Hoang Mai

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).

I think it is important to start by making one thing perfectly clear about this bill. Everyone who has spoken about this bill today has said the same thing. The purpose here is not necessarily to promote a sport like mixed martial arts over another, but simply to update the Criminal Code to reflect current practices.

Personally, like many people from my generation, I was a Bruce Lee fan growing up, but that does not mean I wanted to go out and hit everyone just to be like him. However, I did take lessons that were very interesting. They gave me discipline and taught me to take care of my body. I was not going to hit everyone just for the sake of doing so or so that I could emulate Bruce Lee.

Things change and that is what we are seeing now, in a way. Mixed martial arts are a little more structured. This sport is quite new. The members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had a chance to study the bill and many witnesses appeared before the committee, including members of the UFC.

I would like to point out that the UFC is a league. It does not necessarily represent the entire sport. It is a well-organized league. Georges St-Pierre, who is famous in Quebec, Canada and around the world is a member of that league. Again, I am not here to promote this sport, but to say that society has changed and adopted this sport.

At the federal level, the objective is to decriminalize this sport. We do not want to regulate it by proposing rules. We want to leave it up to the provinces to regulate it. In fact, that is what is happening now, even though the sport is technically illegal under the Criminal Code. Subsection 83(2) of the Criminal Code legalizes or decriminalizes boxing, but it does not cover sports like karate, kung fu or, in this case, mixed martial arts.

Our objective is to come up with a certain definition. I am not going to get into the details of that definition, because I think everyone agrees on this. There was no real discussion with regard to the amendments because we all agree on this point. A few questions were asked and the experts who came to committee answered those questions.

We are happy with this bill. I thank my colleague, the member for Chambly—Borduas and the NDP's sports critic. He has worked very hard on this issue.

What I am saying is that society is changing. More and more people are participating in this sport. Although the sport is prohibited under the Criminal Code, such events attract tens of thousands of spectators at places such as the Bell Centre in Montreal and bring in a lot of revenue. Toronto hosted the largest mixed martial arts event in Canada.

Once again, as my colleagues have said, this is not about promoting the sport. We simply want to look at the facts. The provinces already regulate the sport with certain protocols. For example, they require athletes to have a certain skill level. Not just anyone can walk into an arena to fight.

However, if we continue to ignore the facts and say that we are against mixed martial arts and do not want it happening in our backyard, nothing will change. The sport will remain a crime or remain technically illegal, and there will be a black market. That means that people will continue to fight, but the fights will not be properly regulated.

The purpose of the bill is to decriminalize this sport at the federal level and to let the provinces create their own regulations. Several provinces—though not all—have already developed regulations for this sport. However, things are evolving. This sport is very new on the international scene. We are seeing a change within Canadian society.

We know that the people of Quebec have accepted this sport. When there is a major public event, the police do not try to interfere or to stop it. Of course, I am not saying that everyone supports these sports. I am not a big fan myself. I would rather watch a Bruce Lee movie than see people fighting for real in a cage, something I find quite violent.

That being said, I am not passing judgment, and I do not necessarily wish for the federal government to intervene and decide that, based on its moral values, these activities are wrong and must be regulated and criminalized. Things have simply evolved.

The bill introduces legal changes to the Criminal Code. One change adds the word “feet” to a definition, in order to include some mixed martial arts sports. It reflects a societal change.

I will use karate as an example. My four- and seven-year-old nephews are both learning karate. This does not mean that they are particularly violent kids. On the contrary: their parents chose this sport as a way to direct their activities. That is exactly our message to the provinces: they can direct how these sports are practised. They have agreed to have these sports in their territory, so they should be responsible for regulating them.

Meanwhile, the federal government must make sure it does not create obstacles. It must also decriminalize these activities. We know that society has evolved, but the Criminal Code did not evolve in the same way. As a result, provinces may wonder whether they can regulate these sports. We have already seen cases where provinces worked around the problem, either by deciding to treat an event just like an ordinary boxing match or sport event, or by using other solutions. Provinces have tolerated the sport.

When we studied the bill in committee, all parties supported it because they saw it as a good option.

I would like to draw a parallel with another bill that was introduced. Bill C-290 addressed bets on individual events. I want to mention it because it was unanimously passed in the House. Unfortunately, the Senate has not gotten around to dealing with it yet. Now we have a bill from the other chamber. I am wondering how legitimate the Senate really is.

Bill C-290 was introduced by one of my NDP colleagues. The House agreed to it unanimously. Now it is at the Senate. People seem to be waking up. I even heard a Conservative member say that he did not know it passed and that he did not support it.

The bill is at the other chamber. I do not know what is happening with it. We heard that some Senators are not in favour of it. I am mentioning this because the same principle comes into play here. Certain provinces want to legalize both mixed martial arts and betting on individual events. It generates revenues. However, revenues are not the main argument. They simply want to legalize something that is currently illegal and take the money out of the black market and the underground economy.

Will not changing the Criminal Code immediately result in prohibition? Will that fix the problem? No. Society—be it the provinces, the people who watch the sport, or people in general—has changed and now accepts these sports.

I hope that Bill S-209, from the other chamber, will receive majority or unanimous support here. If the bill passes, we hope that Bill C-290, which was passed unanimously here, will make progress in the other, supposedly “wiser”, chamber. I put that in quotation marks because I am not entirely sure that is the case.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 6th, 2013]

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

My colleague said that the bill does not promote the sport. However, there are real repercussions in this regard, whether in Montreal or Toronto. He talked about how this bill will affect tourism, but could he now talk about its legal ramifications? We know that the bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that some provinces allow the sport. Can he talk about what the Criminal Code does in this regard?

[Foreign Affairs, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have still not managed to protect jobs across the country.

The ICAO offices in Montreal are in danger of shutting down. Everyone wants the organization to stay in the city.

Let us be clear. These jobs are in jeopardy because of this government's disastrous foreign policy.

How did Canada manage to go from being a world leader to fighting tooth and nail just to keep international organizations in the country?

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau and our justice critic. She has done an excellent job as our critic, as always. It is a pleasure and honour to work with her on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

We heard from the bill's sponsor. I understand his position. We are all moved by crimes when we hear what the families of victims must go through or when we must relive these situations, even if it is only at a trial.

I cannot imagine the feelings and emotions these families must experience. I can understand why the bill's sponsor wants to prevent victims from having to attend parole hearings.

Bill C-478 would increase the term for life imprisonment without parole from 25 years to 40 years in the case of offenders who are convicted of three crimes: the abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim.

As my colleague mentioned, it is not clear whether this bill is consistent with the charter.

The bill's sponsor mentioned that the Department of Justice had been consulted. However, we recently learned from department employees that the department does not always check to see whether bills are consistent with the charter. There is a problem there. We have some doubts about what this bill does and whether it is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My colleague from Gatineau said it was very surprising to see the Liberals support this bill, especially when we see what kind of impact it could have.

We have been seeing a shift in the Liberals for a while now. The Liberals supported Bill S-7 and now they are supporting this bill.

Again, I understand my colleague's intent. I know how much everyone wants to avoid making the families suffer.

However, Steve Sullivan, the first ombudsman for victims of crime, said that this bill was all smoke and mirrors. If someone is accused of first degree murder, the Crown generally does not bother to deal with less serious offences. When Mr. Olson was found guilty of murdering 11 children, the Crown did not bother with charges of kidnapping or sexual assault, even though he obviously also committed those crimes.

The Crown would have had to prove each crime and could have used that to encourage a plea bargain, but it always depends on the judge's willingness to give more than 25 years, which he thinks is unlikely. He does not think that many judges would sentence a criminal to life with prison with no chance of parole for 40 years. Judges simply would not do that. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with a chance of parole after 25 years, this already takes into account that if the person represents a danger or a risk, they will not be granted parole. He thinks that this is a false promise, despite good intentions. The measure would be used at most a few times a year, but would change nothing for the families of victims.

That is where our concern lies. We understand the sponsor's intention, but he himself said that judges are not bound by the change and do not have to increase the ineligibility period to 40 years.

Our concern is about the law. Members have mentioned the charter, but we also need to talk about our obligations with regard to international law. Canada signed the Rome statute. Paragraph 110(3) of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court states that life in prison is the maximum sentence, but that it must be reviewed after 25 years. That applies to all serious crimes.

I can understand why my colleague wanted to mention certain crimes. However, what international law dictates and what Canada decided to apply is a maximum of 25 years for all crimes. Can one crime be considered more or less serious than another? These are crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. These crimes are very serious.

Our role is not really to say which crimes are most serious. Our role is to define the law. That is why I am really very surprised that our Liberal colleagues supported this bill. Once again, I understand the intention. However, this seems to be a trend with the Conservatives. They claim that they are introducing bills because they want to try to fix a problem. However, they fail to consider Canada's obligations with respect to our legal system and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A former Department of Justice employee made this very clear. He said that the government no longer looks into that. This means that opportunities to determine whether a government bill conflicts with the charter are reduced, if not virtually eliminated.

Members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asked for a review of the existing system to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives voted against that, so we were not able to carry out such a study. As a result, we have no certainty on that point.

The trend is getting worse. We know that the bill's sponsor had the support of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. This is yet another trend with private members' bills. We know that this government's policy is to attack law and order by adding more and more offences. Obviously, their main goal is to put more and more people behind bars and build bigger and bigger prisons.

In this case, I understand that our colleague is genuinely trying to protect families. He wants to protect people from having to listen to all the details of a crime again during parole hearings. Unfortunately, as we have said, this bill does not solve the problem. Not only does it not solve the problem, it conflicts with our obligations and violates the integrity of our legal system. This is about Canada's obligation to respect certain basic rights, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our obligations in terms of international law.

We also wonder whether this will open doors, whether it will once again come before the courts. Taxpayers will again have to assume even higher legal fees. All this will go before the Supreme Court, as has happened often already. Since the Conservatives came to power, we have seen an increase in legal fees. Not just in challenges by the provinces, but also from the Supreme Court with respect to the compatibility and constitutionality of certain Conservative bills.

Once again, we support the idea behind this bill. Why not look at another option, such as changing the way hearings are held? Why not try to see what we can do to ensure that families do not need to relive these cases? We do understand the intention, which is to avoid trauma every time families have to attend the hearing. However, even my colleague knows that his bill will not prevent families from having to come back every two years to hear it again. Nothing guarantees that.

There was mention of the very serious case of Clifford Olson. He murdered 11 people between the ages of 9 and 18. Let us look at the facts, though. In the case of Clifford Olson, it does not make a big difference. After spending 25 years in prison, he applied for parole in 2006 for the first time. That application was rejected, and so was his second application, made in 2008. The third application, made in 2010, was also rejected, because the court deemed that he was still a danger to society after 30 years in jail. He died in jail in 2011.

I understand the good intentions of the bill's sponsor. However, the NDP will oppose this bill at second reading. We believe that it is a political move made without considering the rule of law or examining what has to be done to comply with the fundamental rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on that.

The Liberals are now blaming the NDP for the fact that Canadians rejected their proposals.

In 2008, when the Liberals said they would move on a carbon tax, we were proposing a carbon market. They changed their position in 2011 and they are doing so again. We do not know where they stand.

One of the problems we have with the Liberals is that they did nothing. The hon. member even said so. She said that, unlike the Conservatives, they went ahead with consultations. That is fine, and I agree. However, she admitted that they did not take action.

That is why our motion is very good. It clearly states that we condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998. I believe that the hon. member should agree with that.

Could she talk about her measure? Is it the carbon tax or the carbon market? What have they decided?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

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

This issue was also raised by our justice critic, the hon. member for Gatineau, at the Standing Committee on Justice. We know that the government does not really have any structure to review government bills, and even less so for reviewing private member's bills.

We know that no study is done and that there is no established system to ensure that a bill does not go against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We asked that this matter be looked into, but since the Conservatives hold a majority they refused to do so. I was disturbed to find out that, even internally, it is no longer as important for a bill to comply with the charter. This opens the door to legal proceedings, which costs Canadians dearly. The government must go before the courts, including the Supreme Court. The costs involved are huge and, unfortunately, this is because the Conservatives behave in a partisan and ideological fashion, without really verifying what their laws introduce.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

He is absolutely right in saying that the Conservative government is being opportunistic. As I said, the tragic and horrific events that took place have affected all of us. However, the bill from the other place was introduced in February 2012, if I am not mistaken. That means that it has been sitting on the Conservatives' desk for some time. If the government had really been serious about this bill, it would not have introduced it at the other place. It would have done so itself.

We have seen it, the media have seen it, the Liberals have denounced it and we are denouncing it too. It was the government's response to avoid debating a motion on an embarrassing topic. To change the subject and to dazzle everyone, it brought back Bill S-7.

Last Friday, we saw the Conservatives respond in a knee-jerk way to protect themselves. Unfortunately, considering how important our rights and our discussions on major issues are, I think the government must not be opportunistic or partisan, but rather, must think about the interests of Canadians before it acts in such a manner.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, or the combating terrorism act.

Of course, we must begin today by marking the events that have taken place in recent weeks. Last Monday, two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring 183 others. That event touched every one of us in the House. We were deeply moved by the news and that is probably the reason why the entire House has risen to condemn that attack.

Yesterday, we also learned the facts surrounding the VIA Rail conspiracy. Our security services were successful in dismantling a terrorist plot. This was an outstanding achievement on the part of our law enforcement agencies, the RCMP and CSIS, which worked together with the FBI and Homeland Security. This situation clearly demonstrates that we can work together to combat terrorism, and that is very important to the NDP.

Before analyzing Bill S-7, we have to talk about its history. We must not forget that the Anti-terrorism Act that was brought forward in 2001, after the September 11 attacks, changed Canadian law. In response to a very tragic event that moved the entire world, Canada brought forward a number of initiatives and laws that tackled the problem of terrorism. At the time, this was a spontaneous reaction; the government then was not sure whether these provisions should be retained or re-enacted. It passed a sunset clause, so the provisions and measures would expire and it could re-examine the situation to see whether the laws should be brought forward again.

In 2007, in the House, by a vote of 159 to 124, those measures were rejected. At that time, the Liberals were also opposed to them. The present Conservative majority government, however, has decided to bring these provisions back in the form of Bill S-7, which comes from the other Chamber.

We have spoken out against it and, as the media have reported, we are outraged that the Conservatives have exploited a tragic situation in a way that is unworthy of parliamentarians. I am talking about the Boston bombings and the plot that was foiled.

That is a very political and partisan way of using a situation that impacts everyone to push a bill through. If the Conservatives were serious about this, they would have introduced it in the House, not in the Senate. The Conservatives have been dragging their feet on this bill since February 2012. Taking advantage of this kind of situation to push a bill through and score political points is very partisan and cheap.

It is not surprising that we are opposed to Bill S-7. We are simply reiterating our 2007 position. Plus, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has done studies. I would like to thank our critic, the member for Toronto—Danforth, who has worked so hard on this file. He utilized every resource, studied the subject in detail and capably advised us and guided us on this matter.

Bill S-7 has four main objectives. First, it will amend the Criminal Code to allow for investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. Second, it will amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information about a trial or an accused once the appeal period has expired. Third, it will amend the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act. Fourth, it will amend the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who has committed or is likely to commit a terrorist act.

I have spoken a little about the background to these provisions, but I would like to go into greater detail about the reasons why the NDP is opposed to the bill.

We believe that Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and human rights. Having sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I will say that we increasingly feel we must strike a balance. On the one hand, the purpose of the bill is to protect the public, but, on the other hand, we must look out for our rights and freedoms, which really are the basis of our democracy.

Unfortunately, and we see a lot of this in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Conservatives increasingly introduce bills that violate the charter and violate rights and freedoms. Not surprisingly, many of the Conservatives' bills are now before the Supreme Court. Even the provinces have to oppose them and institute legal proceedings. This process costs us an enormous amount of money. If the Conservatives did a better job, we would be sure to strike a better balance between rights and the purpose of the bills.

Consequently, one of the problems with Bill S-7 is that it violates the right to remain silent. It also violates the right not to be sent to prison without a fair trial. I personally do not sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but some of my colleagues there have heard witnesses from the legal community and civil liberties advocates, who really have said that the provisions of Bill S-7 are pointless, that there is a lack of balance between security and fundamental rights, particularly as regards the role of the Attorney General.

Let us briefly look at what happened after the Anti-terrorism Act was passed in 2001. There was the Maher Arar affair. The government went ahead with these types of measures and Mr. Arar, a Canadian, was deported. He was arrested in the United States and deported to Syria, where he was tortured. It later came out that all this had been done based on false information. The Prime Minister recently had to apologize and to pay $10.5 million in compensation, if I am not mistaken.

Let us not forgot that all that happened when the Liberals were in power. So that shows what the Liberals want to continue doing. I am a bit surprised that they have not learned their lesson. In 2007, they voted against the legislation, and now they have changed their minds. That may be because they have changed leaders and are therefore more supportive of what the Conservatives want to put forward. However, we find it quite surprising that the Liberals, who claim to be proud defenders of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are voting in favour of this bill as presented.

We in the NDP have studied the bill. We have proposed amendments designed to put forward a more balanced bill. As we often say, we must not just oppose, but also propose. So we made proposals and put forward 18 amendments that improved the bill's transparency, for example. They would have reduced the negative impact on civil liberties. Unfortunately, since the Conservatives were in the majority, all those amendments were, of course, rejected.

Mr. Paul Copeland, a lawyer from the Law Union of Ontario, said that in his opinion, the provisions we are looking at here—we were talking about Bill S-7 in committee—would unnecessarily change our legal landscape in Canada. He said that we must not adopt them and that in his opinion, they were not needed. Other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals.

We also have the statement from Reid Morden, former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, who stated, in 2010, that police and security services “have perfectly sufficient powers to do their jobs.... They don't need any more new powers”.

[Champlain Bridge, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has finally selected a light rail transportation system for the new Champlain Bridge. However, the Conservative government has not yet committed any funds to this public transit project. Elected officials and the public unanimously support the LRT. With their toll system, the Conservatives are already making families on the South Shore pay for the new bridge.

Can the Minister of Transport at least commit to providing adequate funds for the LRT on the new bridge?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

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

On the contrary, with this budget, the government is continuing to do what it has done in the past, which is to favour large companies to the detriment of small enterprises and the population in general. For example, the analysis done by the Conference Board of Canada provides striking examples of the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

We often hear that reducing taxes will benefit the economy and the population in general. However, we see that these measures do not work in practice when companies are sitting on $600 billion. That is money that is not being reinvested in the economy. It is money that is not creating jobs.