Dany Morin

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will make my answer brief.

The NDP supports this measure. My Liberal colleague seems to think that we are good buddies with the Conservatives. We do respect each other as colleagues. The NDP is a very reasonable party.

When the Conservative government introduces bad bills, we propose amendments or we vote against the bill if amendments are not necessary. We would do the same thing if a Liberal government were in power. A New Democratic government would work with members of the opposition; that sets us apart from the other parties. We would do so in the interest of all Canadians.

My Liberal colleague said that he had hoped the government would propose amendments in good faith. I would like to remind him that, as a committee member, his role is to propose amendments, argue in their favour, and get them passed. The NDP proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments. The Conservatives proposed two and the Liberals did not propose any. This shows just how—

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague for his kind and truly heartwarming compliments.

As I mentioned, I represent members of the Canadian Armed Forces at the Bagotville military base, so I care about the men and women working there for Canadians across the country.

The member asked several questions. I will begin by answering the one about the Liberals' interest in military justice reform. The Liberal Party of Canada's contribution to the debate was perfectly clear in committee: its members did not propose a single amendment. Their level of involvement in the committee showed that they do not really care about this issue, no matter what they are willing to say when the national media spotlight is on them.

We will finally get to vote on this issue, and I am pleased to speak as the representative of the Bagotville military base because this issue is important to me.

I believe that every member of the House of Commons has the right to express his or her point of view on this issue. I can assure the member that although some NDP members still wish to speak, my party and I will vote in favour of this bill.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard on her excellent speech and her handling of the members' questions. She explained quite nicely how important it is to the NDP to bring forward strong legislation, especially since the Conservative government tends to propose such flawed legislation, as they did with Bill C-15.

Canadians can rest assured that the NDP will be here every step along the way to improve these bills and to ensure that we can live in a country with laws that properly reflect the values of Canadians. I would therefore like to reiterate what my hon. colleague already mentioned—that the NDP will be supporting this bill at third reading.

On March 21, 2013, I spoke on this issue and expressed my concerns in that regard. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I represent many members of the Royal Canadian Air Force, since the Bagotville military base, which I love, is located in my riding. I care deeply about the well-being of these military personnel, so I was outraged that such simple and minor breaches of the Code of Service Discipline could lead to a criminal record, which would in turn have truly negative repercussions on their lives, both through their years of active service and afterwards.

In committee, the NDP fought to defend those military personnel, 95% of whom would have paid the price for that imperfection in Bill C-15. After the NDP proposed amendments, the government finally came to its senses and changes were made to Bill C-15. That is why will be voting in favour of the bill.

On October 7, 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-15 would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The bill would provide for greater flexibility during the sentencing process and it would provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. It would modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person. It would also modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allows an accused person to waive the limitation periods. It sets out the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s duties and functions and would make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

Generally speaking, Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, the government should have done more. Bill C-15 also gives new powers to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff regarding military police investigations, which we consider to be a step backward.

Bill C-15 suffers from the Conservatives' slow-footed response to the LeSage report, which was not incorporated in the bill, along with the lack of wall-to-wall review of the sections of the National Defence Act pertaining to military justice. We are letting our soldiers down with this unnecessarily slow pace of change. I encourage the Conservative government to adjust its attitude about amending laws that affect the military.

We want to reassure Canadians that the NDP will continue to lay the groundwork for a larger review of the need for the modernization and civilianization of the military legal system and the implementation of greater civilian oversight. We will make sure that that happens whether we form the official opposition or the government. I feel it is in the interest of all Canadians and particularly Canadian military personnel.

As I mentioned earlier, as a result of the NDP victory after a long and hard-fought battle for the amendment to clause 75 on criminal records—an issue on which our party has strongly and publicly expressed its view—my party is now ready to support the improvements to the military justice system set out in the bill, despite the fact that the bill has no teeth and the reform is not being implemented quickly enough.

Once in power, we are determined to continue to move forward with the reforms and to reverse the regressive measure providing new powers to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff with respect to military police investigations.

Clearly, Canadians will understand that we have to wait until 2015 to do so. However, we are still going to hound the Conservative government for the next two years.

As I said, the NDP victory forced the government to make some amendments so that almost 95% of disciplinary offences would no longer result in criminal records. We will support Bill C-15. The NDP is proud to vote for a significant, tangible result for the members of the Canadian Forces, a result that we fought hard for and successfully managed to have included in the legislation.

Our efforts have established one more important reform in building a fairer military justice system.

People may not be aware that, when the bill was studied in committee, the NDP did what a real party must do: it proposed amendments in order to improve the bill and eliminate its flaws. In committee, the NDP proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments, while the Liberals proposed none. That shows that the NDP is the party that cares about improving Conservative bills, especially those that affect our Canadian Forces.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces must uphold standards of discipline that are among the most rigorous. In return, they deserve a justice system with comparable standards. The NDP will support the improvements proposed by Bill C-15, because it is a step in the right direction. However, the government should have done more, as has already been mentioned.

The NDP also regrets that the Conservative government is determined to adopt a piecemeal approach. Changing the military justice system requires an independent review of the entire National Defence Act, which governs the military justice system. The NDP is also asking the government to provide a legislative response to the LeSage report within one year because it has yet to do so. Members of our Canadian Armed Forces deserve no less.

I will now speak in more detail about Bill C-15. This bill is similar to Bill C-41, which came out of a committee in the previous Parliament. However, important amendments made at committee stage in the last Parliament are missing from Bill C-15.

One of the main omissions is the lack of any provision to expand the list of offences that do not result in a criminal record. The NDP, in the House and in committee, asked for changes and proposed amendments in order to reduce the impact of disciplinary sentences and ensure they do not give rise to a criminal record, and also to raise the issue of the lack of a full charter of rights. In committee, the NDP fought to improve the bill and to reform the military justice system in a more meaningful way.

As I already mentioned, through our efforts, the list of offences that will not result in a criminal record was expanded. We also presented a series of amendments to improve the bill, thereby showing our commitment to truly reforming the system. I will talk about five of those amendments.

We asked that the Chief of the Defence Staff be granted the financial authority to compensate members of the Canadian Armed Forces as part of a grievance resolution process, in direct response to Justice Lamer's recommendation. We also proposed changes to the composition of the grievance resolution committee to include 60% civilian membership and not to include active members of the Canadian Forces, which would make the committee more independent. We also proposed a provision that would guarantee that a person convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. We also wanted to guarantee the independence of the police by abolishing subsections 18.5(3) to 18.5(5), in clause 4 of the bill to prevent the Chief of the Defence Staff from issuing specific instructions on an investigation to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. Finally, I believe that it is important to make the House aware of the final recommendation we made, which involved precisions regarding the letter of the law, as recommended by Justice LeSage, to indicate that a charge must be laid within a year after the offence was committed.

Mr. Speaker, since my time is quickly running out, I am going to stop there. Canadians can take comfort in the fact that the NDP is there to ensure that the Conservatives' bills are improved in committee and in the House of Commons. We will continue to fight for the men and women who protect our country.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about partisanship in the House of Commons. Naturally, the House is a very partisan place. It is common for the government to accuse the opposition of a thousand and one things, and vice versa. However, when Canadian newspapers point out that what Parliament or the Conservative government is doing is partisan, that is appalling.

The Conservatives accuse the NDP of not taking terrorism seriously, even though that is not true. However, when a newspaper as illustrious as The Globe and Mail says the same thing as the NDP, it means that the government must change its tune and stop using the House of Commons as a soapbox for spreading such rubbish for partisan purposes. It is unbecoming.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, the Conservative government is putting this bill on the front burner in order to make tomorrow's headlines. It wants the editorials to say just how proactive the Conservative government is being on the issue of terrorism, and that it is protecting Canadians' way of life and security. Bill S-7 has come from nowhere. The Conservative government dragged its feet for many months before reintroducing it.

As my Liberal colleague mentioned, this legislation was passed 12 years ago when the Liberals were in power and it still stands up today. Since coming into force, it has done a good job of protecting Canadians. The Conservatives have yet to convince me that the old law needs to be changed. If that is the case, the amendments I mentioned earlier should be incorporated. We should improve the bill by making these amendments and we should not be creating an incredible loophole that could wreak havoc with the civil liberties of people who are not criminals.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York South—Weston.

I would like to begin by expressing my condolences on behalf of the NDP to the families and loved ones of all those who were injured or killed last week in Boston. What a terrible tragedy.

When I heard the news, the first thing I thought of was the final message left in a letter to Canadians from our former leader, Jack Layton. He said he hoped our world would have more love and less hate, more hope, less despair and more compassion. When I heard about what happened in Boston, my first thought was that we still do not live in that kind of society.

Parliament has already brought in anti-terrorism legislation and I am so happy that it has been successfully protecting Canadians and the Canadian government for the past 12 years. My initial stance is that Canada's existing anti-terrorism laws are satisfactory and adequate. That is one reason the NDP will be opposing this bill.

As my Liberal colleague mentioned earlier, this bill comes out of nowhere. We have not heard anything about it since December. Now, suddenly, the Conservative government is exploiting the Boston tragedy for partisan purposes. I am disgusted by this display of partisanship, which has no place in Canada.

We are still waiting for the House of Commons to raise the level of intellectual debate in Canada. While I believe the Conservative government cares about the safety of Canadians, its decision to bring Bill S-7 back into the spotlight stinks of partisanship. I strongly condemn that decision.

I hope the people at home realize that. I hope they will not think the Conservatives are white knights sworn to protect Canadians from terrorism. If the Conservatives were really in power to protect people from terrorism, they would not have waited until April to dust off this bill, which has been on the shelf since December.

A responsible Canadian government would not have kept hitting the snooze button until tragedy struck somewhere else in the world. It would not have made a last-minute decision on a Friday afternoon to discuss terrorism on the very next business day. That is poor planning. A responsible government would step up and introduce good bills.

Bill S-7 is not wholly without merit. Nonetheless, the Conservative government and the parliamentary secretary had no business saying that the NDP's approach was not serious.

To prove just how serious the NDP is, I will point out that when this bill went to committee, the NDP put forward 18 amendments to improve it. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives proposed a single amendment. In committee, the NDP fought tooth and nail to debate and improve this bill.

As I said, nobody is against doing the right thing. We want to protect Canadians from terrorist acts. However, we have to be careful, because passing this kind of bill can cause major problems in terms of freedoms. I am not talking about the freedoms of actual terrorists. It is clear that real terrorists must immediately be handed over to police or even military authorities, depending on the circumstances.

I have particular concerns about people in a position of power. We know that the Conservative government, which is in a position of power, abuses Parliament, which is supposed to be democratic. Last week, the Conservatives invoked closure for the 31st time. That is a Canadian record. Congratulations on killing democracy bit by bit.

I am concerned that Bill S-7 will give this type of freedom to the Conservative government and will create problems that will become clear only in a few months or years. By then it will be too late, because other problems will have been created.

Earlier, I mentioned that the NDP takes the issue of terrorism very seriously. We proposed 18 amendments in committee, but all of them were rejected by the Conservative government, which has a majority. Obviously, Canadians do not know about all of these useful amendments that the NDP proposed in order to improve this bill. If some of them had been passed in committee, we might not be debating this bill. It could have been passed quickly, with the NDP's support.

The Conservative government continues to believe that every bill it introduces is perfect, in every sense of the word, but the past has proven the government wrong. One example is the minister's bill that proposed spying on people on the Internet. That bill was quickly withdrawn because of a public outcry. This government believes itself to be perfect, but it is not. That is why we need to have debate in the House and pass amendments in committee, but that is not what happened with Bill S-7.

The first amendment the NDP proposed was rejected. We wanted SIRC to look at the possibility of an inter-agency co-operation protocol to ensure that it would be effective and that rights protected by law would be respected. We wanted that protocol to be put in place before the leaving the country offences could come into effect. It was deemed as being beyond the scope of the bill, and on that basis, the government decided to reject the amendment outright.

Clearly, the people watching at home understand how good it would be to do this type of review of our techniques and protocols. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused our request. It is no big deal. The NDP is very reasonable and continued to propose other good amendments to improve the bill.

The second amendment we proposed was to ensure that testimony gathered from investigative hearings could not be used against an individual in extradition and deportation proceedings, not just in criminal proceedings. Once again, the Conservative government said that this did not fall within the scope of the bill and that this amendment would therefore not improve the bill.

The third amendment we proposed was to establish the right to state-funded legal aid if a person had to attend an investigative hearing. Common sense dictates that people who are charged must at least be able to defend themselves and have their point of view heard. In many trials in human history, allegations have been proven to be unfounded. Clearly, that is not what the NDP wants. We want the real criminals to be put behind bars. We have to give these people a chance to prove their case.

When we proposed this amendment, we were told that it would encroach on the Crown's financial initiatives. This is just another ridiculous excuse as to why we could not propose this amendment.

Since I am running out of time, I will not be able to list all the amendments. However, I would like to try to quickly share some of them. Incidentally, they were all rejected.

The fourth amendment was to ensure that the annual reports included detailed information on any changes to the legislation, policies and practices related to exit information or exit control. This amendment was rejected.

The fifth amendment was to ensure that the comprehensive review included the implementation of four new offences related to leaving the country and that the issue be dealt with by elected members, not just by the Senate. This amendment was also rejected.

The sixth amendment was to add a comprehensive review of the government's implementation of the Arar commission's recommendations with regard to accountability and oversight mechanisms, with particular attention to oversight and activities among agencies. Once again, the amendment was rejected.

We wanted to include the advice of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the racial discrimination and profiling issues surrounding Bill S-7. This amendment was also rejected.

My time has expired, but I would like to reiterate that the NDP takes terrorism seriously. We will continue to fight to ensure that Canadians are protected and feel safe in Canada.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to echo the comments made by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, for I too believe that the Conservative government's decision to bring this debate back to the forefront smacks of partisanship.

What we have before us is a government that is using the terrible tragedy that took place in Boston for partisan purposes. On the one hand—and this ties into the question I want to ask my Conservative colleague—I will demonstrate that this government is not very proactive on terrorism.

It cut $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency budget, and 325 jobs were lost at border crossings across the country. The intelligence branch lost 100 jobs and 19 sniffer dog units, which could have protected Canada by preventing terrorists from entering our country.

Why does my colleague think the government is, on the one hand, using the terrible tragedy in Boston to try to boost its image, while on the other hand quietly eliminating the jobs of inspectors who could prevent terrorists from entering Canada?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as my Conservative colleague mentioned, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended that the bill not proceed further, and I will explain why.

To inform Canadians, I will quote the witnesses who appeared before the committee on February 25 and 27. Their evidence was very good. I encourage anyone with Internet access to read the transcript.

Professor Shaheen Shariff had this to say:

I'm an academic and researcher at McGill University and I have studied legal and policy-related issues regarding cyberbullying for approximately 10 years...

Although cyberbullying is not specifically mentioned in Bill C-273, I have concerns about some of the inconsistencies in the bill, as we heard in the questions posed to [the MP for Vancouver Centre].

Cyberbullying can involve such acts as criminal harassment, threat of sexual assault, defamatory libel, extortion, identity fraud, impersonation with intent, intimidation, as well as sexting, many of which can currently be addressed under the Criminal Code.

My concern is also that there is no mention of smart phones, digital media....I'm skipping over my notes because I know I don't have a lot of time.

My biggest concern is that the code applies to everyone. It talks about everyone. I'm worried that this amendment is in response, as [the member] said, to a lot of media reports related to cyberbullying and related suicides.

The problem here is that we should be looking at two sets of audiences. One is adults, who are mature enough to be held culpable for some of these crimes. They're old enough to know what they're doing. What we're finding in our research, though, is that young people, digital natives—these are children growing up immersed in digital technologies—quite often don't realize what they're doing.

The norms and perceptions of harm by digital natives have changed. These kids, as young as eight, are on Facebook, even though it's illegal to be on Facebook under age 13. There is a higher tolerance for insults, jokes, and pranks. There's less consideration of impact on others. There's less recognition of boundaries between public and private spaces online. There's less awareness of legal risks, which is where I would argue for improved education on legal literacy.

Perpetrators of cyberbullying are often victims as well as perpetrators. This would place them in an awkward position if this code were amended and they were ultimately charged. We might be overreacting. We might be putting the wrong kids in jail.

Then, Professor Wendy Craig said:

I'm Professor Craig. I'm from Queen's University. I'm a child clinical developmental psychologist.

Much of what I'm going to say is to reinforce what's been said by my colleague.

[...]

Punitive measures aren't going to provide that learning context that's going to give them the strategies to be different. I think we need to think about a different response for children and youth than we have for adults because of many of the developmental things that have been raised.

I also do research in the area of cyberbullying, and there are a couple of things in that area that make this legislation a bit problematic. We currently have no universally agreed upon definition in the area, although there has been work by the centre for disease control. I've been part of a task force to define it. There is no universally accepted definition. Part of the current definition uses intent to harm. That's a very hard and difficult thing to measure under a legal context. The current definitions are intent to harm, that there is a power imbalance, that an individual is repeatedly targeted. The more elements we have in a definition, the more the burden of proof is on the individuals who have to prosecute them to make that change.

We need a universal definition. We need to define each of the elements of that definition, such as intention to harm and harm. And we need to know when intimidation and humiliation cross the line into becoming a criminal behaviour problem. Those, I think, are very grey areas without a lot of information.

I want to talk a bit about the problem so that you understand what we're dealing with when we're building laws to address it.

[...]

We also know that online and offline behaviours overlap. Both behaviours happen in social relationships. Both types of kids are involved in both. With cyberbullying, we have children who are also more likely to aggress and be victimized. That puts us in a dilemma, because if we think about a criminal perspective on these children, we're actually revictimizing them when they've actually found a way, although inappropriate, to try to establish some power in themselves.

[...]

I have a couple of messages for you. One is that if we proceed with this, we need to have a legal definition of bullying and standards that can be supported when we enact that law. The second is that we need to have a consistent definition, and that definition has to be known to children, youth, and adults and be equally applied and be equally able to be applied across all of that. The third piece that we need in the legislation is an understanding about when we're crossing the line into criminal behaviour. When does humiliation and criminal intent occur?

The other thing we need to realize is that the majority—at least half of the youth, anyway—report that they don't tell adults about it. They're not reporting the incidents. We don't even know the true prevalence of it. They're not reporting it for fear of consequences. If we make it a legal problem, it becomes more problematic.

I do not want to take up too much of the members' time. Therefore, I will skip to another witness, Peter Jon Mitchell, from the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, who stated:

Finally, there are some serious concerns around the implementation of Bill C-273.

First, we can expect that clarifying the Criminal Code in this manner will lead to an increase in its use. Increased use of these provisions may draw more youth into the criminal justice system, many of whom would fare best if dealt with outside the justice system.

Second, the committee should consider how the increased use of the Criminal Code will impact school-based responses to bullying. Could the adversarial nature of the criminal justice process inhibit community-based responses to bullying?

Finally, it remains unclear whether legislation reduces bullying. In the United States between 2000 and 2010, over 125 pieces of legislation were passed mostly at the state level yet the problem seems to remain as persistent as ever in the U.S.

To conclude, bullying among children and youth requires a community-level approach. On some occasions cyberbullying may escalate to a point where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community. Bill C-273 appears to be a modest modernization of existing Criminal Code provisions, but at what cost?

Consideration should be given to the possibility that the increased use of the Criminal Code will create a chill on the community-level approach, particularly by drawing more youth into the criminal justice system.

Refereeing cyberspace is a difficult task. Our best approach is to empower parents, educators, and children and teens themselves to work together.

I support the government's leadership in the prevention of bullying, especially cyberbullying, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

I also congratulate my Liberal colleague. I believe that she had good intentions. Unfortunately, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights told us that this was a badly written bill and that it created inconsistencies and redundancies in the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, this could create a litany of problems for our justice system.

In closing, the NDP will continue to support all good initiatives that protect our young Canadians, but motions and bills must be properly drafted. That is not what we heard from the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie both for his speech and his exchange with the Conservative member, who is obviously not listening to Canadians.

Before I ask my question, I would like to say that when the NDP is in power it will make the military justice system fairer for members of our armed forces who risk their lives to serve Canada. The members opposite can take notes if they want to change their policies. The Conservative government has been systematically incapable of putting in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure the independence of the Military Police Complaints Commission and the courts of the military justice system.

I will now put a question to my colleague, who takes note of amendments no matter who proposes them. Can my colleague tell me why the NDP will support the amendments? I would like him to talk to us about amendment no. 6021288, which was proposed by a colleague in the House of Commons.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleague a question about Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. My question is about amendment No. 6020589.

As the representative for Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, I would like to point out that the NDP feels that the Canadian Forces should be held to an extremely high standard of discipline, and in return, members deserve a justice system that adheres to a comparable standard. A criminal record can make the life of a former member very complicated, especially when the member is looking for work or an apartment or wants to travel. Clearly, the NDP has good intentions.

I would like to ask my NDP colleague if he could elaborate on that for our Conservative colleague across the aisle, who does not seem to understand why we are supporting the amendments, and amendment No. 6020589 in particular.