François Choquette

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of time for my speech, since it is getting late and there is an important speech coming up.

The parliamentary secretary has been repeating the same question since early this afternoon. I just want to point out to him that the NDP proposed 22 amendments and 5 subamendments to improve this bill in committee. We are not talking about one or two amendments. It was 22 amendments and 5 subamendments. How many of these amendments were approved? Not a single one.

We worked very hard to get one amendment passed, and this amendment is essential to our support of this bill. This amendment was eventually presented by the Conservatives. We worked very hard to ensure that members of the armed forces do not end up with criminal records.

This bill is very important, even though it is a long time coming. The bill responds to reports dating back to 2003, as my colleagues mentioned earlier. They made some excellent speeches and showed that this bill does a lot of good and that it represents a good step forward.

I would like to talk about the important point that the NDP gained, because we work very hard in the House and in committee. As a result of our hard work, 95% of disciplinary code breaches will not lead to a criminal record, as was the case previously. That is thanks to the NDP.

That is why we will support this bill. We worked hard in committee, did our homework and were on the front line.

As I mentioned, we proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments to improve this bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against them.

We are very proud to have managed to get the main amendment. Our Canadian Forces are people who sacrifice their lives and sometimes ruin their family lives to serve our beautiful country and its people. When they leave the Canadian Forces, they do not deserve to have a criminal record for breaches that are not serious or are minor, and for which they would not receive a criminal record in the civilian system.

For that reason, I will say that this bill is a step forward. However, I would like to tell the parliamentary secretary who just rose a number of times to tell us that we are not doing serious work, that the opposite is true. We are doing serious work. We proposed 22 amendments and five subamendments in committee. The parliamentary secretary voted against all those measures.

We finally have a bill that we managed to improve. We are very proud of it. We are very pleased with it. We will not give up, and we will continue on.

Some people had some doubts earlier, but it is true that we will be in power in 2015. It is true that we will do what needs to be done in 2015 to have a true democracy and adopt budgets that do not come in an omnibus package and that can be studied.

That is how things will go in 2015. The budgets would be proposed in committee and will be studied as they should.

[The Environment, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before getting back to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I want to point out that my hon. colleague was saying that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act could apply. However, these two pieces of legislation were targeted in Bills C-38 and C-45. They were amended and the protections were reduced. In fact, the government is attacking environmental protection. Why is there a double standard in the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

If my hon. colleague is saying that we do not need to protect the environment, then why is it that the Treasury Board is protecting the lakes in one riding in particular? This supposedly does not protect the environment. However, those lakes are protected when tens of thousands of other lakes and rivers in Canada are not.

The question needs to be asked. Why this injustice? Why is it that the Treasury Board is protecting lakes in one riding full of rich and famous people? What are we doing for all the other Canadian lakes?

[The Environment, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my intervention today follows up on the question I asked on December 4 last year about the many changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I would like to point out that the reform of the Navigable Waters Protection Act was never announced during the election campaign or in the Conservative government's mammoth budgets. It was a real surprise, especially since the government did not announce it during the election campaign.

Unfortunately, when I asked the Minister of Transport my question, he did not respond in any way to the concerns of Canadians about the changes to this legislation.

However, my question was quite clear, simple and inspired by comments from Canadians. I travelled around the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable and the Chaudière River area to find out if the public knew about this reform. They told me that they did not know that Lac Mégantic, Rivière Chaudière, or even Rivière Saint-François, in my riding, would no longer have environmental protection.

Following my visit, people came to see me. They could not believe that their Conservative MP did not stand up for their river or lake. Even after I got back to my riding, I received a number of calls from people who wanted to thank me and to tell me that they were angry about this situation. These are a few examples of people in the community who were not aware of this reform. They were shocked and angry.

When it comes to protecting navigable waters, I highly doubt that the legendary slogan that the Conservatives used to appeal to Canadians—“Our region in power”—can be applied. Instead, our slogan—“Our region abandoned by the Conservatives”—seems more fitting. The comments my colleague made earlier about employment insurance shows that this is true. The same thing is happening here.

In this respect, we are wondering why the Conservatives allowed the President of the Treasury Board to protect the lakes of the rich and famous in his riding and abandon the rest of Canadians. That is the question.

I examined the whole situation carefully and there is no reasonable explanation. It is important to mention that, when asked a question in the House, my NDP colleague clearly showed that the website regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act mentioned the word “environment” dozens of times. As soon as she mentioned this in the House—the next day, I believe—the website was completely changed with every instance of the word “environment” removed. This may have been a coincidence, but I think that it was arranged by the Conservative Party.

People are upset that the government is abandoning environmental protection. They do not understand why certain lakes and rivers are protected while others, such as Rivière Saint-François, Lac Mégantic, and Rivière Chaudière, are not. That is my question.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will not do this often but they need to be given credit where credit is due. To be honest, the Conservatives sometimes get things right. Not often, but if they will allow us to vote in favour of their Bill, then we are going to do so. We are therefore going to support the Conservatives’ bill at third reading. I believe that the bill is balanced, as I have said before.

My colleague from Gatineau, who has been working very hard as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, has carefully studied the bill, which shows a great deal of prudence, respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is constitutional and responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Tse. We will therefore support this bill.

I do not know how much time I have left, but as my colleagues know, I could go on for hours.

In that respect, I would like to go back to a few quotes made during this study in committee. If memory serves me correctly, two meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were spent on Bill C-55. The study in committee was peaceful and went well.

I would like to list the NDP members who are on this committee. There is my colleague from Gatineau, who does an excellent job, and my colleagues from Brossard—La Prairie, Brome—Missisquoi and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who have also done excellent work, as always.

In the justice committee meetings, a few witnesses mentioned why they supported this legislation. For example, the Criminal Lawyers' Association was in favour of this bill. It generally supports modest, fair and constitutional legislation. That is what its representatives said. Bill C-55 does an admirable job of incorporating the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse. However, they said that there were some parts that the committee could have perhaps spent more time on. They also mentioned that Bill C-55 was a positive legislative measure, as I just said, and that it seeks to find a better balance between protection of the public and protection of privacy, which we think counts the most when it comes to Bill C-55.

There was also a brief presented by the Canadian Bar Association at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that stated:

The CBA Section supports the proposed changes in Bill C-55 to [finally] comply with R. v. Tse, but recommends further limits on s. 184.4 interceptions.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which has been introduced in response to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse.

This bill is now at third reading and the NDP will support it. The bill finally corrects a number of previous errors. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of the Code. The bill makes three provisions in particular.

First, it requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. Second, it provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period. Third, it narrows the class of individuals who may make such an interception and, lastly, limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

We are genuinely pleased that the Conservative government has finally introduced Bill C-55. I say "finally" because the government has dragged its feet on this matter.

This bill refers to the obligation set by the Supreme Court, which revealed a deficiency. There was an imbalance between the right to privacy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to security. There was thus an intrusion of privacy. That is why this bill now strikes a balance between the right to privacy and the right to security.

We now have accountability. Now no one may engage in wiretapping at will, without being accountable. A person who has been wiretapped must be notified within 90 days. Why is this aspect important? Now if an individual who has been wiretapped believes that his or her right to privacy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been violated, that individual may institute legal proceedings against the individuals in question and seek redress. That will help limit overzealous peace officers.

In addition, the number of individuals who may conduct wiretap will now be limited, a fact that also helps strike a balance.

However, the bill is also a response to a total failure by the Conservative government after it introduced its infamous Bill C-30. That bill constituted a direct attack on people's right to privacy and certainly violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was also drafted by the Conservatives in a wholly improvised manner.

It is very important that the NDP remind the Conservatives how crucially important and even essential it is for them to scrutinize all new bills they table in the House of Commons in future. Those bills will have to be well analyzed and checked, and reviewed by lawyers to be sure that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada.

As a result, the Supreme Court will not be required to hear lengthy and costly cases that waste the precious time of all Canadians. That is essential, and I want to recall that point so that the Conservatives learn a good lesson from it.

It is very important to go through all the stages in a democratic process properly. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have a bad habit of wanting to do everything at lightning speed without due regard to the democratic process.

I need only recall its bad budget implementation legislation, Bills C-38 and C-45, omnibus bills of 400 pages each that prevent us from doing our democratic job and from getting to the bottom of things, just as the notorious Bill C-30 did.

In that case, the bill does not make it through the process to committee stage and is neither examined nor evaluated. If there are any deficiencies or aspects that do not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or are unconstitutional, we wind up with a botched job and have to turn to the Supreme Court to assert our rights.

That is why the judgment in R. v. Tse is important. I hope it will finally teach the Conservative government a lesson so that it acts in a systematic and democratic manner in future in order to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada.

I will go into slightly greater detail on the subject of Bill C-55. This bill requires that an individual whose private communications have been intercepted in situations of imminent harm be notified of the situation within 90 days, subject to any extension of that period granted by a judge. The bill would also require annual reports to be prepared.

The preparation of annual reports on interceptions of telephone surveillance is truly important in determining whether abusive wiretap has taken place and in being able to monitor such wiretaps. The requirement to prepare an annual report will help keep an eye on all that. The reports will also enable other authorities, such as the Office of the Auditor General, to monitor what is being done in that regard to ensure that the act and the spirit of the act are complied with, that there are no abuses of justice and that the privacy of Canadian citizens is respected. Annual reports must be prepared on the manner in which information intercepted under section 184.4 is used.

These amendments would also limit the authorization that police officers are granted to use this provision. As I mentioned, all peace officers currently have access to it. Its use would thus be limited to the offences set out in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

It is very important that there be accountability for this wiretapping. We know that there may be threats or moments when a security breach can suddenly call for warrantless wiretaps. At that point, however, there must be accountability because there must be no serious abuses or violations of citizens' privacy.

On that point, I consider it important to note again that the NDP believes it has a duty to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that public safety is not undermined.

To sum up, it is important to remember that this new bill is no more than an update of wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. The court also set new parameters for the protection of privacy.

We believe that the bill meets the standards, and that Canadians have good reasons for apprehension about the Conservatives’ bill with respect to privacy. As I said, their track record in this area is not very impressive. Fortunately, this bill brings balance to the earlier imbalance. We must continue to be vigilant, however.

The NDP will continue to be vigilant with respect to the Conservatives’ bills. In the past, we have seen abuses. We saw abuse in the infamous Bill C-30. We have also seen the familiar dichotomy that the Conservatives love to present, whereby everything is either black or white, but there is no grey, so that is completely false. Bills must be referred to committee for study.

I am happy that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou has returned to hear my comments, because he quite rightly mentioned just now the importance of committee work, and how essential committee work is to a sound democracy. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Like my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, I know how very important this little-known work is. We meet with experts, and we propose amendments and additions to bills to ensure that they are as close to perfect as possible, that they respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, and that they will be worthwhile and improve the well-being of Canadians in our wonderful country.

In closing, we find Bill C-55 well constructed. We appreciate it, because it finally brings balance between privacy and the need for security. That does not mean that we support all of the Conservatives’ bills. On the contrary, they have introduced abusive and infamous bills in the past. Bill C-30 was a horror—need I say again— because it was an absolute threat to people’s privacy. It was a purely conservative bill in the ideological sense of the term. It was an ideological vision.

I know that members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights criticized Bill C-30 repeatedly. I further believe that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou was a member of the committee at the time. No, not quite. However, I know that other colleagues, for example my colleague from Gatineau, worked very hard to criticize the infamous Bill C-30, which was a genuine threat to privacy.

Bill C-30 regrettably demonstrated that the Conservatives can often say outrageous things. Truly outrageous things were said in the House when Bill C-30 was introduced. There were incredible dichotomous comments such as “either you are in favour of security and safety or you are on the side of the pedophiles”. It was a horrible speech with no room for grey areas or other comments. After all that, they backed down on Bill C-30 and introduced a bill that made sense—Bill C-55. I do not often congratulate the Conservatives. They should make the most of it today.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent speech, which was well researched and explained. He gave a good overview of this legislation and its origin. This was the result of an absolute mistake on the part of the Conservative government, which did not do its homework and brought in a bill that undermined our integrity and our right to privacy.

This bill finally achieves a balance between the right to privacy and the need for security. That was very important. He also mentioned that the government sometimes tended to get in the way of the democratic process and democracy. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45—two undemocratic omnibus bills—are examples of that. Another example is the work done in committee and the abuse of power, in committee, when the government chooses to hold in camera meetings.

I would like to hear what the member thinks about the fact that the government should act much more democratically and should respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his excellent speech, which covered all the important points of this bill.

The bill finally restores the balance that had been destroyed by previous bills. Indeed, the integrity of people's privacy was being threatened. This balance is very important when it comes to matters of justice. Balance and some degree of control are absolutely crucial.

This bill finally restores justice. Wiretapping might still be necessary in exceptional circumstances, but it will be controlled. People will be informed of it. It is really important that balance be restored.

It is also important to remember that Bill C-55 addresses one of the Conservatives' failures. They failed when they introduced the previous bill on privacy and its integrity. The new bill finally addresses the matter adequately.

I would like to come back to a very important point I mentioned earlier. Does my colleague believe that the Conservatives should make sure they are respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution before introducing—

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada decison in R. V. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech and my other colleague who previously spoke to the issue.

They did a good job of illustrating the fact that Bill C-55 finally gives Canadians what they want and corrects a flaw that existed in the previous bill.

Bill C-30, which was introduced by the Conservative government, was horrible and threatened Canadians to a certain extent because it would have invaded their privacy.

Does my colleague not believe that the Conservative government should have shown more leadership and taken more care to ensure that Bill C-30 complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution?

Does he not think that we should from now on always ensure that the Conservative government respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafts legislation?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was simply referring to the great speech given by my honourable colleague. I will let him talk about what I just mentioned.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre for his excellent speech and all the very enlightening information about the bill that he shared with us.

This is a very important bill because we have a deadline to meet in order to live up to international agreements. In that regard, it was urgent to get the job done.

Unfortunately, as my colleague mentioned, the bill originated in the Senate, where we have appointed not democratically elected representatives. The Senate is even dealing with several scandals, which have been mentioned a number of times in the House of Commons. The Conservative government's lack of leadership in the fight against and prevention of nuclear terrorism is deplorable. That is very important.

I would like my hon. colleague to share his opinions on the fact that the bill came from the Senate and not the government. He also mentioned—