David McGuinty

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important debate we are having today. This is about the men and women in the Canadian Forces, full stop. It is about whether they will be treated like every other Canadian citizen. It is about whether the government is manifesting what I would describe as stubborn pigheadedness when it comes to improving the military justice system that is in place.

It is impossible for me to speak about this criminal justice bill without being reminded of the typical conduct of the government under the Conservative Party. It is a government that consistently has refused to be bound by its responsibilities under section 4(1) of the Department of Justice Act. For Canadians watching, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, a lawyer, went to the bar when he was sworn in and pledged an oath to uphold the law. When he was sworn in to the role as a lawyer in the province of Ontario, he was sworn in to uphold the law for his entire legal career.

I would argue that since the arrival of the Conservative government, in some quarters described as a regime, it has seen fit to consistently leave aside its responsibilities in this regard. I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada may, for example, be in breach of his own code of conduct and his code of ethics as a lawyer. However, that is not what we are debating today.

I am reminded of the words of David Daubney. Mr. Daubney, for my colleagues in the Conservative caucus who do not know, was a member of Parliament with the Progressive Conservative Party. He then went on to a very distinguished career as a lawyer in the Department of Justice, where he served in his last post as director of the criminal law policy unit.

Two day after retiring from his distinguished career, he lashed out at the Conservative government in terms of its conduct with respect to the use of evidence, analysis, research, things that we would rely on as parliamentarians to make the right calls for everyday Canadians, in this case, everyday members in our Canadian Forces.

Mr. Daubney went on to say that he was extremely disappointed and that was one of the reasons why he left his career. Despite the fact that with his team he delivered hard evidence and good analysis to the government, particularly in areas like mandatory minimums, the government would not hear them. It was more than tone deaf; it simply shut it off.

Here we have another example of a bill. I would like to go back to some words spoken earlier by the MP for Ajax—Pickering, who stood up and boasted that Canada was the envy of the world. He is right. I could not be in more agreement with my colleague, but he knows better. During his time serving as a young ambassador in Afghanistan, he knew that one of the foundational documents we were trying to inculcate into the Afghani system of criminal justice was to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the baseline.

For Canadians who are watching or following, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now the number one document used in the world for strengthening the rule of law for helping to amend and strengthen constitutions all over the world. When I trained in the former Soviet Union after the wall fell in over 20 countries, I used the Charter of Rights. When I was in the Ukraine last fall, strengthening its legal system, I used the Charter of Rights. Many jurisdictions now look to Canada and look to our charter as the foundational document.

When my colleague for Vancouver Quadra rose to express her concern about the human rights implications in the bill, she was right. I know many members in the Conservative caucus know in their heart of hearts that the bill is incomplete, but it is capable of being, not perfected, but certainly improved, which is why the Liberal Party of Canada is raising these important foundational questions today.

This is about the average man and woman in the Canadian Forces. Should they make a mistake, should they make the wrong choice, as so many Canadian citizens do in their lives from time to time, we want to make absolutely categorically sure that these citizens have the same protections afforded to them as any other citizen living in Canada and walking our streets today possess.

This was why I raised questions this morning around why, for example, the government of the United Kingdom, the British government, had ensured that the requirements for independence and impartiality were woven into its domestic criminal justice system so it was in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a powerful precedent for Canada and for this Parliament, and I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada knows that.

In the U.K. context, the British government has ensured that the accused may be represented by counsel and entitled to an appeal under a newly created summary appeal court. It has ensured that the summary appeal court would be presided over by a civilian judge, yet assisted by two military members who were officers or warrant officers to ensure adequate military representation. Also, as a general rule, it has moved to ensure that imprisonment or service detention cannot be imposed where the offender is not legally represented in court or in a court martial. This sounds to me to be an important and powerful precedent that we should look to weave into our amendments to the criminal justice system.

Comparatively, beyond our common law founding mother ship United Kingdom, why have countries like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and dozens more all moved to ensure that independence, impartiality, fairness and justice are hallmarks of their amendments and improvements to the criminal justice system?

Why only here are we seeing, as I described earlier, the stubborn pigheadedness that seems to find its way into every justice bill the Conservative government brings forward? When in the face of so much evidence, in the face of the opportunity to get it better, why is the government not seizing the opportunity and doing right by Canadian citizens, and more important, doing right by the men and women in our Canadian Forces?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put two ideas to my colleague for her response.

First, why would Colonel Michel Drapeau, perhaps Canada's most experienced military lawyer, a long serving member of the Canadian Forces and now a veteran, be opposing this legislation as aggressively as he is?

Second, if we look at other countries, which is a good thing to do when new legislation is being brought in particularly in an area as sensitive as this, we understand that the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania and Netherlands, to name a few, have improved their very legislation in this area by adopting the kinds of ideas we have been putting forward as an opposition party. Why would the government not want to do that to be in concert with so many other nations?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 22nd, 2013]

With regard to the $20 million Southern Ontario Fund for Investment in Innovation: (a) how many companies, which the government is aware of, have received loans; (b) what companies have received loans; and (c) what was the amount of each loan?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her speech. It was thoughtful and the tone was very productive.

I will pick up on a theme that she raised and that the minister across the floor also raised a moment ago. The Prime Minister was apparently quoted in pre-budget communication strategy leaks to the media saying that he was “mad as hell” on the question of training and vacant jobs. If he was mad as hell before this budget, he must be positively furious this morning.

There would be no new money for skills training. The Conservatives would actually freeze funding at 2007 levels, which is actually a 10% cut if we adjust for inflation. How can that be, when youth unemployment is up 5% since 2007 and when over one-third of Canadians between the ages of 25 and 30 are still living at home with their parents? It would be fine to simply make that claim without juxtaposing it against other expenditures.

Here is the big whopper that Canadians are getting very frustrated about. We know the current government has spent over $600 million on advertising since its arrival, and on present trends by the next election it will be $1 billion of taxpayer dollars on TV, Internet and radio ads, and $29 million for billboards across Canada. For most Canadians, that is simply obscene.

How is it possible that the government can reconcile providing no new money for jobs training and skills training while spending $600 million on advertising?

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I want to repeat the question I just asked. Canadians should know that since the Conservative Party arrived in power, it has spent $600 million on advertising. Most Canadians have already determined that it is Conservative propaganda.

Could the member talk about how the actual costs of continuing science and technology work in Canada compare to the $600 million already spent?

People are saying that by the 2015 election, the government will have spent $1 billion on advertising.

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the theme that my colleague was speaking about. Since the Conservative Party arrived in power, Canadians should know that it has spent $600 million on advertising. On present trends, by the 2015 election, that is if the Prime Minister abides by the fixed-term election date, it appears as if the government will be spending close to $1 billion on what most Canadians would likely describe as self-serving propaganda.

I would first like to posit that fact with my colleague to get her to react to that.

Second, last January, Sir John Gummer, the former head of the Conservative Party in the U.K. under one Margaret Thatcher, absolutely criticized the government saying with respect to its views on science and climate change, saying this is not a conservative party; it is something else.

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will recount for the House an episode from several years ago that really illustrates the current government's approach to information and science.

The minister's colleague, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, was then the Minister of the Environment. Apparently a leak occurred in Environment Canada, according to the minister, who then summarily dispatched the RCMP to arrest a clerk who was responsible for clippings in the morning at the Department of the Environment. The clerk was led out in handcuffs in front of over 200 employees at a science-based department called Environment Canada.

Let us take this theme of environment and give this recount for Canadians: the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, gone; Sustainable Development Technology Canada, barely surviving; foundation for climate change research, eliminated; 700 and then 200 more positions announced at Environment Canada to be eliminated; the Global Environment Monitoring System, a UN partnership of decades, gone; Office of the National Science Advisor, gone; Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, PEARL, gone; the Experimental Lakes Area, gone.

That is just one area where the government has systematically dismantled decades of investment in order to prepare Canada and its citizens for the future of adapting to and mitigating climate change.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2013]

With respect to government buildings in the National Capital Region; (a) what are the buildings in which federal employees work, specifying the municipal address; and (b) what is the number of indeterminate federal employees and of term federal employees who work in each of those buildings?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, March 8th, 2013]

With respect to advertising paid for by the government, broken down by fiscal year for each fiscal year from fiscal year beginning April 1, 2006 up to and including the first half of fiscal year 2012: (a) how much did the government spend on advertising; (b) what was the subject of each advertisement, (i) how much was spent on each subject; (c) which departments purchased advertising, (i) what are the details of the spending by each department in this regard; (d) for each subject and department in (b) and (c), how much was spent for each type of advertising, including, but not limited to (i) television, specifying the stations ,(ii) radio, specifying the stations, (iii) print, i.e. newspapers and magazines, specifying the names of the publications, (iv) the internet, specifying the names of the websites, (v) billboards, specifying the locations of the billboards, (vi) bus shelters, specifying the locations, (vii) advertising in all other publically accessible places; (e) for each type of advertisement in (d), was it in Canada or off shore; (f) for each, subject in (b), department in (c) and type of advertising in (d), what is the time period where the advertising ran; (g) for each individual purchase of advertising, who signed the contracts; (h) for every ad, who was involved in producing it; (i) for every ad, was a third party involved in running it or was a third party co-ordinating other ads based on those of the government; and (j) for every ad, were the purchase and running of the ad timed for any specific event, such as sporting event?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague builds on some of his early comments about the government's pattern of behaviour in bringing forward legislation that it knows to be unconstitutional. I would like him to address this while taking into account three things.

The first is that the government has already been found to be in contempt by the Speaker of the House of Commons for the first time, not just in Canadian history but commonwealth history, for not bringing forward costs on crime bills.

The second thing I would like him to take into account is that there is a legal duty on the Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation that is deemed to be constitutional and, I would argue, goes further because, as a lawyer, the Minister of Justice is bound as an officer of the court to do so.

The third is that the day after David Daubney retired, a former Conservative member of Parliament who used to head up the criminal law policy unit for the Department of Justice, he assaulted the government for forcing that unit to be unable to deliver up options which it told the government would be constitutional with its crime bills.

Could my colleague explain the pattern of this kind of deceptive and unacceptable behaviour?