Christine Moore

[National Defence, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the number of soldiers involved or under which flag they are fighting, the fact is that, in 2012, Canadian soldiers are still involved in combat operations in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the Conservatives announced that such operations would end in 2011. By so doing, the Conservatives are violating their own motion, and that is a political decision.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

This bill is one of a series of anti-terrorism acts that started in 2001 following the September 11 attacks in the United States.

Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, aims to reintroduce anti-terrorism measures into our legal system. Those measures have been controversial since they were introduced in 2001.

In my opinion, those measures were introduced in 2001 because everyone was panicking. Everyone considers September 11, 2001, to be a turning point. We are all aware that everyone panicked and that we did not really know how to react to the attacks.

If I asked, every member of the House would be able to tell me where they were and what they were doing when the attacks took place.

For my part, on September 11, 2001, I was 17 years old and starting my college-level nursing studies; I was in my psychology class, and the professor entered the room to announce that there had been attacks in the United States and that a plane had flown into the twin towers.

One of my colleagues, somewhat in a panic, said, “My mother is in New York right now.” Everyone panicked. We all remember that day; we can all say what we were doing when we heard the news.

When all this happened, I was in my first year as a student in Sherbrooke, which is closer to the U.S. border further south, and my father, quite a sensible, brave man—I am really proud of him—called me to say that if I could return to Abitibi if I wanted. He understood that I might feel safer further north. A man like my father, whom I fully respect and who is really brave, was concerned and even in a bit of a panic knowing that I was far away. Everyone panicked.

Nobody knew what was going on, and laws were passed quickly because something had to be done. Elected representatives panicked, and so did the people. Something had to be done immediately. The main anti-terrorism acts passed after September 11, 2001, stem from that.

The text of the bill before us would amend the Criminal Code. It adds to and amends the list of terrorist activities, increases the penalties provided, particularly for harbouring a person who has committed a terrorism-related offence, and amends the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

It is true that terrorism in many forms is a threat to our society, and we must address it. However, it is always a good idea, when discussing crime bills, to consider what constitutes the hard line and what is the intelligent and effective line because the two may be synonymous at times and not at others. Consequently, we must take the time to consider exactly what we want, and I believe we must always aim for the intelligent and effective line.

These days, the opponents of a democratic regime are less and less likely the conventional forces they previously were; they are much more frequently rebel groups or terrorists, who obey no rules or international conventions, no treaties or rules for parties at war.

However, if our opponents do not abide by those rules, is it not appropriate for us to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to abandon those rules in order to guarantee public safety? Sometimes we have to take the time to think and ask ourselves whether we are not selling our soul to the devil by accepting things that go too far for the sake of public safety.

So we must be very cautious when we talk about these things. For example, should we endanger the human rights and individual freedoms that are truly dear to our country, to our democracy, and for which people have fought, for which Canadian forces have fought several wars? Should we set aside the progress we have made? The answer is no.

Why? The Combating Terrorism Act raises this question: are we discharging our public safety obligations? Anti-terrorism measures have previously been taken, and all those provisions remain in effect today, with the exception of those respecting investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. A sunset clause, which expired in 2007, was put in place with respect to those provisions because they were viewed as a short-term solution to an emergency and because concerns had been expressed at the time. So it is somewhat as I was saying earlier: following the events of September 11, 2001, panic set in. We took measures, without knowing whether they should be maintained, in response, as it were, to the climate of panic that had set in.

Before they were eliminated, these measures were never useful. Before 2007 they were never necessary. They were used only one time, and it was not a success. But now the government wants to reinstate these same measures, which were never used in a situation that was considered to be an emergency situation at the time.

In more recent cases, it was not necessary to use these specific measures. The existing provisions in the Criminal Code were more than sufficient. We are in the process of bringing these individuals to justice, under the provisions and conditions that already exist in our Criminal Code. In 2007, when these measures came to an end, the House rejected the resolution to extend these provisions.

Our desire to be seen as doing something about law and order is making us lose sight of the notion of justice. Our system must not become focused on law and order instead of justice.

If we look at the application of our laws, we can see that the current provisions are already sufficient. Furthermore, the committees responsible for examining this issue heard the testimony of a number of stakeholders who said that existing Canadian laws were enough. For example, during the 2011 study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on the old Bill C-17—which was the earlier version of Bill S-7—Denis Barrette, the spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group; Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations; Ziyaad Mia, the chair of the Advocacy and Research Committee of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association; and James Kafieh, the legal counsel for the Canadian Islamic Congress, spoke out against this bill. They said it was unnecessary and violated a number of civil liberties and human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I will share more of what these people said when we continue our study of Bill S-7 and you give me 10 more minutes.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for increased penalties for those who harbour persons carrying on terrorist activities in this country, but are the factors that have led those people to support terrorists taken into account? Is the fact that certain persons are threatened and somewhat compelled to do so considered? For example, a family may be threatened in order to compel it to harbour such individuals or to remain silent. Does this bill draw a distinction based on the reasons that lead individuals to support terrorists?

[Canada Elections Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (contestation of election and punishment). The purpose of this bill, introduced by the hon. member for Beauséjour, is to changes the rules for contesting an election and the fines in cases of electoral fraud.

Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have seen many debates and many issues raised in this House about the last election. It is high time that we took a more serious look at addressing the rules for contesting an election.

The proposed changes in this bill will significantly increase the fines for certain offences under the Canada Elections Act. The fine will increase from $2,000 to $20,000 on summary conviction for a contested election, and from $5,000 to $50,000 on conviction on indictment.

It is perfectly appropriate to wonder what type of offence this might cover. It covers delaying or obstructing the electoral process; offering or accepting a bribe; inciting or compelling a person to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate by using duress, intimidation, pretence or contrivance; and exceeding or circumventing election advertising expense limits. These are examples of offences that can be punishable under the legislation. These offences might involve candidates, party leaders or the political parties in general.

Another major change this bill proposes is that it will give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to contest an election. Currently, only a candidate for election or a constituent in a particular riding is authorized to contest the results of an election.

This bill gives the Chief Electoral Officer the power to investigate an election or alleged fraud during an election if he believes it is necessary. It is important to understand that the Chief Electoral Officer is often one of the only people who has the complete picture of what happened in a riding. It is unlikely that an individual would file a complaint about the election when he really is not aware, for example, that a thousand people had the same experience. It would be difficult for him to contest the election if he was not aware of all the other problem cases that arose during the same election.

Therefore, I believe that it makes sense to allow investigations to be carried out. Our democratic system is truly precious, and authorizing more frequent investigations of election fraud is a good thing. It is also important to remember that these investigations will take place if there are true concerns. The Chief Electoral Office will only launch an investigation if he has good cause and is truly convinced that there is a problem. Giving him the authority to conduct investigations does not mean that there will be an unlimited number of them. It will simply make it possible to hold investigations in specific situations.

It is also important to remember the context in which the bill was introduced. In recent years, there have been allegations of fraud, intimidation and fraudulent calls during the last federal election. There has been talk of bribes, falsification of voter lists and false information given out in order to prevent voters from voting. We need only think of Pierre Poutine and his 7,000 electronic calls on the day of the election. There were thousands of complaints from all over Canada during the last federal election.

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in March, the Chief Electoral Officer said:

In that context, concerns have also been raised regarding the administration of the vote in certain electoral districts. This includes allegations of unusual numbers of polling day registrations, people registering improperly and voting by non-citizens. These are very serious matters that strike at the integrity of our democratic process. If they are not addressed and responded to, they risk undermining an essential ingredient of a healthy democracy—namely, the trust that electors have in the electoral process.

He is right. Election fraud jeopardizes our democratic system and the integrity of our democracy.

At the time, nearly 40,000 people had contacted the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer to express their concerns about this scandal. He was the only one who knew about the existence of all the other people. A member of the public cannot know that 39,999 other people called the Chief Electoral Officer to complain. This issue is extremely important and must be taken seriously. We cannot allow our democracy to be jeopardized by partisan games.

I am not sure yet if this bill is the best way to prevent these kinds of scandalous practices in the future, or at least to dispel the doubt people have about the democratic process. I think we must examine it more carefully in committee. That is a start. That will enable us to move forward. It must be studied in committee so that we can make any adjustments that are needed. This is our democracy, our democratic system. The country we represent will reap the benefits.

[National Defence, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if there were no negative consequences for mental health care, the Surgeon General would not have sounded the alarm.

I hope they are not going to attack the Surgeon General, who called his superiors to ask them to reverse the Conservative decision.

Having served as a medical technician in the Canadian Forces, I know the importance of quality mental care for the troops. Why did the Conservatives go down this road of reckless cuts? Have they no shame? Why go after the delivery of health care to Canadian soldiers?

[National Defence, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the health of Canadians and the health of our troops, we cannot take any chances. I was a medical technician in the armed forces. I know the importance of health care for our troops. I was a health care provider. In matters of military health, the Surgeon General is the final authority. A number of emails obtained under the Access to Information Act show that the Surgeon General was so concerned about cuts in mental health services that he sounded the alarm.

Why are the Conservatives not listening to the recommendations of the Surgeon General for the Canadian Forces?

[National Defence, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command has lost some top secret equipment valued at somewhere between $8 million and $10 million.

This equipment is so secret that the department has not even disclosed what kind of equipment it is. We know that the special forces are experts in the art of disappearing, but when the government lets equipment disappear, that is another matter.

How could the Conservatives fail to do something about the disappearance of such important and costly equipment?

[National Defence, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 file is not the only one showcasing the Conservatives' incompetence.

The National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman has issued a second report on the delivery of care for Canadian Forces members suffering from operational stress injuries.

The report points to a chronic lack of care available to affected military personnel. Instead of acting on the ombudsman's recommendations, the Minister of National Defence is questioning his mandate.

Why is the government playing political games at the expense of military personnel with post-traumatic stress disorder?

[National Defence, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives allegedly spent over $700,000 to hire a public relations firm to help them avoid answering questions about the F-35s.

For $700,000, National Defence responds “no comment”, Public Works and Government Services responds “no comment”, and the new Chief of Defence Staff responds “ no comment”.

Why spend $700,000 if they can do no better than “no comment”?

[Motions in amendment, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (kidnapping of young person), introduced by the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

We are all outraged and concerned when we hear that a child or young person has been kidnapped, or is the victim of any kind of crime. In the past, we have all supported harsher sentences for sexual assault.

I would like to point out that this bill amends the Criminal Code. As we all know, the Criminal Code contains sections dealing with all manner of crimes, sentences, penalties and procedures. This bill amends subsection 279(1) of the Criminal Code, which deals with kidnapping, including the transport, confinement, or imprisonment of a person without their consent.

The Criminal Code provides for different sentences and penalties depending on the type of kidnapping and the circumstances.

Paragraph 279(1.1)(a) provides for a minimum sentence of five years in the case of a first offence, or seven years in the case of a subsequent offence, if a restricted or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence, or if a firearm is used and the offence is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization.

Paragraph 279(1.1)(a)(i) sets out a minimum sentence of four years in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence.

Finally, under paragraph 279.(1.1)(b), there is no mandatory minimum in any other case.

In all cases, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, which is the most severe punishment in Canada. There is no harsher sentence. At present, judges can impose the harshest sentence on the perpetrators of such crimes, if warranted by the circumstances.

The bill would add, under subsection 279(1), a specific provision regarding kidnapping of a young person. It provides for a minimum punishment of five years for the kidnapping of a young person under 16 years of age.

The committee that studied this bill suggested adding to this provision that there would be no minimum penalty if the individual is the father, mother or legal guardian. We can obviously assume that this would include any person acting in that capacity. For example, we can assume that a judge could interpret that grandparents who committed this offence because they thought that the child's safety was at risk could be assessed in light of this amendment.

The idea behind this bill is to keep our children safe and to ensure that the guilty are punished. I listened to the debates and some concerns about the provisions of this bill. We must ensure that Bill C-299 will make it possible to achieve the desired objective.

In the cases we are talking about today, the Criminal Code already provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. As a result, in kidnapping cases, the courts have the latitude to imprison someone for life if they deem it appropriate. This is rarely done, but the possibility is there. It is the same thing in cases of kidnapping aggravated by sexual assault or murder: judges have the latitude they need to imprison people for life and to declare them dangerous offenders. They have all the latitude they need to ensure that criminals receive the punishment they deserve, which may be life imprisonment.

I would like to point out that in reality, there are few cases of straight kidnapping and that other offences are usually added to the charges. The other elements are always aggravating factors that judges take into account to make a ruling and decide on the punishment.

Jurisprudence varies regarding punishments, but in general, the penalties imposed in kidnapping cases are rarely shorter than eight years. As I said earlier, in some cases, the maximum penalty is possible.

Obviously, not having a minimum sentence for kidnapping of minors does not mean the justice system is lenient. Currently, sentences are harsher than the minimum sentence set out in this bill.

Furthermore, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code already states that when a minor—a person under the age of 18—is the victim of a crime, that is to be considered an aggravating circumstance. The Criminal Code already recognizes that crimes against minors are different. In light of these provisions, I truly think that the Criminal Code offers enough latitude to punish kidnappers of children harshly.

A review of average sentences imposed in such cases shows that they are typically longer than eight years, certainly longer than the five years in this bill. In general, whether the victim is a child or an adult, a sentence of 12 to 14 years or more is not unusual, particularly if the crime was premeditated or if there was a ransom demand or some other aggravating factor.

In none of the very serious and appalling cases that spring to mind when we are talking about kidnapping of children would the five-year minimum sentence contemplated in this bill ever be applied because sentences are typically much longer anyway.

When my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia says that “Child kidnappers are characteristically habitual offenders and carry out their assaults in a highly stereotypical modus operandi,” he is talking about criminals for whom a five-year minimum sentence would not change anything because they would typically be sentenced to much more than five years in jail. For example, premeditation is an aggravating factor that gives the judge the latitude to impose a harsher sentence.

As I said before, this bill would change nothing when it comes to sickening kidnappings that involve rape or murder, because these crimes are punished by much more than five years in jail. Those found guilty can be sentenced to life. The five-year minimum sentences would only come into play in cases with attenuating circumstances.

A five-year minimum sentence will do nothing more than curb judicial discretion in complex cases with many factors to consider, such as cases where the guilty party has diminished mental or intellectual abilities.

Another factor that must be taken into account in this debate is, once again, whether Bill C-299 will really achieve the desired goal.

According to the member, another goal of the bill is to deter people from committing this crime and send them a message. This presents a problem. As for the deterrent effect of a five-year sentence, I am not convinced that this achieves the desired goal; in fact, it could have the opposite effect. When a minimum sentence is imposed for a given offence, the individual might believe that if they show mercy, if they do not hurt the child and let the child go, maybe the judge will not be too harsh. However, if that individual knows they are automatically going to have a mandatory minimum, there is a danger that that individual might decide to hurt the child. That person might think that there is no chance that anyone will show them mercy, even if that person had a change of heart and realized they made a mistake, if they hear the message that the parents are worried and if they release the child. Thus, there is a risk that this could have the opposite effect on criminals.

I would like to conclude on a final point that relates to the severity of the sentences that are usually imposed, which I mentioned earlier. I would like to quote some evidence from committee to explain my position.

In his testimony, Justice Major stated the following:

It's interesting to look at the range of sentences for kidnapping...where there's no minimum. The sentences, nonetheless, have been severe...The courts, to my knowledge, have always treated commercial kidnapping as a very serious offence, and in my experience the sentences have been 10 years and 15 years...I think you'd have to look hard to find a case where a serious kidnapper was sentenced to less than that.

Thus, I do not believe that this bill will really change anything. On the contrary, it could even have unwanted negative consequences, and this could be very bad for children.