With regard to the Canadian Army, what bonuses were paid to various members of Canadian Forces staff from 2008 to 2012, broken down by (i) year, (ii) recipient?
House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.
Questions on the Order Paper November 2nd, 2012
With regard to the Canadian Army, what bonuses were paid to various members of Canadian Forces staff from 2008 to 2012, broken down by (i) year, (ii) recipient?
Employment Insurance October 31st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, in my riding, workers in forestry, farming, tourism and many other industries are worried about the changes to EI and the negative impact of the working while on claim pilot project.
In La Sarre, the head of a forestry company told us that a number of workers were already preparing to change fields if the reform was implemented. It will become too difficult to earn a living in forestry with the new reform.
In Amos, the head of an animal shelter is wondering whether he will be able to find qualified guides for future seasons. A bus company in the region is wondering whether it will be able to find part-time drivers during off-peak times.
And in the agricultural sector, farmers are worried that the workers they have trained will find more stable jobs elsewhere come spring.
All of these businesses and workers will be directly affected by this reform. The minister is jeopardizing a region's economy, and in doing so is proving her incompetence.
National Defence October 30th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, after months of doing nothing, the Conservatives have hired an independent firm to redo the AG's work. KPMG is already studying the costs, an independent firm must now study the process, and the fabled PWGSC National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is studying other options, just as a special defence committee is doing.
Given all of those studies, can someone finally tell us, apart from the F-35, what other aircraft are being considered?
Criminal Code October 25th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials). This bill focuses particularly on mischief relating to commemorative monuments to honour our veterans. It was proposed and introduced by the Conservative member for Dufferin—Caledon. Its purpose is to ensure that the memory of Canadian soldiers who fell in the wars and missions in which Canada has participated over the decades and centuries is respected.
I would first like to say, of course, that I am proud of Canada's historical involvement in the defence of peace and liberty. I am also very proud of the men and women in uniform who serve Canada today and those who have served our country in the past. I would also like to point out that it will soon be Veterans' Week, when we will all have the opportunity to think about and show our respect for our fallen soldiers and for those who were lucky enough to come back. I am convinced that everyone agrees on that.
I would like to come back to the bill itself. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to add a provision about mischief relating to memorials honouring our veterans. The Criminal Code already has penalties for mischief in general and mischief with respect to property such as a memorial. I quote:
Every one who commits mischief in relation to property...
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
There are already provisions in the Criminal Code that a judge can apply. These provisions refer to mischief in general, but include memorials to our veterans.
Section 430 of the Criminal Code provides for more severe penalties for mischief relating to religious property, if the commission of the mischief is motivated by hate or racism. This also applies to cultural property. In addition, anyone who commits mischief that causes danger to the life of a person is liable to life imprisonment.
Bill C-217 would amend section 430 of the Criminal Code on mischief. It would establish a fine of not less than $1,000 for a first offence, a sentence of not less than 14 days for a second offence, and imprisonment for not less than 30 days for each subsequent offence, when the mischief is committed in relation to a war memorial.
As I stated, the current provisions of section 430 of the Criminal Code already deal with such mischief as destruction of or damage to property. In general, there is enough latitude in the penalties to impose a penalty that is appropriate to the situation. Furthermore, the bill provides for minimum sentences for those found guilty of mischief relating to a war memorial. We do not agree with minimum sentences, because they eliminate any latitude the judge may have to determine the appropriate sentence based on his or her own judgment, and they preclude an assessment of the situation and the reason for the mischief.
When there is mischief against a war memorial, it is important to determine whether the deed was done intentionally and allow the judge the latitude to rule accordingly. It is important to know whether a person committed mischief in the knowledge that it was a war memorial or not. That is an important distinction to make. To make an informed judgment, one must be aware of the intentions underlying people's actions.
The member for Dufferin—Caledon introduced this bill to encourage the people of Canada to pay more respect to our veterans. That is the intended goal of this bill.
First of all, I do not think that Canadians lack respect for their fellow citizens who served or are currently serving in the Canadian Forces, and even more so for those who did not return. In my riding, when I was still a serving member of the Forces, what I saw was the very opposite, such as people going to pay tribute to veterans on Remembrance Day. These traditions may be in decline in some countries, but that is not the case in Canada. Secondly, there are much more concrete and effective ways of paying tribute to veterans. I hope that my colleagues will agree, because everyone should support these principles.
Another thing needs to be underscored. Of the many penalties for people who commit offences against war memorials, there is not one that requires the offender to understand what it means to be a veteran. No one who has committed mischief will be required to work as a volunteer at a Legion, for example, to give them an understanding of the role played by these veterans. They will not be required to understand the work veterans have done or the services they have rendered to our country.
The purpose of this bill is to encourage people to pay more respect to veterans, but this cannot be achieved through prison sentences or fines. This is not a good way to get people to think about veterans, to understand what they have done or what kind of people they are. The bill does not achieve the desired goal, which is to get people to show more interest in veterans.
There is something that disturbs me in this bill, and that is the way monuments are categorized. As I said earlier, I have enormous respect for veterans. In fact, I have served in the Canadian Forces, so theoretically, I am a veteran myself. Under the bill, vandalizing a war memorial is a more serious act of mischief than vandalizing a monument in honour of women or one paying tribute to the first nations. I do not think we are moving in the right direction when we classify monuments this way and treat mischief in relation to one monument as more serious than mischief in relation to another and accordingly deserving of a harsher sentence.
The right thing to do is to let judges know that Parliament believes that offences committed in relation to a war memorial are truly a shame, and that it hopes they will use the latitude the Criminal Code gives them at present, with respect to offences of mischief, to make the punishment fit the crime.
That is a much more rational approach than categorizing monuments and imposing sentences that are not really rational, because in every case the intent behind the act must be understood.
Was the person simply intoxicated, for example? In such cases, they may not even have realized what the situation was; they may not have been capable of distinguishing between a tree, for example, and a war memorial. I do not think such a case has the same impact as a case where someone intentionally destroys a war memorial because they are against the armed forces. We really have to be able to grasp the distinction and see the intent behind the acts.
Under the Criminal Code, at present, judges have complete latitude. I believe that judges are very intelligent people and are capable of seeing the intent behind the acts rationally and with discernment. I will therefore be opposing this bill.
National Defence October 25th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the secretariat.
The fourth measure set out in the seven-measure plan clearly indicates that “[t]he Department of National Defence will continue to evaluate options to sustain a Canadian Forces fighter capability....” So, clearly, the Department of National Defence has the responsibility to examine other options.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell us the status of his department's evaluation and what fighter jets, other than the F-35, are currently being examined?
National Defence October 25th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Public Works said that no money would be spent “before the secretariat does all of the work necessary to independently verify the costs and the options available to replace our aging fleet of CF-18s.”
My question is about the available options mentioned by the minister. What are they exactly? Can she name a single fighter jet other than the F-35?
National Defence October 24th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, in response to the Auditor General's criticisms of the untendered purchase of F-35s, Public Works and Government Services Canada threw together another non-transparent process. Meanwhile, the Department of National Defence has just set up a special committee to examine other options after the Chief of the Air Staff said that National Defence was not looking at any options other than the F-35s. Both the Department of National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada are looking at other options.
Now, which other fighter jets are they considering?
National Defence October 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are no better at managing troops than they are at managing equipment. Six months after the troubling report from the Auditor General on the F-35s, the Conservatives still have not said whether they are examining any other options.
Yesterday, just before he was contradicted by an employee, the Chief of the Air Staff said that National Defence was not looking at any options other than the F-35s.
The question is simple: are the Conservatives seriously examining other options, and if so, since when?
National Defence October 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, supporting our troops should not just be about making the headlines. When the department found out that a master corporal was suffering from PTSD, it tried to make him to leave the Canadian Forces just two months before he was eligible to receive his pension. He is now being asked to repay $422.97 for two days of work that he missed. What is even worse is that the department is threatening to take him to court if he does not pay within three weeks.
This is an appalling way to treat one of our soldiers. Is this really how the Conservatives support our troops?
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on the specific issue of the summary trial system reform.
Having served in the armed forces, I think some people in the military do not grasp the complexity of the military justice system. For example, a 17 or 18-year-old can be summarily tried for a relatively minor offence, not fully understanding what is happening. Summary trials are very impressive. Everyone moves very quickly. You are escorted in front of the commander. It is all very impressive.
Does the member think young soldiers understand the impact summary trials can have on their post-military career?