Francine Raynault

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

Matters are not moving forward quickly, but they are moving forward. Ten years after the report of former chief justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court, and four years after the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we are finally ready to amend the National Defence Act. The proposed amendments have long been awaited by this country’s military, and I want to lend my support to Bill C-15, stressing the significant contribution the NDP has made to the process.

Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, we still have some way to go in order to have a system of military justice that is genuinely fair. To that end, I shall also be suggesting a few measures to be taken in the future. As I was saying, Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. It brings Canada’s judicial attitude towards its military up to date and will ensure serving members of the forces greater fairness in relation to other Canadians.

In particular, the bill allows greater leeway in sentencing, with additional sentencing options, including an absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and restitution; a change in the composition of the court martial panel depending on the rank of the accused person; a change in the limitation period for summary trial and the ability for an accused person to waive the limitation period; and so on.

It is also quite clear that Bill C-15 gives new powers to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in relation to military police investigations. In my humble opinion, this is a retrograde step. It signals that the government could have done more, but overall, this bill will nevertheless ensure greater justice for members of the military.

This situation was made possible by the recommendations of my New Democratic Party colleagues, whose hard work made it possible to include necessary amendments in the initial bill. Through its efforts, the NDP made it possible to expand the list of offences and cases that do not entail a criminal record, which happens in 95% of military cases. That is no small thing: 95% of military justice cases lead to a criminal record. We know what that means.

Moreover, the crimes in question are not all comparable to those committed by Corporal Lortie. We are talking about disobeying an order, feigning sickness and facilitating an escape, even though the escape in itself does not even lead to a criminal record.

Former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court Patrick LeSage said that the harm done to a person by a criminal record was far too serious a consequence and that its effects were out of all proportion to the offence in question. As we know, a criminal record can have very negative repercussions for an individual in civilian life. When military personnel return to civilian life with a record, things are difficult for them.

It is deplorable that the Conservatives refused to include in Bill C-15 the recommendations Justice LeSage made in 2011, when they had more than a year to think about it. We in the NDP tried hard to have them included, but the government refused, so we will have to wait until next time. It is vital that Canada continue to look at the issue of military justice. The men and women who choose to defend their country deserve our highest consideration.

One aspect to consider, in addition to the severity of sentences, is the speed with which they are imposed.

In the military, summary trial resolves most issues. At such a trial, the accused person is not entitled to counsel. Furthermore, there is no transcript and no appeal.

I know I am repeating what my colleagues have already said, but I believe it has to be said again and again, so that people are informed. The worst of it is that the judge is the accused person’s commanding officer, which naturally opens the door to abuse. While we have equipped Canada with a professional army, we have to admit that this kind of trial looks like a distressing anachronism.

Fortunately, the NDP proposed a series of amendments to improve this bill, in particular to enhance the independence of the military police by eliminating the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to give specific instructions to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal respecting an investigation.

The NDP also drew inspiration from Justice LeSage's recommendations when it said that a charge must be laid within a year of the commission of an offence. This will spare members of the forces from having to live in fear that an earlier offence may suddenly draw severe and unexpected punishment.

I am proud to vote in favour of greater judicial equity for Canada’s military, who are entitled to our greatest respect. I also find it deplorable to have to wait so long for a report to be translated into a bill, and I would ask the government kindly to supply a legislative response to the LeSage report within a year, which will make it possible to provide greater fairness within the Canadian Forces.

In conclusion, I maintain that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. It will lighten the judicial burden borne by our military, who have many other stressors to deal with.

Nevertheless, we will have to do more and do better to complete this picture, and that is what we will do when the NDP is in power. For these reasons, and because the NDP’s efforts have underpinned one of the most significant reforms designed to establish a more equitable system of military justice by limiting unreasonable criminal records, I give my full support to Bill C-15.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

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

The purpose of this bill is to muzzle people and to send them to jail based on a mere suspicion. That is unacceptable. We live in a democracy, or at least I think we do. Putting that in a bill is unacceptable. We cannot vote for a bill that will muzzle people and send them to prison based on a mere suspicion. That makes no sense.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I did not negatively portray men and women in uniform. On the contrary, I think that they need help. They need more money and we must not be making cuts to jobs.

Furthermore, this bill has been around and has been studied for a long time, so why did the government only bring it up today? Why not months ago?

This bill may have been acceptable if at least one of our 18 amendments had been accepted.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the issues raised by Bill S-7. However, I would first like to offer my condolences to the families of the Boston Marathon victims and express my support for this extraordinarily resilient community.

Terrorism is a horrible thing, and we need a responsible approach to combat it without losing what defines us as a society. When Osama bin Laden launched the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, he said that he wanted the North American way of life to disappear forever.

Since those attacks, Western countries have lost a little bit of their candour, and we have had to face our own limitations. At the centre of the lifestyle we share with our American neighbours is the rule of law and the civil liberties enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These social markers are at the heart of Canadian identity, and we must protect them as our most precious treasure, because if we willingly abandon our fundamental rights, then what is the point of combatting terrorism?

This is the main question behind my opposition to Bill S-7. In my opinion, this bill is ineffective and pointless in the fight against terrorism and it directly threatens my constituents' freedom.

We all know that Bill C-36 was rushed through in 2001 following the attacks on New York, which made a deep impression on our minds. Who does not remember those events, even 12 years later? Yet very few people remember Bill C-42, which allowed the government to declare temporary military zones in which fundamental freedoms were suspended. This millennium opened with a new interpretation of our most fundamental freedoms.

Why this aside when talking about Bill S-7? It is simply to show the House the risks of passing a bill such as this one in a time of emotional distress.

What happened in Boston has had an effect on all of us, but if Bill S-7 was so urgent, why did the Conservatives wait until now to introduce it? If I did not trust in the good faith of the members opposite, I would be tempted to say that they are trying to use this tragedy to conclude the debate on Bill S-7 so that they never have to hear about freedom of expression within their own caucus again.

Among other things, Bill S-7 would reinstate sunset provisions contained in Bill C-36, which expired in 2011. That is the case for recognizance powers, which the government is trying to put back on the table for no apparent reason. Other provisions, such as investigative hearings, are cause for concern.

The fact that these provisions were not applied between 2001 and 2007 does not seem to be of great concern to this government. Moreover, with respect to recognizance powers, the Conservatives insisted at report stage that this provision apply to individuals who are not suspected of conducting terrorist activities.

In summary, with Bill C-36, we introduced the idea of preventive detention and provisional judgments grounded in mere suspicion. Is there anyone here who wants to be the object of such suspicion? Bill S-7 goes even further. It reintroduces a sunset clause for an obvious purpose and, moreover, it tries to apply the provision to people who are not even suspected of being terrorists. It is not a mistake: the broad scope of the provision is intentional.

What are we doing? Are we going to put people in jail on the grounds of a suspected suspicion? I am sorry, but that is not the democracy in which I want my grandchildren to grow up. Suspending an individual's freedom because of a suspicion is very arbitrary. No longer requiring this suspicion would be utter madness. Furthermore, this provision could result in 12 months of preventive detention, 12 months of imprisonment without a conviction. What has happened to Canada?

The reading of Bill S-7 raises questions for me that I must ask. If the government wants to extend an anti-terrorist provision not only to terrorists, but also to those suspected of terrorism and, basically, everyone in general, where is this all leading to?

Anti-terrorism legislation like this is not worthy of a state governed by the rule of law. It is not actually used anyway, and our Criminal Code has up to now proved to be adequate for tracking down terrorists. With this type of legislation, we are opening the door to broader applications, which we are already seeing in Bill S-7.

Earlier, I was talking about Bill C-36 and Bill C-42. They have not been useful in protecting Canada from terrorism. The behaviour of our forces of law and order deteriorated as a result.

If memory serves, Bill C-42 was used when the government declared the community of Kananaskis to be under military jurisdiction for a G8 economic meeting in 2002. Who were the terrorists? Al-Qaeda, or the global justice movement? Bill C-36 may not have been able to defend the country, but it sure got the authorities all worked up in 2010 during the notorious “Torontonamo”, when the city centre was locked down and $1 billion was spent on security for a simple G8 meeting on the economy. The result was 1,000 Canadians imprisoned and convicted with no evidence, and civil liberties taken away, first inside the security perimeter, then around it, and finally all over the city.

If the authorities feel that they can act like that at a simple demonstration about the economy, what will they do in other situations? I firmly believe that anti-terrorist laws give quite the wrong message to our forces of law and order. “Torontonamo” was strongly criticized in official government reports, but the harm was done. How many other accidents like that are we going to have to deal with before we realize that anti-terrorist legislation can become “anti-Canadian” legislation?

If the Conservative government really wanted to improve security in Canada, why did it cut the budget of our border intelligence unit by half? Why did it end a program designed to recruit more police officers in our communities, and why did it abolish the position of Inspector General of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service?

Furthermore, the NDP proposed a number of amendments that would have made Bill S-7, if not satisfactory, at least tolerable. But the Conservatives rejected all of our amendments. So we have to learn to live with investigative hearings, a technique worthy of medieval witch hunts, that could well pervert our justice system. Rather than confronting the potential threats hanging over our country, the Conservatives seem to be more interested in using them to significantly change the nature of justice in this country.

In my opinion, Bill S-7 is poorly designed and does not add anything substantial to the Criminal Code, other than the potential for misuse and abuse that we will all regret one day. Bill S-7 should be examined much more carefully before it is passed, since the issues this bill raises are much too important to be left to the whim of the government in power.

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak today from experience. On June 27, 1968, life gave me a very generous gift. I had twin daughters. They came into my life when my oldest daughter was only 27 months old. It was hard work, but I was young.

Having a child turns parents' lives upside down. While parents feel a tremendous amount of love as they build a relationship they will enjoy for the rest of their lives, they also have to work harder to include the newborn in their daily lives and to make things work at home. You can imagine how much energy it takes to raise two newborns at the same time. In 1968, things were different, because you only learned that you were having twins at the birth.

Parents with twins encounter many challenges. The babies are never hungry at the same time and so parents are constantly on standby. Daily life is a marathon of diaper changing and feedings. I can assure you that after all these years, I still remember those days. However, they are happy memories. Parents must also discover the distinct personality of each child, stimulate them and see to their needs without making compromises, and all the while not overlooking the older sibling.

In the first few months, taking care of an infant is a full-time job. Having twins requires even more energy, and is much like a vocation. I can say from experience that having twins is twice the amount of work of a single baby.

That is why I strong support the bill introduced by my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes. It is synonymous with social justice and equality for all parents. Why would we abandon parents of twins when we help all other parents?

The NDP believes that we must help Canadian families because our economy, our societal choices and our communities revolve around them. At a time when the birth rate in Canada is declining, anything we can do to help parents must be taken seriously. I will explain why this bill is a good opportunity to help parents.

We already have several programs in Canada to support families, but we can do better. The Canada Labour Code gives an employee a maximum of 35 weeks of leave. The Employment Insurance Act also gives 35 weeks of parental benefits. Is that really fair in the case of twins? A major difference, from my own experience, is that people generally need two incomes to survive in this economy. I know that with my three little ones, including a set of twins, I would have needed much more than 35 weeks at home.

Even with a single child, parental leave in Canada is not an extraordinary amount of leave compared to what you find elsewhere. In Canada, parents are entitled to 35 weeks of leave at 55% of their salary to a maximum of $485 a week. During that period at 55% of the salary, families are not living the high life. In Norway, parents get 44 weeks at full salary; in Germany, 47 weeks at full salary. In Sweden, parents are entitled to 47 weeks of leave at full salary or 69 weeks at 80% of their full salary. Sweden also gives an additional six months of leave for each additional child. Things are even better in France. Mothers are entitled to up to three years of leave. In addition to that, France also graciously provides a number of services, including subsidized daycare services and generous monthly allowances.

Those are some concrete measures for dealing with the declining birth rate. It is fair to say that Sweden and France encourage families. However, that is not the case in Canada, even less so when it comes to parents of twins. By all indications, Canada prefers to give tax exemptions to corporations rather than families. Bill C-464 is a step in the right direction if we want to remedy the situation.

My colleague is proposing that we amend the Canada Labour Code to increase parental leave to a maximum of 72 weeks. This would allow both parents to take adequate leave.

At a time when we are striving for equality in all aspects of society, the least we could do is allow each parent to have the same level of involvement at home.

My colleague is also proposing that we amend the Employment Insurance Act to extend the number of weeks of parental benefits to 70 in the case of multiple births. Parents of twins and triplets, just like all other parents, contribute to employment insurance and deserve to receive adequate benefits.

Not every member of this House shares the view that employment insurance belongs to those who contribute to it. I must remind members that employment insurance is a service paid into by workers, for workers. Why should parents of twins not get their fair share?

People may like to know that the amendments to EI and to the Canada Labour Code proposed in Bill C-464 would cost $40 million. That amount of money might shock some, but it is nothing compared to the dormant $526 billion sitting in the coffers of major Canadian corporations in the form of tax exemptions.

Rather than setting up programs that would really help Canadian families, the Conservatives prefer to give gifts to large corporations under the ideological premise that the money will be automatically reinvested. Yet, we know that it is not being reinvested. Large corporations are saying “Thank you and so long”.

Bill C-464 is therefore an opportunity to make amends to Canadians by showing them a little bit of respect. We have the duty to support the economy, and that can be done in several ways, including putting SMEs, new green technologies and research to good use. However, let us not make the mistake of abandoning families because, as I said before, our society revolves around them.

In closing, I would like to point out that multiple births are on the rise in Canada. In fact, their number has been steadily increasing over the past 30 years.

It is therefore high time that the House take responsibility and provide families with what they expect from us: policies that really help them in their daily lives.

I therefore urge hon. members to vote in favour of Bill C-464, which was introduced by my NDP colleague, because it is definitely a step in the right direction.

[Employment Insurance, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, she is sending inspectors to spy on the unemployed, close Service Canada offices in the regions and axe training programs for the unemployed.

She claims her reform will improve our regional economies. If she knew how our seasonal industries operate, she would know that they are functioning quite well.

Why is she so bent on punishing people who lose their jobs? Just how far will she go with the Conservative policy of abandoning the regions?

[Employment Insurance, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we always get the same answers.

The minister responsible for butchering employment insurance has never set foot in Joliette.

[Marie-Dupuis Women's Centre, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, I had the privilege of participating in an International Women's Day celebration at the Centre de femmes Marie-Dupuis in Notre-Dame-des-Prairies.

For 21 years now, this organization has offered a place where all women in my region can go for training, legal assistance, support and information. Its focus is on collective action, and it goes without saying that people at the centre are very upset about the Conservative government's attacks on employment insurance.

On this International Women's Day, I want to pay tribute to all of the women working together to create the world of tomorrow, the fair and egalitarian world that all Canadians want.

[Petitions, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition regarding Bill C-400, which would ensure that all Canadians have access to affordable and secure housing.

I think that everyone has the right to proper housing. Everyone should have access to that.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

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

I do not know. The government gives and then it takes. It is cutting funding to the organizations that help people. If we want more witnesses, we would absolutely have to increase funding for the organizations that help people with problems.

When we have 30 out of 108 witnesses receiving protection, that is not a lot. Perhaps more than 108 people would want to become witnesses if they had better protection.