Craig Scott

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing us to the debate. We already looked at this issue some time ago when it was Bill S-12. As at that time, and as I will say in my own speech, one of my concerns is how the general regulatory framework and this bill would deal with open or ambulatory incorporation by reference.

I may not have been listening as carefully as I should have been to my hon. colleague, but I am wondering if he could address the question of open incorporation by reference and whether he feels that the collapse of closed and open incorporation by reference by the bill would be a problem and whether we should have very specific rules for open incorporation by reference.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely as my colleague from Churchill said: we have no problem with the underlying principle or motivation behind this bill.

What I was trying to say at the end of my speech is that mandatory minimum sentences do not need to be in this bill. We support the idea of penalties for the offences set out in the bill, but mandatory minimum sentences do not need to be added to achieve the objective at the core of the speech made by the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

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

It was not just one ruling. In fact, there were others before it, and perhaps one or two that also found that the mandatory minimum sentences violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is really a question of proportionality and the fact that the sentence must actually fit the crime. Mandatory minimum sentences do not normally cause problems, in that they are rather weak sentences imposed by the judges. Nonetheless, there are times when the mandatory minimum sentence is really not suited to the crime that the person committed.

That is what the Supreme Court and other courts are essentially concerned about when it comes to constitutionality.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by indicating I will be splitting my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

As with all my other colleagues, it is my pleasure to rise today and have the privilege of being able to speak on a day such as this after the tragic events of yesterday. I have had a chance outside of this chamber to express my appreciation to the Security Services of the House of Commons and Constable Samearn Son, who suffered a wound trying to stop the attacker from entering this honourable place, and especially Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers, who ended the threat.

I would also say that on a day like today after a day like yesterday, given the subject of Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals, that my mind is drawn to a monument not far from where Corporal Cirillo was murdered.

Just a little farther down Elgin Street and to the left is Confederation Park, where the Animals in War monument has been in place since 2012. It is a very poignant monument. It shows a German Shepherd dog from World War I with a cape that contains various items that the war dog was assisting a soldier in carrying. There is a picture taken on the day of dedication showing RCMP Corporal Luc Patenaude and his own police dog, Cujo, standing alongside the war dog monument.

I would like to read the Animals in War plaque, which is highly relevant to the whole idea of sacrifice that we were reminded of yesterday—the theme of sacrifice, and ultimately the fundamental humanity of a relationship with animals that the member for Kootenay—Columbia so eloquently spoke of.

The plaque says the following:

For centuries animals have demonstrated an enduring partnership with humans during times of war. They have served as means of transportation, beasts of burden, messengers, protectors and mascots. Still today, dogs use their unique, sharply tuned instincts to detect mine clusters, and conduct search and rescue operations. We remember the contribution and sacrifice of all animals.

It is a marvellously done monument and it helps remind us of this connection between animals and ourselves. The way we treat animals in our society is also a measure of our own humanity. Sadly, I believe our criminal laws, not to mention provincial laws across this country, are sadly lagging behind other jurisdictions.

I am proud and happy to say that I count an animal literally as a member of my family. That is the way I think of it with respect to my mini-schnauzer. I personally believe that animals' presence in our lives humanizes our existence. We can think of some of the examples from my colleague from Sudbury and the detailed stories from the member for Kootenay—Columbia about the particular importance of animals in the police services, but we can also think of animal therapy in seniors homes, hospitals, and so on, which increasingly is being recognized as part of advanced cutting-edge therapy going back to basics being part of the future.

I was touched by how the member for Kootenay—Columbia spoke. He used the word “murder”. He emphasized that a couple of times in his speech and then in his answers to questions. He wants us to not think of this as just the killing of an animal or the death of an animal, but its murder. We do not use that language unless we are talking about a profound relationship in which partnership, friendship, and even a familial bond is part of how we think about the loss of that animal.

From my perspective, I think the member hit the nail exactly on the head. This is exactly how we should be thinking of animals in the professions he listed: enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals.

We also have to remember that, in certain contexts—war dogs being one example, but police dogs in particular—it is not just that they are partners. If we were honest with ourselves, we would say the form of service they represent is sacrificial. They are deployed in circumstances that can lead to their being more likely to suffer harm, if not be killed, than their partner or handler. Therefore, the idea of something extra being owed to these animals is something I have absolutely no problem with.

However, the understanding behind this bill cannot stop at the gates of these particular animals. If we push further on exactly what is motivating the extra protection for these animals in the circumstances in which they can be hurt or killed, we would find ourselves thinking about animal rights in a very different way, across the board. We would be thinking about cruelty to animals in Canada in a broader frame.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, as Deputy Speaker, that you introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-414, which has now been taken up by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. You tabled that bill on the very day that I was sworn into this House, and it was my distinct pleasure to second that bill.

For the benefit of everyone in the House, I would like to quote the words you said when introducing it. You stated:

The bill would do two basic things. It first recognizes that animals are sentient beings as opposed to a piece of wood or a piece of furniture, which is the way the Criminal Code currently treats them. The other thing that it would do has a very clear consequence. The number of convictions for animal cruelty would increase dramatically under the Criminal Code. We have estimates that only one in a thousand cases of animal cruelty can result in convictions under the Criminal Code, and this would address that issue.

The bill I referred to, which is now being taken up by what is currently Bill C-592, is part of an NDP commitment as a strong advocate for ending all levels of cruelty to animals, including such things as forced breeding. This can only be accomplished by repealing old sections of the Criminal Code dealing with animal cruelty and proposing newer and tougher laws to protect animals. I believe that it cannot be done only on a piecemeal basis. Rather, it has to be done by government legislation to create a proper overhaul. Although this bill is a government bill, it is in the mode of piecemeal legislation. I would very much urge the government to think about the potential for this bill to be the start of something that is more of an overhaul, that looks at the picture from a more general perspective than simply this deserving case of service, police enforcement, and military animals.

With that, I would like to emphasize that the bill has my full support to go to committee. I believe my colleagues have the same view on that. However, I would urge the movers of the bill, my colleagues from Richmond Hill and Kootenay, who have taken the lead on it, to ask whether or not the elements of mandatory minimums and necessary mandatory consequential sentencing are really needed for what they are trying to do. They have the support of this side of the House. The key is to actually criminalize in a way that cannot be avoided, from a prosecution point of view, and to make sure the ability to prosecute in the right circumstances is there. The idea of taking discretionary judgment away from judges when it comes to sentences seems to me to be an entirely different issue from what ultimately was motivating my colleague across the way in his speech. It is simply not necessary for what he is trying to achieve.

The last thing is that this is a bill that, yet again, because it has mandatory minimums, will raise issues around constitutionality. It once again reminds us that we have bills coming before this House for which we have to rely on the competence and good faith of the Minister of Justice to have vetted the bill to make sure it meets the current constitutional standards for sentencing. I can never be convinced that is the case, because we never see the legal opinions.

Once again, this is the third time in two weeks I have asked the government to consider, at committee, introducing the legal opinion that was given to make sure this particular mandatory minimum would not offend the charter.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this motion by the government to have Bill S-4 go to committee before second reading, which is a rare event in the House. This is a procedure that was made possible for the first time in 1994 amendments. I believe it stemmed from the 1982 McGrath committee's report that said that committees should more often be used at the early stages of legislation to make sure that things are caught and that a wide variety of perspectives are taken into account in drafting legislation and, frankly, to make the role of MPs more meaningful than is often the case when a bill is studied only after second reading in committee.

As we know, in committee after second reading, and after hearing any amount of testimony from witnesses that could suggest serious problems with a bill, the amendments are often extremely constrained by the rule that they must fit within the principle of the bill. Quite often that means that the principle is understood by the chair or the legal staff advising the chair as simply the principle of a given provision, and therefore, an attempt to work more broadly than the narrow purpose of a given provision is often ruled out of order.

Beyond that, I have found so far in committees, since arriving in the House, that there seems be a reluctance at the moment, on the part of the advisers to chairs, to understand that bills can often have multiple purposes and not just a single purpose. Therefore, in the end, after second reading, committee work often really is an exercise in frustration, because a lot could be done to perfect a bill that is technically ruled out of order due to the fact that we have to work within the principle of the bill as voted at second reading.

It is great that this bill is going to committee before second reading. It will hopefully allow, in the spirit of what this procedure is all about, a full, frank hearing, from all kinds of witnesses, about the problems I hope the government understands are in this bill. I hope this is also the reason the minister has decided to send it to committee before second reading. There can be true dialogue and engagement among MPs, obviously with the government watching what is going on and giving its input through government MPs, so that this bill is taken apart and rewritten in the way this procedure would allow.

I myself stood in the House to move unanimous consent to have Bill C-23, what New Democrats called the unfair elections act and the government called the fair elections act, referred to committee before second reading, exactly for the reasons I have just given. There were so many obvious problems in the bill. Not sticking to the principle in the bill and working collegially across party lines would have benefited the study of that bill. In retrospect, New Democrats realize how true that was. Although we got serious amendments passed, with pressure from backbench members of the government suggesting changes that helped us in our efforts, that bill would be much better if it had gone to committee before second reading.

There is another procedure that, in the spirit of openness, I am hoping the minister might consider. To date, it has not been the practice of the government to table opinions about the constitutionality or charter compliance of a bill. Given the real concerns that exist with respect to warrantless access to information that is contained in this bill as kind of a compendium bill to Bill C-13, I would ask the minister to please consider, for once, having the Department of Justice table a written opinion on the constitutionality of this. Why does it think that the Spencer judgment coming out of the Supreme Court of Canada does not apply or, if it applies, that the bill is written in a way that justifies it under the charter?

So often in committee there is minimal to no good testimony from the civil service side on why, supposedly, the Minister of Justice has certified that a bill is in compliance with the charter. We know that the standard for the minister doing that is a very minimalist standard.

I will read from the Senate testimony on Bill S-4 from Michael Geist, of the University of Ottawa, to tell the House why having that additional procedure as part of the referral to committee before second reading would be useful. He says:

Unpack the legalese and you find that organizations will be permitted to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. This applies both [to] past breaches or violations as well as potential future violations. Moreover, the disclosure occurs in secret without the knowledge of the affected person (who therefore cannot challenge the disclosure since they are not aware it is happening).

That is an extremely good summary of a core problem with the bill in terms of the fears it raises that it has gone too far. It would purportedly create an updated regime to protect privacy and in the process would potentially ram through new problems with respect to Canadians' privacy.

I would like to now, in my last couple of minutes, go over a few points that I hope come up in committee.

I wish to thank a constituent, Mr. John Wunderlich, an expert in privacy law, who worked with me on the weekend to better understand the bill. These are points that I hope do have discussed.

In paragraph 4(1)(b) of the act, the definition of who this would apply to would move from just employees to employees and applicants for employment. In that context, this leaves hanging the question of how much or how little this would apply to companies whose business is to conduct background checks. The committee should solicit feedback on this. In my view, the background check function in the employment sector is done far too often and too deeply and already constitutes a systemic privacy invasion in the employment sector. Therefore, this extension needs to be looked at.

The next thing is the definition of valid consent. While it is welcome, because it brings clarity, the committee should note whether the current systems asserting consent on the web actually provide meaningful information to web surfers about just how many entities will be given access to either some or all of their personal information. Right now, there is a real risk that so-called valid consent, as outlined in the bill, would actually piggyback on the systematic sharing of information that people have no idea is being shared. The act could become a smokescreen behind which individual profiles were built and shared across businesses.

I have already spoken about the potential for the warrantless invasion of privacy because of the fact that organizations could seek information from others when they are simply investigating breaches of agreement or fraud. We should keep in mind that when they are investigating fraud, it is not just in the criminal context. All of this involves civil questions as well. An example is fraudulent misrepresentation.

The “real risk of significant harm” test for companies in particular to decide whether they are going to inform the commissioner and at another stage inform persons of breaches of privacy is a problematic standard in the sense that it is actually very general, and it is probably too low. There should be a presumption for disclosure to the commissioner, and it should be left up to the commissioner to either determine, or assist the company in determining, whether this is significant enough to let the persons whose information was released know that it happened. At the moment, it is an entirely discretionary system, based on a very vague standard, which may mean that data will be breached without people actually knowing it and being able to take the measures necessary to protect themselves.

Those are only three of the more specific concerns that need to be looked at. There is a lot in the bill.

I have a final comment, and it may be a rather strange one. I am looking at my colleague across the way. The privacy legislation from Alberta should be looked at very closely as a reference point for whether the government has gotten certain things wrong. That province has gotten things right.

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, he is twisting the words. The fact is, if this proposed change is an innocent one, why not make sure that they are fully honest and open about it?

I asked yesterday and I will ask again. Will the minister for democratic reform ensure the full and fair debate on this, or will we yet again see an omnibus budget bill as a way to cloak a reform that has nothing to do with the budget?

[Copyright, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, you are twisting the words of experts like Michael Geist—

[Supporting Non-Partisan Agents of Parliament Act, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to be able rise to say that the previous speaker had persuaded me, but unfortunately he has not, and I will be opposing the bill.

I would like to start with a frame of reference that situates Bill C-520 within the whole question of the democratic functioning of this Parliament. I have four main points before I get to what are the specific problems with the bill in my view.

The first thing is that we cannot forget how central parliamentary officers—we often say parliamentary agents—have become to the functioning of this institution, but the House of Commons in particular. One only has to note the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner as being among the officers to know how incredibly important their roles are.

It also speaks to why the leader of the official opposition, in a bill the Conservatives voted against, would have wanted to elevate the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to that of an officer of Parliament, as well.

Why am I mentioning this? The way in which our system has evolved, the incredible degree of influence, if not direct control, that the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, to an extent ministers have in the way in which this very legislative institution functions makes it all the more important that there are other avenues of accountability than the traditional ones that Parliament, the House of Commons, relied on for centuries.

That is why it is so important that the parliamentary officers have evolved in the way they have. Without the annual report of each of these officers, without the role of the Auditor General, we would be a much poorer institution. I believe most members across the way would agree with that.

However, my concern is that, directly or indirectly—and I honestly fear, despite my respect for my colleague who is sponsoring this, it is more directly than indirectly—this amounts to an attempt to almost intimidate, if not undermine, those institutions. If that at all is either the intent or unintentionally the result, then I think this is a huge problem from a democratic perspective.

The second point is that this is a private member's bill, among so many that we have seen. I am not going to guess whether it is one of the many examples we have seen of private member's bills that are, in effect, government bills. I am going to assume it is a pure private member's bill.

However, the concern is that we have no charter compliance mechanism in the House or in legislation for private member's bills. The only thing that might happen is that the subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee may actually, on occasion, look at the charter issue as being relevant to votability but, frankly, I do not think that happens.

The Minister of Justice's duty to vet, supposedly vet, the compliance of legislation being tabled in the House is limited to government bills and it does not include private member's bills.

Now, my colleague may well have sought advice from the law clerk, or others, about the compatibility with the charter of this legislation. However, the fact is that it is before us, with me at least having serious concerns about whether or not the questions around how it affects freedom of expression, because there is forced expression here, and how it affects discrimination or arbitrary treatment of one sector of public servants versus other sectors of public servants, how whether or not that actually does implicate the charter.

It may well be that, if the case were made that parliamentary officers are very different institutions from government departments and, therefore, their staff must somehow be subject to this new regime and others must not, if that case were really well made, then it might be saveable under section 1.

The fact is that I have not seen that analysis and I do not think it was even looked at in any serious way, if at all, by the committee.

The third thing is, unfortunately, I think this reveals, yet again, the general weakness of our legislative process when it comes to the work of committees, especially, in majority government situations.

I believe the bill is fact challenged. There has been no sign at all of a problem of partisanship of the staff, let alone of the parliamentary officers. Therefore, there is this issue of a solution in search of a problem.

If I am not mistaken, and I can be corrected on this, the committee did not hear from a single witness to support the bill.

Basically what we heard was all kinds of evidence, external and in the committee, about why this was unnecessary and potentially harmful. The harm includes confusion with existing regimes, and the broader harm of whether this in fact would act as a form of intimidation of either the agents of Parliament themselves or their staff.

Therefore, in my view the committee ultimately did not do its job, because, at a minimum, it should not be bringing this bill back unless there are very clear reasons that it should support it. Apart from collegiality with the sponsor, which I can understand as one motivation, there almost seems to be no reason the committee should not have basically killed the bill.

The fourth and final point is the democratic functioning point. I think I was a bit generous earlier and I will stay that way: I am going to assume that this bill is the pure emanation of the priorities of my colleague.

Nonetheless, private member's bills have often been used as extensions of the government's agenda ever since I arrived almost three years ago. I believe this to be an abuse, at least to the extent that they are not then subject to the kinds of scrutiny and caveats that government bills are. They get to committee in a very short period—two hours—and they are not subject to charter review, as I already suggested.

I still remember almost being floored two weeks ago when a Conservative member of Parliament whose private member's bill was before us stood up and had as his very first words something of the following sort: “When I first saw this bill, I didn't think I liked it.” However, gradually he read the bill and he began to decide that he could support it.

It was the first clear admission I have ever seen in the House of a member saying he had been given a bill.

I am not saying at all that this is the case here, but I wanted to put this in the context of the frailties of our system when it comes to private members' bills.

Why can I not support the bill? My colleague has just adequately summarized three main points.

First, it is a problem in search of a solution. There has never been a proven or recorded incident of a conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest involving partisanship. No evidence whatsoever was brought forward in committee.

Second, it duplicates already-existing provisions that were adequately outlined earlier by my colleague, especially in part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act and relevant codes of conduct for at least two of the parliamentary officers' staff. At minimum, there is going to be this overlap-duplication-confusion issue with respect to how the two regimes apply. There is no mechanism in the bill for resolving that.

Even if I left it at an untidy piece of legislation, that would be a reason to vote against it, but the fact of the matter is that it is redundant, because the question of the admissibility of civil servants engaging in political activity is already covered in the rules of employment for those public servants. What it really amounts to is singling out with a very heavy-handed regime public servants of a certain kind: those who work for officers of Parliament.

This brings me back to my concern, the third problem with the bill, which is that there has been no analysis of charter rights and whether this could be upheld under section 1. The only way it could be upheld is if they made a really strong case that these civil servants are in a position that is different from that of all other civil servants, and I do not think we have come close to seeing that argument.

The fourth point is that whether it is intended this way or not by my colleague, it is turned into a Conservative talking point tool, in order not actually to seriously pursue transparency but to actually attack or undermine the offices of the agents of Parliament because of the central premise that there is a problem with partisanship. Why would there be a need for this bill unless there was a problem of partisanship?

I do believe that some of my colleagues on the other side believe there is a problem. They certainly did not prove it.

In that optic, despite a fairly fierce resistance from the NDP in committee and two amendments, this bill is not worthy of our support despite those amendments.

[Copyright, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as we have now heard, the Conservatives have a plan to change copyright rules in order to create an advantage for themselves in the next election.

I guess the unfair elections act was not enough. Talk about repeat offenders; it seems Conservatives are once again trying to tilt the playing field in their own favour.

My question is for the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, not the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.

Will he ensure that the amendment comes before the House for proper study or will he have it stuffed into yet another omnibus budget bill?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I believe members will remember that, during the 30-day period of the initial deployment, our concern was lack of information and lack of forthcoming answers. We never once said that the advising role of special forces was somehow itself a problem. It was not something we could endorse with a complete lack of information. The member should keep that in mind.

The other thing is, when it says “including military support through the channelling of weapons,” I personally believe that, once we start helping in a humanitarian operation, we are implicated on the ground. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, has said that we are implicated on the ground further and further into areas that are closer to ISIS and we may well have to make a choice about how we protect the people we help in a humanitarian fashion. That is another example I would give, apart from helping with weapons.