Debates of April 30th, 2013

International Co-operation

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrated a final tally of $2.2 million raised by the Canadian Rotarians in support of global efforts to eradicate polio. The government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will match this initiative dollar for dollar. We also call on religious, government and community leaders to continue to promote scientific information and to condemn the violence against immunization workers.

One thing is certain. Canada remains a leader in the effort to make polio history.

National Defence

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government continues its attack on some of the most vulnerable in our society. It has gone after our seniors, the unemployed and our veterans. Now it continues its direct attacks on another youth service, the Air Cadet gliding program.

Will the minister commit here today to the 320 cadets who receive their pilot's licence each year that gliders will be available and that the government will continue to financially support this important cadet youth program?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will. In fact, there are no cuts to the glider program. In fact, what we have, apparently, is a review being done within the department, which I have not seen, to improve the experience of flying for cadets. I repeat: no reductions are planned. There are no reductions in place.

I maintain, and I think all members would maintain, that this is the best youth development program we have in Canada today. It produces some of our best leaders. It promotes good citizenship, community service and physical fitness among all young Canadians. The cadet program is here to stay under this government.

Health

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the regional public health director for the Quebec City area confirmed that the high concentrations of nickel dust are having an adverse effect on the health of up to 20% of Limoilou residents.

For two weeks now, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has been saying that I am just trying to scare people. Is the public health department also just trying to scare people?

The minister is responsible for the Port of Québec, whether he likes it or not. What is his plan to solve this problem?

Mr. Minister, it is time to smarten up. Is that clear enough?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind members again that they have to address comments through the Chair and not directly at their colleagues.

The hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, even well before this issue became public, the Quebec Port Authority and its users were involved in all of the committees, studies and research.

As with all the ports across the country, we appointed competent people to run the Port of Québec. These ports are not being managed from Ottawa. The people on location in the community are managing these ports.

Is the hon. member saying that the CEO, Mario Girard, is not doing his job properly, when he is widely recognized as a good administrator?

Is he saying that Éric Dupont, the chairman of the board of directors, who is known worldwide as a great administrator, is not doing his job?

What is it that he does not understand? I do not know.

The Environment

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, development of our natural resources is very important for creating jobs, for adding to our economy and for providing money for health care, education and other social programs,

Opposition parties criticizing the government for not paying enough attention to protecting the environment as major projects like mines and pipelines are being developed are slowing this development, thus killing jobs and reducing funding for social programs.

I would ask the Minister of Natural Resources for evidence that the government is in fact protecting the environment in the development of these major natural resource projects.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board in Canada is a strong, independent regulator. It is a world-class regulator that ensures pipeline safety.

Our government has taken action to prevent pipeline accidents and to prove our ability to respond to any incidents that do occur. For example, we have increased the number of inspections of federally regulated pipelines by 50%. We have doubled the amount of annual audits. We have put forward new fines for companies that break Canada's rigorous new environmental protections.

We are there for Canadian communities. We will protect the environment and develop the economy at the same time.

Employment Insurance

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Service Canada threatened to take away employment insurance benefits from a woman in my riding if she did not attend a training session in Saint-Jérôme, which is a 30-minute drive from her home in Lachute. The problem is that she does not have a car.

Why is it so hard for the Conservatives to understand that it is not that this woman does not want to find a job, but that their reform does not reflect the reality of workers?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, the system is there to provide financial assistance to people who have lost their job.

However, at times, Service Canada partners with a province to provide training to help people prepare for a new job.

These people can always work with Service Canada and Service Canada always wants to work with Canadians to prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow.

Ethics

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after the political and legal double dealing involved in repatriating the Constitution, now we have a political organizer telling the Charbonneau commission that, during the 1995 referendum campaign, the "no" side received thousands of dollars in illegal funding—thousands of dollars that were used to get around Quebec’s public consultations legislation and to make undeclared expenditures. Even excluding the love-in involving Ottawa, the report commissioned by Quebec’s chief electoral officer mentions more than half a million dollars in unexplained funding.

Will the Prime Minister tell us here in the House where the hundreds of thousands of dollars came from to pay for the love-in?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, we can see by their attitude that the members of the Bloc Québécois are trying to talk about whatever they can in order to boost their sovereignist agenda and talk about a referendum. However, Quebeckers do not want to hear any talk of a referendum. They are tired of hearing about it.

On our side, we want to pursue our mandate of economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what Quebeckers want to hear about. I can assure them that that is what we will keep focusing on.

Motion No. 21

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Excise Tax Act, be concurred in.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

(Motion agreed to)

Unwanted Emails

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege pursuant to section 48(1) of the Standing Orders.

I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, as do many of my colleagues, receive numerous email correspondences through our personal email as an invitation, a spam, if you will, across all accounts for a showing of an anti-choice film being hosted by the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin later this evening. This is important to all considerations of members of Parliament because the reason we have these personal email accounts that go to our BlackBerrys is to avoid such spamming and allow our staff to filter out the noise from the things we actually need to address. I believe there are many findings in O'Brien and Bosc and previous speakers. I will quote from O'Brien and Bosc, page 108, which states:

—Members have regularly brought to the attention of the House instances which they believed were attempts to obstruct, impede, interfere, intimidate or molest them, their staffs or individuals who had some business with them or the House.

We can have a worrisome trend in this place where MPs start spamming all other members of Parliament with unwanted, unsolicited emails. Particularly when it is such a sensitive subject as a woman's right to choose, I find the use of our personal accounts by the member as raising a question of privilege. These accounts exist for a reason, and the abuse of these accounts by the member is something that should be of concern to all sides in this place.

I believe this constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege and I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion if you rule in my favour, Mr. Speaker.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. House leader for bringing this to the attention of the House, but he had already brought it to my attention earlier and I thought we had an understanding of how we could address it going forward. If any member on this side of the House and any party on the opposite side of the House had an issue with something going to their account, as was the case with about eight NDP members here, they received a response from my office that it would be respectfully removed and that the personal account would be removed from our listing. That is how it should be dealt with, unless the New Democrats have the notion that they want to control all media and forms of communication. I do not think we want to go there. They can simply delete it. I often get articles and solicitations from the members opposite, specifically the NDP, and on occasion I agree with them, asking me to support their private members' bills. I expect I will through the end of time be in receipt of those.

It is free communication with members, and if they respectfully indicate they want to be off of certain lists or not receive information, members will do exactly that. I find it bizarre that the member would even bring it to this place today. I guess that is the NDP idea of shutting down communication in this place.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I communicated with my friend's office and asked it to stand down. I also asked it to stop spamming other members of Parliament. In fact, when members of our party asked his office to stop emailing, he continued to do it. The recourse that he has suggested is some sort of negative billing option for spam, that there first has to be some sort of problem with someone using the personal accounts of all MPs. It should concern all MPs in this place if this is the trend that MPs wish to pursue, to send unwanted, unsolicited and in some cases very offensive emails to our personal accounts. The Conservative Party is advocating for that. To say otherwise it is just censorship is beneath contempt.

The member knows that a number of NDP MPs asked to be removed from this and his office continued to send these emails. The recourse that he has offered was not in fact done. This cannot go on. This is a worrisome trend. I have talked to the hon. House leader across the way and expressed our concerns. I say in all good faith and for the decency of members of Parliament to do their work that this should no longer go on.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling a bit of déjà vu. I remember there were some points of order raised some time ago by members on this side who were concerned about members on that side filling up their email boxes and shutting down the operations of their offices with the volume of emails they were directing. There were issues of this type.

I will say this: I do find it a bit ironic that the folks who were championing the freedom of speech of members of Parliament only days ago are now seeking to muzzle it.

That said, I often receive invitations to events from members of all parties. I think it is a welcome occurrence, and it encourages collegiality among all members of Parliament to be allowed to communicate with each other and invite each other to events on issues, policies, questions and causes in which we have an interest. The legitimate concern over receiving communications we do not want can be resolved in a practical fashion. It does not need to be precipitous.

What the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin has laid out is a practical approach: if a member indicates that he or she does not want to receive communications from a particular member again in the future or on a particular subject, the member will then respect that wish. That kind of ordinary, practical arrangement between individual members of Parliament is the appropriate way to resolve this issue and allow communications to continue, while at the same time dealing with sensitivities or concerns that individual members of Parliament may have.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will certainly look into the matter to see if a resolution is possible and come back to the House if necessary.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for St. John's East has approximately eight minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, just before question period and members' statements I was outlining why we have seen fit to indicate our support for this bill at third reading despite the fact that we voted against it at second reading, second reading being approval in principle.

We raised quite a number of points concerning the deficiencies of the bill through speeches and debate at second reading. The deficiencies of the bill are also deficiencies of the status quo. In other words, the things that we were seeking to improve have been there for a long time.

We complained about the inadequacy of the summary trial procedure, because people did not have the full availability of all of the charter procedures. That was there in 1983, when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came in. It was there in 1993, when the Liberals came to power, and it was there in 2006, when the Conservative government came into power. When Bill C-41 came about, I started talking considerably about this issue and about the need to bring about changes in the act.

In the last parliament, under Bill C-41, we brought about changes in committee similar to the amendment to clause 75 that was passed here in committee. Other measures that we brought forward went further in different areas, but did not achieve success. Nevertheless, the changes contained in Bill C-15 regarding military justice are, on the whole, positive, although they are not where we want to be.

As I said before question period, we are making a commitment that when we form a government in 2015, we are going to fix these things. We are going to fix the fact that the grievance board would not have a requirement for civilian as well as military members. We are going to fix the fact that grievances would not have to be heard and completed within one year. We are going to fix the fact that a change would be made in legislation to allow the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue instructions on investigations that the Provost Marshal could undertake, for example.

There are a series of things that need to be done. We need to go further in reforming the law with respect to summary trials and the protections that need to be present. These are things that we are committed to doing.

However, we are also committed to the progress that has been made. I would like to put it on the record that we claim credit for that. We put it on the table and we made the arguments at second reading with those 50-some speeches and we got a commitment from the government to make an amendment to that provision. Because of that, 93% of summary conviction trials will now not result in a criminal record.

We brought in a number of amendments. I think it was 22. I do not recall any of them being warmly accepted by the government, but they were brought forward for a very important reason: they were brought forward to fix the deficiencies in the act. We are not satisfied with the result, but that does not mean we are going to throw out the progress that has been made.

We brought those amendments because we want to make it clear that we are not satisfied and we want it to be fixed. We want it to be improved. We want the changes that we brought forward to be made. We want to give the Chief of the Defence Staff, for example, the financial authority to compensate CF members as a result of the grievance process. We want to ensure that there is police independence and that any charges must be laid within a year. We want to expand the procedure for summary trials so that no one gets a criminal record without having the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in terms of proper due process. These things are part of our commitment to the men and women in uniform, and we want to see them happen.

We brought before the committee people such eminent personages as Clayton Ruby, a renowned and probably pre-eminent Canadian lawyer. The member opposite said “infamous”; he may be infamous in some circles, but I tell the member that as a member of the legal profession, he is extremely highly regarded.

He was treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which means president. He has been honoured across the country for his work. He has the most comprehensive work on sentencing in Canada. His works are quoted by all courts in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada. He is an eminent personage who came and testified before our committee and talked about the need to ensure that members of our military have the same protections in law and the same rights as others.

We had former justice Gilles Létourneau of the Federal Court of Canada. He had also been chair and commissioner of the Somalia inquiry, which probably was what first brought to light to Canadians the deficiencies in our military justice and policing systems. That gave rise to reforms, although they took a long time to get here.

We can point fingers all ways to Sunday as to who is responsible. The government ultimately is responsible because it has control over legislation, except in the case of a minority government, which has less control. We are here now with significant reforms, if not all the ones that need to be brought in, and we should claim progress. Certainly we are claiming, on behalf of our party, some significant progress in addressing this particular concern that we brought to the table and that got us to the point where we are today.

Therefore, I want to encourage members to support the bill. For some reason the Liberals have decided not just to vote against it but to attack the New Democrats for supporting it. If the enemy is the government, I do not know why they would not attack the government. However, I am not in charge of their strategy, so I do not know.

If they want to oppose it, they could just get up and quietly vote against it, but instead they want to make some issue of the fact that we, who opposed it in second reading, got a substantial improvement in the committee in favour of individuals so that 93% of the people charged with summary conviction offences would get no criminal record. The Liberals think there is something wrong with that, and at the same time they approved the bill in principle at second reading, offered no amendments in committee and are now going to vote against it and oppose it here today. That is for them to explain.

I am here to explain to the House and to the men and women in uniform why we are supporting the advances that are being made and why we are making the commitment to bring about some significant changes, including what was proposed by Mr. Justice Létourneau in his testimony: a fundamental wall-to-wall review of the National Defence Act, conducted outside the control of National Defence, that would give Parliament truly independent advice on how to fix this situation.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side would like to congratulate the member for St. John's East for his support for the bill, for his party's support for the bill, and for his recognition of the important progress it represents in our military justice system. It represents progress by ensuring that criminal records would no longer be generated by a whole series of summary offences. It represents progress in sentencing reform, in victim impact statements, with regard to entrenching the rule of the grievance board, the Provost Marshal of the Canadian Forces, and so forth, as well as entrenching the process of review in which we all believe.

The member cited Clayton Ruby and Mr. Justice Letourneau. Would he not agree, just for the record, that there is a very strong position to be considered that says, as Chief Justice Dickson said, as former Chief Justice LeSage has confirmed in his most recent report, that “the summary trial process is likely to survive a court challenge to its constitutional validity”, and that the most curious aspect of this third reading of the bill so far is the absolutely vertiginous change in position by the Liberals?

I do not know if they have it back to front or front to back. I do not know if it is because the member for Papineau is now in charge and that someone is not really in control of the wheel, but the Liberals seem to no longer accept the constitutionality of the summary trial process that they lived with for decades in government, that they accepted at second reading and voted for, and that they sat on their hands for and did nothing to change in committee.

Would the hon. member agree with that assessment?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that the comments that my friend referred to at committee by Mr. Justice LeSage, Justice Dickson and Justice Lamer about the general acceptability of a differing system of military justice from the civilian system and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I think, were cast in general terms. I do not believe that kind of analysis would be applied to the individual specific aspects of the system, as Clayton Ruby and Mr. Justice Letourneau pointed out. They were not passing judgment as they would in a court when presented with a certain fact and situation and circumstance, which is the only way these types of decisions are made by a court. I think that was clarified by the testimony of Mr. Clayton Ruby, retired Colonel Michel Drapeau and Mr. Justice Létourneau.

As for the Liberals, I think they are going to have to speak for themselves.