Charmaine Borg

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This very important initiative, which deserves our full attention, has been under consideration by the House since 2007.

What I find most regrettable is that the bill responds to only one-third of the recommendations made by former justice Lamer. He had raised some very interesting issues that need to be addressed to ensure a fairer and better military justice system for those who proudly defend and represent our country.

During recent minority governments, the House supported the amendments tabled by the NDP. However, after reading the bill, I realized that many of these recommendations had been left out, including important ones concerning the powers of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, changes to the composition of the grievance board so that 60% of the members would be civilians, and a provision that would ensure that a person convicted at a summary trial would not be unfairly subject to a criminal record. These are important amendments that are critical to the reintegration of veterans into civilian life once their tour of duty is over.

Even though the bill does contain some worthwhile ideas, I am afraid that I must oppose it given that it does have several major shortcomings that we must address.

For example, I am concerned about the summary trial provisions. Sentences imposed on accused persons have enormous ramifications, especially when they result in a criminal record. Given that the accused person is only entitled to a trial without the possibility of consulting with counsel and without any appeal or trial transcript, and given that the judge is the accused person’s commanding officer, I highly doubt that such a trial can truly be fair to the accused person. Although it is extremely important to me that the behaviour of our Canadian Forces members be above reproach, I think that saddling an individual with a criminal record that will stay with him when he returns to civilian life is too harsh a provision.

People still have much to contribute to their communities once their career in the military has ended. A criminal record can make it difficult for them to secure employment, rent an apartment or travel abroad. I want to make myself clear on this. While I do believe that a person should be punished for breaking the rules, he should not be saddled with a criminal record that could ruin his life.

While I am on the subject, I would like to point out one of the positive provisions in the bill. People convicted of certain offences are handed a sentence that no longer results in a criminal record. Personally, however, I think the bill should go even further and exempt more offences. Last March, at the committee stage, the NDP recommended that a total of 27 offences be on this exclusion list, and not just the five originally listed. I suggest that this amendment be included again, as it constitutes a major step in the right direction.

In my view, we need to take a closer look at the long-term implications of creating criminal records for Canadian Forces members. I am convinced that my constituents would be shocked to learn that shortcomings in the system could ruin the lives of people who have committed minor offences, when they have given their all for our country.

I am also concerned about the independence of the grievance process. At present, the board does not allow for an external review. To my way of thinking this board should be perceived as an external, independent civilian body and changes need to be made to the appointment process.

The NDP had suggested that at least 60% of the board members be civilians. This amendment was adopted in March 2011 when Bill C-41, an earlier version of this bill, was before the House. However, it was left out of Bill C-15.

I am very disappointed that an initiative aimed at lending greater transparency and legitimacy to such an important process has been left out when we had agreed earlier to include it.

I also feel the same way about a proposed amendment to grant more powers to the Chief of Defence Staff when it comes to dealing with financial considerations arising from grievances. I will continue to fight for the inclusion in the bill of these two forgotten amendments.

And finally, the Military Police Complaints Commission should, in my opinion, be granted more powers to conduct legitimate investigations and report back to Parliament.

I would like the members of our military to have a transparent and fairer justice system, where the consequences are more balanced when members return to civilian life and where those responsible for imposing sentences and reviewing grievances have the powers they need to ensure that justice is delivered diligently and effectively.

I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to veterans in my riding of Terrebonne—Blainville about issues that are important to them. Unfortunately, many of them live isolated lives with depleted means. It breaks my heart to see people who fought bravely for our welfare and freedoms forgotten in such a way.

I met with them last February when I led a round table discussion on poverty among seniors. I was completely flabbergasted when they told me they were forced to choose between housing, food, drugs and transportation because of their meagre pensions. Is this what we want for all of our seniors, including our brave veterans? I do not believe so.

I believe we can offer them more security and some hope that they can live out their lives more comfortably. I would like to mention at this time three agencies in my riding that are doing amazing work with veterans. They are the Amicale des vétérans de Terrebonnne, the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 208 in Sainte-Thérèse and the NATO Veterans Organization of Canada. The primary goal of staff, volunteers and members of these organizations is to provide a meeting place for military veterans and retired police officers.

Since 1945, the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 208, in Sainte-Thérèse, has provided veterans with a location where they can meet, talk and have fun. The Legion supports our war heroes by providing them with advice and assisting them in their dealings with the government so that they are treated with dignity. It also helps educate future generations about their heritage and our history, in order to keep our collective memory alive.

For more than 60 years now, the Amicale des vétérans has served veterans through meetings, discussions and entertainment. The agency is involved in the community by associating with other veterans' organizations in order to enhance the services provided, thereby contributing to the members' well-being.

For its part, the NATO Veterans Organization of Canada works in a number of areas with former and active members of the Canadian armed forces, the RCMP and the merchant navy. Its goal is to ensure recognition for the contribution of members of the Canadian armed forces, the RCMP, the merchant navy, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NORAD, the United Nations and other multilateral and bilateral institutions. Its actions make it possible to perpetuate the memories and deeds of members who lost their lives in the service of Canada. It provides support and contributes to the welfare of all its members, their families and their dependents. It fights to promote the interests of all veterans, brings together all those who have served and co-operates with other veterans' organizations with comparable aims and objectives. By establishing regional organizations, the NATO Veterans Organization hopes to reach as many veterans as possible.

We are fortunate to have organizations that, despite limited resources, work to help and support our veterans.

With this bill, we as parliamentarians have an opportunity to offer those serving in the military a better justice system that may have a positive impact on their personal and professional lives after their military career. We must go even further and adapt their military reality to suit the life they will be facing once their military service has ended.

Our serving members and our veterans deserve a military justice system that is fair and proportionate. They deserve the best because they give us their all. On their behalf, I am asking this House to assess the NDP's proposals and show the same courage that they showed for us. Let us have the courage to make the amendments that are needed to give them a better military justice system, a system that they deserve.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster on his motion. I know he has been working hard on this file ever since he was elected to this House.

Today's motion seeks to clarify the net benefit test, include parameters concerning reciprocity, improve the transparency of decisions, and set specific criteria for state-owned companies to meet regarding net benefit requirements for foreign company takeover bids in order to protect the Canadian economy from potential foreign government interference. This is an extremely important motion and it is also very timely.

Individuals or governments or members of Parliament are always defined by their actions, not by their words, because those are two different things. We may say one thing but act quite differently. I would like to summarize the Conservatives' actions on this file and give a little sketch of what they have done.

In 2010, this House unanimously adopted a motion to clarify the definition of “net benefit” but nothing came of it. We can see clearly that there was no action. Earlier this year, Petronas announced its intention to acquire Progress Energy. Once again, the idea of net benefit to Canadians was not clearly defined. Now we have the CNOOC purchase, but there still has been no clear definition of net benefit to Canadians.

On Friday evening, the government approved the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC, a state-owned corporation. The government's lack of action in clarifying the concept of net benefit belied its claim that this would never happen. It was as if we put up a “for sale” sign on our natural resources, something that should not be encouraged.

The Prime Minister himself said that this was not a good deal for Canadians, but he was the one who approved it, just the same.

If they had taken action back in 2010 and defined what constituted a net benefit, they would perhaps have been able to say that it was not a good thing for Canadians, that there was no net benefit for Canadians and that for this reason they were refusing the deal or the offer.

I would like to take a moment to explain the impact and the consequences of their lack of action on this issue. Now there is some uncertainty among investors. Before making a purchase offer, a foreign investor wants to be certain that he knows the rules of the game.

If I am interested in investing in natural resources in Canada, before I go any further, before I get into the process, before I present an offer, I want to know the rules. When I buy a coffee, I know how much it costs; I know how the transaction is going to work. I think it is important and essential for the Canadian economy to have regulations and clear and precise definitions, if we want to encourage investment. This is good for everyone.

There is another consequence. There is a real threat to quality jobs in Canada. In this agreement, there is no guarantee that Canadian jobs will stay in Canada. These are good jobs, worthwhile jobs.

This would not be the first time that jobs are lost when this type of agreement is signed. I can give you some examples. When the Conservatives approved the sale of Falconbridge to Xstrata, 686 jobs were lost. Xstrata guaranteed that there would be no layoffs or job losses for three years, but Xstrata broke its promise. In 2009, two U. S. Steel plants closed down and 1500 jobs were lost. When Inco was taken over by the Brazilian giant Vale, workers had to endure a stormy and protracted strike when the employer tried to cut wages.

We therefore do not have to look very far to find examples of agreements that were not signed and decisions that were not made in the best interests of Canadians because the definition of “net benefit” is unclear.

There is another consequence: there is no reciprocity for Canada.

We do not even know what was negotiated in this agreement given the blatant lack of transparency in this regard. We do not know anything because no one was consulted. When organizations, such as the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, expressed their concerns, they were completely ignored. I looked, but I was unable to find what this agreement does for Canadians, and that causes me a great deal of concern. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved this motion.

I would like to close by saying what we want. Contrary to what the government or the Liberals are saying, we are not against all agreements. We are in favour of agreements that are good for Canada, that will ensure that we have good jobs here and that will provide a guarantee of reciprocity. It is very important that these agreements be reached in a transparent manner.

The NDP thus wants to lower the threshold for investment that must be subject to review to $100 million. This will increase transparency and give us a little bit more power over our natural resources. Our criteria regarding proof of a net benefit for Canada must be more transparent and explicit. We must also hold public hearings and ensure public disclosure and the public implementation of all commitments undertaken by potential investors.

We have a beautiful country and wonderful natural resources that must be protected. We must make decisions in the best interests of Canadians. I am therefore asking everyone to support this motion.

[Privacy, December 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members keep promising us that they will modernize the legislation, except we have been hearing the same thing for seven years.

Bill C-12 has been on the order paper twice since I asked my question, but we have not debated it. Is it truly a priority of this government, or will they continue to say that amendments are coming? Canadians are tired of waiting. They want their information to be protected and these amendments to become law.

Will the government truly move forward with Bill C-12 or will it continue to make promises?

[Privacy, December 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on September 25, I rose in the House to share Canadians' concerns about the protection of their personal information online. I also asked the government what it was going to do about this and whether it would finally update Canadian laws in order to protect Canadians' personal information online. Canadians have cause for concern about the protection of their personal information. The Privacy Commissioner published a report showing that many popular websites that we use every day are leaking personal information, which is very worrisome.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is currently examining these issues and is finding that there are many problems and potential risks. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are stuck in the stone age. They are not modernizing our laws in order to ensure that those laws remain relevant given the existing digital reality and new risks.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act is supposed to be reviewed every five years. Unfortunately, we have still not been able to pass the first revision. Bill C-12 is seven years late, and that is very worrisome. We are also late in dealing with Canada's anti-spam legislation. The regulations have still not been implemented, despite the fact that we have been waiting for years for this to happen.

Meanwhile, things are changing. In the digital age, everything moves very quickly. We must be proactive in order to protect personal information and keep up with the digital age, rather than being left behind. When I asked my question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry said:

“The government introduced Bill C-12, which is an important tool for ensuring a stronger digital economy”.

As I have already pointed out, Bill C-12 is seven years behind. It is already time for another review, which we are supposed to do every five years according to the act. Unfortunately, we are not yet there. The government keeps putting off the review on personal information protection.

While the government is dragging its feet, businesses have no obligation to issue warnings about compromised data. Furthermore, major websites continue to disclose personal information. I repeat: will the government join the 21st century and modernize laws to protect our personal information online?

[November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the Senate does have some good ideas about certain things. However, I am sorry, but senators are not elected. Voting for our representatives is the very foundation of democracy.

I would remind my hon. colleague opposite that three senators—we all know who I am talking about—even said they no longer wanted to be senators and instead wanted to run for a seat in the House in the election. They were defeated. The public rejected them. And what did the Prime Minister do? He reappointed them to the Senate. That is a flagrant example of the partisanship and the lack of democracy that characterize that chamber.

[November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

There are several reasons we want to see this bill move forward and go to committee for further study. For instance, Canada has made certain commitments by ratifying agreements, and it is important that we act accordingly.

It is important to remember that we are seven years behind on this. The agreements were signed in 2005. Thus, we have already waited seven years to amend Canada's laws accordingly. It is important that we take action based on our obligations and what we have promised to do.

Of course, as my colleague pointed out, we take exception to the fact that so many bills are coming from the Senate, which is an undemocratic house.

At one point, the Senate opposed a bill and voted it down, even though it had been democratically passed here in this House, and all the parties had supported it. It was a bill on environmental accountability, a very important and crucial piece of legislation that would have changed all of our positions and policies on the environment. Unfortunately, the other place rejected it.

I regret and condemn that kind of undemocratic activity.

[November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill S-9 at second reading. I would like to say, however, that our position on the Senate, the other chamber, is well known. That chamber has become a place of partisanship and of rewards for friends of the Conservatives, and their family members too, sometimes.

Naturally, it still bothers us to receive bills from the Senate. We disapprove of the fact that it is a completely undemocratic and unelected chamber that wastes a lot of money. At a time when we are seeing cuts everywhere, cuts to services that directly affect my constituents, that chamber is wasting money. I am not reluctant to say it is a waste, because that is what I sincerely believe.

At any rate, we are debating Bill S-9, which is a good bill in principle, and we will study it thoroughly. This bill amends the Nuclear Terrorism Act and creates four new offences in part II of the Criminal Code.

First, this legislation would make it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or devices, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; use or alter nuclear material, radioactive material or a device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act; commit an indictable offence under any act of Parliament, with intent to obtain nuclear material, radioactive material or a device or to obtain access to a nuclear facility; or threaten to commit any of these three offences.

Bill S-9 also amends the Criminal Code in relation to these four new offences, and that is important as well. It also defines certain terms used in the new offences, including “environment”, “nuclear facility”, “nuclear material”, “radioactive material”, and “device”. The bill also amends the definition of “terrorist activity”.

The bill adds a new section to the Criminal Code to ensure that industries that commit or attempt to commit one of these offences while outside Canada can be prosecuted in Canada. It also amends the Criminal Code provisions on electronic surveillance to ensure they apply to these new offences.

The bill amends the Criminal Code so that these four new offences are considered “primary designated offences” for the purpose of DNA warrants and collection.

Finally, the bill amends Canada's rule against double jeopardy so that if an individual has been tried and convicted for the four new offences outside Canada, the rule against double jeopardy will not apply when the foreign trial did not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. In such circumstances, a Canadian court may try this person again for the same offence of which he or she was convicted by a foreign court.

My party and I think it is extremely important to ratify the international conventions and agreements we have signed. This bill is the result of the ratification of agreements signed in 2005, the ICSANT and CPPNM. We ratified these agreements in 2005 but have not taken the next steps, and it is now 2012.

Of course, it is important that we act in a spirit of international co-operation and concern for the world's safety. It is important that we take action and not just make promises. Therefore, we support Bill S-9 at second reading so that it can be sent to committee and studied more thoroughly.

To date, only 56 countries have ratified the agreement and incorporated the measures included in that agreement into their respective laws.

In my opinion, it is important that Canada take the initiative and ensure that its laws comply with the conventions and agreements that it has signed and ratified. In so doing, we may be able to put pressure on countries that have not yet changed their laws to meet the requirements included in the agreements.

I would like to quote Matthew Bunn, associate professor of public policy at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He said:

At the moment, unfortunately, the mechanisms for global governance of nuclear security remain very weak. No global rules specify how secure a nuclear weapon or the material needed to make one should be. No mechanisms are in place to verify that countries are securing these stockpiles responsibly. Fukushima made clear that action is needed to strengthen both the global safety and security regimes because terrorists could do on purpose what a tsunami did by accident.

A central goal leading up to the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit must be to find ways to work together to strengthen the global framework for nuclear security and continue high-level attention on this topic after nuclear security summits stop taking place. Ratifying the conventions that are under consideration now is important, but it is only the beginning.

Matthew Bunn raises an excellent point. The Nuclear Security Summit will be held in 2014, and it is important to adjust Canadian laws in order to meet the commitments that we made in 2005 and be ready for 2014. We will thus be able to say that we did what the international community pledged to do. Now, what is the next step?

However, I would like to point out a few of our concerns about the bill. These concerns were also raised when this bill was examined by the Senate.

The first concern relates to overbreadth. The intent of the Department of Justice was to stay as close as possible to the provisions of the convention. However, some of the new offences in the Criminal Code are broader than the offences set out in the international agreements. We must therefore make sure that the overbreadth of those sections will not result in excessive criminalization and will not be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada does have such a charter. It is important that every act and every bill introduced in the House be obeyed.

The second concern raised during study of the bill in the Senate relates to sentencing. The maximum sentences that may be imposed for one of the four new offences are significant. Three of the four offences are liable to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. However, that meets the requirements in the ICSANT and the CPPNM, under which member nations must make the offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

It should be noted that the bill does not impose a mandatory minimum sentence and that this continues to be a matter of concern. It will be our job to examine that question at greater length when the bill is considered by a committee of the House of Commons.

One of the amendments was proposed by the Senate, and I welcome it because, in my opinion, it is very positive: making a nuclear or radioactive device, which is prohibited by the ICSANT but was not originally prohibited by the proposed amendments to the code. The Liberals therefore put forward an amendment to include this, and I congratulate them for that. I think it is a good amendment. I am glad the bill we are now considering includes that amendment.

I will conclude by saying this. Over time, we have seen various threats to security, and the international community has to respond accordingly.

We responded accordingly after the cold war, after everything that had happened during that era in which nuclear arms were still new. That was the first time we saw this on the international scene. It is important for nations to come together and discuss at greater length what they are going to do to combat present-day threats to security.

I concur with this bill, because it is a step in the right direction.

[November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. I would also like to ask him a question about the fact that this bill comes from the other chamber, the Senate.

Perhaps he could reiterate our position on the Senate and the bill before us here, which comes from the other chamber.

[Petitions, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of the people of the greater Toronto area, who feel that a national public transit strategy is needed.

It is also very much needed in my riding. My situation is similar to my colleague's. My constituents from Terrebonne, Blainville or Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, commute as far as Montreal, so we need a national strategy. We must sit down together to manage this situation. We must look at what can be done and look at what kind of leadership role the federal government can play.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, only 3% of the 61,000 documents are digitized. That does not qualify as modernizing, not to mention that no funding has been made available to digitize the rest. The location of those documents is therefore crucial to the scientific community.

If the minister insists on going ahead with her absurd plan to move the library, she must tell us immediately how much funding she will earmark for the digitization of the documents before closing the library. Will they really be modernizing, or are these empty promises?