our ideas adopted by government, so for those of us who have watched the government in a minority and now a majority, it is a matter of whether it is true that the government is really focused on getting things done for the best results for Canadians, or whether it is more about how it is using its majority power just to get things done for its own political benefit. Sadly, I think it is that.

We need to address that in our system. We need to see committees work better. We have to stop the business of time allocation and certainly stop the pattern we have seen from the government of bringing in omnibus legislation, because it is deeply affecting our parliamentary democracy and therefore the health of our democracy.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of military families across the country. Like many people in the NDP caucus, I have relatives—my grandfather and uncle—who both fought for Canada and their names figure on the memorial in downtown New Westminster, just outside the city hall. There are many members of Parliament in the NDP caucus who are strongly supportive of the immense sacrifice that military families and members of the Canadian Forces make on behalf of the country. They put their lives on the line every day. Without question, they follow the directives that are provided through the democratic framework we have here in Canada.

When we talk about veterans who have put their lives on the line, those who have lost their lives in so many tragic cases and those who are currently serving in the military, we know they are entitled to our respect. They are entitled to the respect of Parliament for what they do on our behalf every day. We have a bill that was brought forward by the Conservative government, yet another example—and I will point to a few other examples in the few minutes I have remaining—that shows a profound disrespect for military families and members of the Canadian Forces.

We have a bill that was flawed from the outset. The NDP went to work and put forward amendments that received the support of the committee and Parliament. Yet the government is trying, through a back door, to resubmit flawed legislation that was improved through NDP action but was obviously flawed when the government put it forward.

I know there are military families listening to the debate today, from some of the emails members are getting, who are very supportive of what NDP MPs have been saying in the House of Commons. I will point out one example of how flawed this legislation is, with the summary trial system that the government seems intent on ramming through. We see that a member of the Canadian Forces who may have had a few drinks one night or may have put his cigarette in the wrong place can receive a criminal conviction that will carry through for the rest of his or her lifetime. This point has been made by NDP MP after NDP MP. We have not seen one Conservative stand to defend this legislation, and we can certainly understand why. It is so badly flawed.

To say that a member of the Canadian Forces who has just a few too many drinks one night is entitled, as a reward for that, to have a criminal conviction that may last the rest of his or her life is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Yet the Conservative government is saying it does not care about the military or Canadian Forces personnel; it is going to ram this through come hell or high water. It is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The use of that term in that context is inappropriate and unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will rely on your wisdom. It is a common expression but I withdraw it.

The reality is that what we have is a government that is bent on pushing through this legislation without amendment, when the NDP amendments that we brought forward before and that were adopted by the House and by committee are obviously in the best interests of Canadian Forces personnel.

When we look at the pattern of the government and what it has done in a very clear way against the Canadian Forces military personnel and military families, what we see is a pattern of disrespect. There is no other way to put it. It is refusing amendments to flawed legislation that puts Canadian military personnel in a very awkward situation, to say the least. On top of that, we see what has been the pattern of the government, a record of disrespect for Canadian Forces personnel and for veterans.

I will give some examples. First is cutting $226 million from Veterans Affairs Canada. That eliminates 500 employees. The Conservatives can say that is fine and that they will find another way to provide services. However, as many NDP MPs have pointed out, as our critic for Veterans Affairs has pointed out on numerous occasions, there is no doubt that it has a net impact on services provided to veterans. There is absolutely no doubt that it shows disrespect to military forces personnel and to veterans.

We have seen case after case. Our team on the Veteran Affairs side, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and the critic as well, the member from Quebec, have been pointing out in the House that many veterans who need access to services are being denied those services, such as those veterans who need access to psychologists through the Department of Veterans Affairs and have seen their applications denied.

We have seen World War II veterans who were denied reimbursement for stair lifts to access the upper and lower levels of their homes because they were not considered essential living spaces. We have seen veterans who have been denied care at the veterans hospital because they were not seen as meeting very strict criteria, even though they were veterans in the service of our country. We have seen, a number of times, the personal medical files of Canadian veterans being released to the public.

This is not a series of accidents. The debate that we are having today, where the government is refusing to improve badly flawed legislation that hurts our Canadian Forces personnel, is an example of a pattern of disrespect.

On this side of the House, the NDP caucus will stand up for Canadian Forces personnel. We will stand up for our veterans because we believe it is right to do so. They put their lives on the line for our country and the least that we can do in this Parliament is to ensure that legislation respects them. This legislation does not. That is why we oppose it. That is why we are voting no.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have two and a half minutes to complete his speech when the bill is next called to the House.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Food Safety

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 18, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion by the hon. member for Welland.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #482

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion that Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, their safety, their labelling and advertising, their import, export and interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration or licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed and the registration of establishments where those activities are performed, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Safe Food for Canadians Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill S-11.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #483

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Combating Terrorism Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill S-7.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #484

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 6:27 p.m., the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-206, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

World Autism Awareness Day Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to putting the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.