Ève Péclet

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

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

She seems to have misunderstood the NDP position. The clear amendment that we proposed in committee was not about striking clause 11 from Bill C-6; it was about replacing it with article 21 of the convention. That is clear.

We do not want to remove our soldiers' legal coverage. We just want to replace it with the same clause that Canada wanted to add to the convention. My colleague is misleading the whole House when she says that the NDP wants to remove legal coverage. The truth is that we want to strengthen it.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Unfortunately, I did not have time to talk about this article in more detail, but I know that Canada negotiated for several years to include article 21, the military interoperability clause, in the convention.

Canada negotiated hard for this, and even though many countries opposed the article, Canada succeeded in having it included in the convention. Now here we are in the House debating a bill that undermines what Canada fought to have included in the convention.

No doubt about it, the Conservatives make absolutely no sense. One the one hand, they went to the United Nations to negotiate inclusion of the interoperability clause, and on the other, they introduced a bill in Parliament that undermines the purpose of the clause they wanted to put in the convention.

Even I do not get it, and I would not know how to explain it to my colleague.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I also remember a debate we were having in the House about asbestos, and all of his colleagues were talking about budget 2012; so relevance is quite a broad concept for the Conservatives when it applies to them, but when it applies to us it is different. We see the double standard here.

I am sorry the Minister of Foreign Affairs is gone. I wanted to ask him a question. If the Conservative government can neither conceive of nor tolerate the use of cluster bombs, why have we not heard the Conservative government take a strong stance on the use of these weapons in the Syrian conflict? Why has it not condemned the use of these weapons in conflicts such as the one going on now in Syria?

For example, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the convention was a back-door way of reinstating a gun registry or trampling on the right to own a gun. That makes no sense at all. This is about the international arms trade, armed conflict, war and military operations.

The Conservative government's ideology—and nothing else—has made it completely powerless on the world stage. That is totally unacceptable. Canada is abandoning thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of victims around the world. Once again, the Conservatives are revealing their double standard when it comes to protecting victims.

I want to reiterate that the former negotiator walked off the job because the legislation was too weak, and it was proposed by a weak government. The Conservatives do not walk the talk. The government's international policy is weak and wishy-washy. Unfortunately this has been the case since the government came to power in 2006. The proof is that we did not win a seat on the UN Security Council. That says it all.

Canada is opposed to a motion against sexual violence and to the Arms Trade Treaty. What other gifts await us from a Conservative government that is trying to sneak in changes that would fundamentally alter the spirit of a convention that affects millions of men, women and children worldwide?

I have received several messages from people around the world, young people, who are asking Canada to change this bill. When children from other countries are sending messages to Canadian MPs begging us to change a bill, we are obviously way off the mark. I find it completely outrageous that the government is trying to shift the blame.

In 2009, Germany, France, Japan and Mexico signed the treaty. In 2010, Great Britain followed suit, and in 2012, Australia came on board. These countries are all allies of the United States and they have all had joint missions with the United States. Did their soldiers suffer because their countries signed the convention? No, they did not.

The government is trying to shirk its responsibilities and shift the blame onto the United States and our own soldiers. It is everybody else's fault, except the Conservative government's. In fact, it is as if the Conservatives were in a playground refusing to do something that their friend is not doing.

Canada should be a leader. It once was, but I think that, unfortunately, those days will soon be over. When we negotiated the land mines treaty, there was no question of having these types of clauses. Did soldiers suffer as a result of that treaty? No, they did not. Why does the government now want to change direction?

As I was saying, our position on land mines was clear. If memory serves, none of our soldiers suffered because interoperability clauses were not included in the treaty.

I would like to quote a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who served in a war and used cluster munitions. He said:

...Canadian officials have cited the need for Canada to retain military interoperability—the ability to conduct joint operations with allies—as a reason for the loopholes contained in Bill C-6.

We are talking about a very experienced solider who served for 25 years.

Interoperability is indeed vital. I saw that as the allies worked together to liberate Kuwait almost 23 years ago, but in 25 years in the military, from the cockpit of a ground attack aircraft to NATO headquarters and operational staffs, I saw nothing to suggest that a ban on cluster munitions would fundamentally affect interoperability. Indeed, many states have already banned them, but high-intensity coalition operations have continued.

It was Richard MacCormac, an experienced soldier, who said that the interoperability clauses will not prevent soldiers from serving in military operations. The Conservatives are misleading the House when they claim that our soldiers will suffer.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member and esteemed colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

I know that my colleagues are tired, but before I begin my speech I would like to ask them not to shout and interrupt me and instead listen to what I have to say. They can ask me questions afterward.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, which is extremely important. How can we ratify a convention if we change it by adding amendments that will lead to a multitude of loopholes? It is like a contract. When we sign a contract, we are bound by it. The contract becomes null and void if we include a clause whereby it applies to us only if we decide it does. The same principle applies to a convention.

Why sign a convention if, in any event, we are going to pass a bill in the Parliament of Canada saying that the convention only applies when we say it does? The government is essentially trying to tell us that it considers the convention to be null and void. It is trying to shirk its responsibilities by passing a bill that cancels all the provisions of the convention.

It is important to repeat that Canada's former chief negotiator, Earl Turcotte, resigned because Canada's position on this was too weak. This gives us a taste of this government's approach to negotiating treaties. I would like to quote Earl Turcotte:

He said:

As Head of Delegation, I made all statements for the Canada during plenary negotiations. I know what I said on behalf of our country, with political and official-level support at that time. I also know how it was understood and ultimately agreed by all 108 negotiating states...

Bill C-6 constitutes a reversal of many of the key commitments Canada made during negotiations and by signing the convention in 2008 and is an affront to other states that negotiated in good faith.

According to the country's former chief negotiator, Canada is breaking the promises it made to the states that negotiated the convention. This is proof that the Conservative government negotiates in bad faith both here and abroad. Mr. Turcotte was a leader on treaties about this kind of weapon. He also negotiated the land mine treaty. The man's credibility is solid.

When Bill C-6 was debated in June 2013 as Bill S-10, Canada was in the process of sabotaging the UN Human Rights Committee's negotiations on sexual violence in conflict zones. The government refused to adopt a motion or make amendments to a motion about sexual violence against women and children in conflict zones. Why? Believe it or not, it was just because the negotiations and the discussions included a section about abortion, reproductive choices and women who are victims of rape.

Clearly the Conservatives have gotten stuck in an ideological rut since becoming a majority government. Their ideologies are right-wing. Whether we are talking about weapons, sexual violence, or the arms trade, Canada opposes those principles. This is about saving lives, not about—

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Government of Canada, and based on what we have heard in the Conservatives' speeches, the use of cluster munitions is inconceivable and unacceptable.

Why have we not heard the Government of Canada or the Minister of Foreign Affairs condemn the use of cluster munitions in the current Syrian conflict and take a strong stance on this issue?

When we were dealing with Bill S-10, the parliamentary secretaries at the time told us that Canada had always staunchly defended this position. If so, why did the Conservative government not adopt a strong, clear position on the use of cluster munitions in the Syrian conflict?

[Criminal Code, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to speak on this bill. I commend my colleague, who introduced this bill to deal with drinking and driving. This issue warrants debate in the House, since unfortunately on television we see too many reports about people who have had their lives tragically cut short mainly because of drinking and driving. Sometimes these tragic accidents result in serious injury, such as permanent paralysis.

I would like to present a brief legislative summary of my colleague’s bill. This bill would amend section 255 of the Criminal Code to establish more severe penalties for offences committed under section 253 in circumstances where the offender has a blood alcohol content that exceeds 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or 0.160, double the limit of 0.08 set out in the Criminal Code. It would also raise the minimum penalties that apply to convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. That is the overview of the situation.

I would like to tell my colleague that we will support his bill at second reading so it can go to committee. I very much appreciated the tone used by my colleague, who was very open to amendments and discussion. I thank him for giving us the chance to propose amendments once we hear from witnesses. It is important to send the bill to committee so that witnesses can tell us whether these measures are a step in the right direction or whether my colleague’s bill could be improved.

First of all, drinking and driving is clearly a terrible problem in our society. It has killed far too many people and injured far too many others for the problem not to be debated in the House. We need to inform and educate young people and everyone who could potentially be affected by such a situation. As I mentioned when asking my colleague a question, prevention is better than a cure. That is why it is extremely important to have youth awareness campaigns in order to teach young people about the consequences of drinking and driving.

Young people need to be warned about not only the dangers of drugs and smoking, but also the dangers surrounding alcohol. This is extremely important, because young people are the heart and future of our society. This bill is designed to save the lives of Canadians, and so I wish to congratulate my colleague. We must reach out to these people today and tell them that we are there to help them.

However, money needs to be set aside. I am not referring directly to my colleague, because I understand that this is a private member’s bill and that he does not have that authority. Only the government has that authority. I am therefore reaching out to the government and asking it to set money aside to help front-line organizations.

For example, in Quebec, Operation Red Nose provides a service to drive people home during the holidays.

Someone who attends a family Christmas party and drinks a bit too much can call Operation Red Nose or a taxi. Young people need to hear about these kinds of options. We need to do everything we can to prevent deaths.

In the House, we need to come up with strategies and free up money in order to do everything we can to prevent deaths. This is my colleague’s true goal; I am absolutely certain of that. We do not want to see another news report that young people or children have died in a car accident where drinking and driving was involved.

We have a few problems with minimum sentencing. Criminal and constitutional law experts recognize that minimum sentencing does not have the desired deterrent effect on criminals, even if that is the impression people have.

In the United States, experts adopted minimum sentencing policies, although they do not work. Our neighbours to the south are even in the process of reversing direction and adopting a justice system and criminal justice policies focused more on prevention. As I have already said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

It is too late to convict someone once they are dead. When someone has died, Parliament has not done its job. We need to be able to say that we have done everything in our power to save the lives of Canadians.

I understand and respect my colleague’s intent. We will support the bill; however, mandatory minimums remove a judge’s discretion. They also do not have the deterrent effect my colleague would have Canadians believe they do.

The sentences proposed in the bill are slightly lighter than those generally imposed by the courts. For example, in 2011 and 2012, the average prison sentence was 277 days for impaired driving causing bodily harm and 959 days for impaired driving causing death. As I said, the sentences proposed in the bill are lighter than those imposed by judges, using their discretion, on individuals convicted of such an offence.

The minimum penalties proposed in the bill could be counterproductive. Minimum penalties tend to end up becoming the default penalty, except in the worst cases. It is very important for judges to have the discretionary power to analyze any extenuating or aggravating circumstances. We can reasonably expect defence lawyers to request the minimum penalty in such cases.

The number of cases of impaired driving decreased between 1980 and 2006. In fact, it reached its lowest point in 25 years, which was 234 cases per 100,000 population. In 2011, we saw the lowest number of cases of impaired driving causing death in 25 years. During the same period, the same was true of cases of impaired driving causing injury or bodily harm.

These statistics show us that minimum penalties, whether they are stiffer or not, do not act as a deterrent. Awareness, information and education act as a deterrent. I think that is what we need to focus on.

I applaud my colleague for making an effort to consult, but with all due respect, I have to say that most of the legislative provisions on impaired driving, for example, the one involving demerit points, come under provincial jurisdiction. Did he consult the provinces and his provincial counterparts to find out how the bill will affect provincial laws and community organizations?

I look forward to studying this bill in committee.

[Criminal Code, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his speech.

My first question is in line with his conclusion.

It is important to realize that, unfortunately, many young people are involved in car accidents. They may not be fully aware of drinking and driving offences. In Quebec, the SAAQ, la Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, has put on a number of awareness campaigns targeted at young people.

I would just like my colleague to tell me whether his government would be open to this type of strategy and awareness campaign. We must indeed punish those who are responsible, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is better to prevent deaths than to convict someone after people end up dead in car accidents.

I just want to know what his government's plans are for raising awareness about these types of situations.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have moved 75 time allocation motions, and a few weeks ago, they extended sitting hours for the House.

Last night, not one single Conservative rose to debate the Conservative bill. We have been here for a few weeks now. However, none of the Conservative member are rising to debate their bills. I understand that there is a sense of urgency and that they absolutely want to debate their bills.

However, could the minister tell us if his colleagues will do us the honour of showing up in the House of Commons and debating their own bills?

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

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

This is an unfortunate way of doing things, since the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the British Medical Journal and even the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction agree that this type of site is beneficial.

Is that not what the Conservatives want: to reduce crime, decrease drug use and make our streets safer? I think that is part of their basic discourse. The fact that the Conservatives are introducing a bill that goes against the very basis of their ideology shows that rational thought is not part of their discourse.

They bring forward legislation only if they can use it to win votes and do some fundraising. They are not at all interested in the inherent role of Parliament, which is to help our communities and make them safer, while complying with the Supreme Court's clear decisions. In this case, even the Supreme Court stated that this kind of site was in the best interest of Canadians.

To my colleague who asked the question, I would say that the answer is obvious. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the Supreme Court does not share their completely irrational ideology; yet, once again, the Conservatives want to introduce a bill that does not comply with the Supreme Court's decision.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

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

To ask the question is to answer it, and I think I was clear in my speech. Political ideology should not trump the well-being of the public. All of the experts and all of the studies have shown that this kind of supervised injection site saves lives and makes our streets and communities safer.

That makes us wonder about the government's intentions. The experts, the studies, the reports and even the Supreme Court all say that this kind of site is safe and saves lives, so what is the government's intention?

Why does it want to sabotage this kind of organization? What is its intention? Not a single government member has risen today to tell us.