Hoang Mai

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act.

Before I begin, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau, who is also the official opposition's justice critic. In my role as deputy critic, I have had the privilege of working with her. She is an extraordinary person and has done extraordinary work on this file, as well as on all the others she is responsible for. She is a true role model for hard work and I hope to emulate her.

Now, with regard to this bill, I agree that nuclear terrorism is a real threat to all countries, including Canada. It is important for us to consider it carefully and take the necessary measures. Thus, we are pleased to see the introduction of Bill S-9. I sat on the committee and I can say that, this time, we have been able to work with the government—I admit it—and with our Liberal colleagues.

Members of the official opposition have been able to work together to move the bill forward. When there are matters of importance to Canada, I think we can work together, and this is a fine example.

I would now like to speak more specifically about this bill. We must not forget that it leads to the eventual ratification of two international anti-terrorism treaties.

They are the 2008 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The latter defines the categories of nuclear terrorism offences and the procedures for bringing offenders to justice. The purpose of this bill is to incorporate all these provisions into Canadian law, so that the treaties can later be ratified. One of the problems is that Bill S-9 comes from the Senate.

It was strange to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence ask his question and tell us that it is a priority for them, and so on. When we see that this comes from the Senate, we realize that it is not necessarily the government's top priority. We must keep in mind the dates of the treaties I mentioned: they date from 2005 and 1980 and came into force in 2007. There has been quite a delay in government action on this matter.

I will speak now about the bill's details: it is an attempt to eliminate legal loopholes when launching proceedings against those who commit acts related to nuclear terrorism. There is also an extraterritorial aspect to this bill, to extend the reach of Canadian law.

In the past, legal proceedings could fail because of a lack of legislation; this will solve that problem. Bill S-9 also provides for extradition in cases of nuclear terrorism, even where there are no bilateral treaties between countries, so that legal tools can have a longer reach.

Moreover, new Criminal Code offences are being created. It would be illegal to: possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death; use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to compel a person, government or organization; and commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material or devices.

Because we are establishing certain international conventions to which Canada is a signatory, all hon. members will agree that this bill will update the Criminal Code and other Canadian legislation. That is why we agree with and support this bill. We have always supported it. When we hear members on the other side say that the official opposition does not work with them and does not move things forward, they really ought to look at the way this has worked.

This is an excellent example of something that should move forward.

Bill S-9 makes other changes to the legislation. Anyone who commits any of the new offences outside Canada can be prosecuted in Canada. This new provision will help ensure that we address the problem. As we have mentioned, nuclear terrorism poses a real threat, and we need to take the necessary steps in that regard. That is why we supported this bill and studied it extensively in committee. We asked some serious questions and obtained some good answers, particularly from people who work on nuclear issues at the Department of Justice. The examination was very interesting and informative.

Nevertheless, we have another criticism of this government. Since it said that this bill is important, and I myself have pointed out just how important it is, we have to wonder why it took so long for the government to introduce this legislation. The treaty was signed in 2005 and came into force in 2007, yet the government is only starting to talk about it now. It blames the opposition, as usual, but it is important to remember that this government has a majority and it controls the agenda. Since everyone agrees on this bill, it could even have introduced it when it had a minority. This file could have moved forward, and we could have resolved these issues. Unfortunately, this government has acted in bad faith.

In fact, when the Minister of Justice appeared in committee, he openly admitted that this was not a priority. Here is what the minister said:

On this particular legislation, this was part of the enumerated bills that I wanted to get to, but yes, most of the focus of the last year or two has been concentrating on cracking down on drug dealers and going after people in the child pornography business and people who sexually assault children. I know most of the efforts of this committee, and certainly of the government, were to push that, but this was always important to us. Again, because most of the activity was already criminalized, I wanted to get it through.

It is a priority, but if you're asking me what I've done with my time, my time has been pushing all the legislation that we have had.

Keep in mind that Bill C-30 made us waste a lot of time. The government had to backtrack so much that the bill was poorly done and was inconsistent with the intent. The government is not moving in the right direction and is not putting its priorities in the right place. We suffered because of that yesterday in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had to whip through Bill C-55 without really being able to take the time to study it. We knew that we had a deadline because of the Supreme Court decision.

The government is not managing its time well. It improvises by introducing bills that, like Bill C-30, are purely ideological, have no legal basis and waste our time. Meanwhile, we have other bills waiting for us. We could tackle nuclear terrorism, but the government refused in order to move other bills forward, bills that ended up being called into question. The government realized its mistake and backtracked.

What does the NDP want? We are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation especially in areas of great concern, like nuclear terrorism.

We need to work together with other leading countries that are moving toward ratifying these conventions. Canada has agreed to be legally bound by these conventions, so it is important to fulfill our international obligations. Unfortunately, it took a long time for the government to act on this. Therefore, we must seriously address the issue of nuclear security and comply with our international obligations in order to better co-operate with other countries on countering nuclear terrorism.

Many issues have been put forward, and we would have liked to take action. Once again, the government took its time.

This is what Sabine Nolke, the director general of Non-Proliferation and Security Threat Reduction at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, said:

Furthering nuclear security, enhancing the physical protection of facilities, installing radiation detection equipment, especially at border crossings, reducing the use of weapons-usable materials, is one of the key tools to prevent these materials from falling into the wrong hands.

Those are all things we should act on.

Fortunately, Canada did sign these treaties, but the government once again took too long to update Canadian legislation to include all these offences. It is difficult to understand why the government held back a file that all parties agreed on.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

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

That is a very good point. I had not yet been elected, but I remember that when the House passed Jack Layton’s bill on the environment, it went to the Senate, and the Senate completely killed it despite the fact that elected members had voted in favour of the legislation. I know that Jack and my colleagues did a tremendous amount of work on it. I had not yet been elected, but I found that extraordinary. I watched the vote on CPAC. That was something I did not often do at the time. To me, it showed real open-mindedness and a vision for the future. I was so happy about it. Nevertheless, without even looking at it, without even referring it to committee or studying it, the Senate killed it.

It is not for nothing that people wish to abolish the Senate. It has become such a partisan place. This is to be expected, because senators are appointed by the Prime Minister. We have seen the results this produces. Senators with a somewhat dubious past or dubious positions are not people who will always have good judgment. Some senators are now demonstrating this.

It is too bad that they listen to what senators have to say about bills, but not to the opposition or to witnesses.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay.

Let us not forget that this government is the first in Canadian history to be guilty of contempt of Parliament. That is the essence of this government. Clearly, it does not respect Parliament. It is the first time in Canadian history that a government has been guilty of contempt of Parliament.

Moreover, this government has a majority. It is perhaps trying to make up for the times when it had a minority. It is taking that majority to extremes and ignoring what people have to say.

The recommendations did not necessarily come from the NDP alone. Public servants were consulted. Having served on the Standing Committee on Finance, and now as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I know that the recommendations were set aside. I wonder if the government reads them. It scarcely reads them, and when it does so, it is only looking for points to argue.

There is often no reason to reject the amendments proposed, especially when they are reasonable and improve the legislation.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would like to begin by saying how important the RCMP and the police in general are to me. My colleague also mentioned this in his speech. When we were young, several of us, including myself, wanted to be police officers. We thought that it was a noble occupation, that genuine conviction was needed to engage in it and that it was a way of dedicating oneself to society. This is part of the process, of the importance that I personally attach to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I therefore have enormous respect for all those people who have served, and I know that my colleague opposite has previously served. I tip my hat to them. As a member of various committees, I have had the opportunity to question and speak with RCMP members. Quite frankly, I must say that I owe them an enormous amount of respect.

The purpose of this bill is to solve certain problems that exist at present time. Although we assert that we admire those individuals and that we believe they are doing a good job, as in any organization, there are always minor problems and matters that must be resolved. In this case, we really want to solve those problems. The initial purpose of this bill was to do precisely that. The NDP supported it at second reading so that we could study it in greater detail. However, we knew from the outset that it was somewhat flawed.

I would like to provide more details on the bill’s deficiencies and the positions that have been taken. The bill in fact addresses the process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints within the RCMP. It was introduced in response to the headline-making scandals. It constitutes a government reaction to this problem. Unfortunately, it appears to have been an improvised reaction, since the government's bill contains numerous flaws. I will elaborate on that later.

With Bill C-42, the government wanted and we wanted to solve existing problems and address instances of misconduct. There were abuses of power, intimidation and harassment. So we wanted to give the commissioner the power to decide what disciplinary measures should be taken in those cases. However, one of the issues with Bill C-42 is that it does not solve the problem and, according to some witnesses, even creates more problems. To answer my Liberal colleague's question, that is why it creates more problems. I will come back to this a little later.

The purpose of Bill C-42 was also to add clauses respecting labour relations and to give the RCMP commissioner the power to appoint and dismiss members at his discretion. We see a problem with that. Also, the bill does not go far enough. Commissioner Paulson stated that current legislation was not enough to retain the public's trust and that serious reforms were needed. That is what led to the introduction of Bill C-42. We knew there were flaws and a problem regarding the public's trust in the system.

Once again I repeat how important it is for me to protect RCMP members, the men and women who are doing an outstanding and necessary job to maintain order in the society we live in. It is important for us as legislators to protect the RCMP. We have the opportunity to do it. We see what the public is calling for and what Commissioner Paulson, in particular, has demanded. The public has spoken, and that is why the government ultimately decided to move forward.

When we look at what has happened and where we are headed, we see that this is not enough. We would like the bill to result in a working environment that is more open, more co-operative and, especially, more respectful of all concerned. It would also benefit the RCMP if we brought in legislation that would achieve greater transparency and a better workplace. That would be good for the public and for the RCMP.

However, the minister has not really done his homework and has not gone far enough in this area, particularly with respect to disciplinary investigation procedures.

Here is what is happening. We are creating a new commission, except that, when we look at and analyze the bill, we see that, in actual fact, the RCMP public complaints commission already exists. However, there is no separation here; by that I mean that we do not have an entirely independent commission. We know that the commission already exists, but once again we are ensuring that police officers will manage police officers, or that RCMP people will manage RCMP people.

This commission has to be independent if we are talking about transparency and something more public. Its members must report to people other than the same people who must manage all this. In my opinion, this is one of the more important factors that has not been addressed in the bill for which we made recommendations.

We also have other restrictions in this area, particularly regarding the new commission's ability to conduct independent investigations. Its findings would serve only as a basis for non-binding recommendations. Consequently, recommendations would be made to the commissioner or to the Minister of Public Safety, but they would not be binding. Once again, we see that the "new commission"—as my colleagues opposite call it—would not be independent and would only issue non-binding recommendations. So ultimately nothing much is changing in this area. This is one of the major problems we had.

The second major point that really troubles me about this bill is that it does not address the problem of sexual harassment within the RCMP. On the other hand, I have sometimes heard it said that, if there is not really any sexual harassment, then it is not a big problem. We have to be honest, open our eyes and take off our rose-coloured glasses. This is a problem, but one not exclusive to the RCMP. We must not necessarily point a finger at it alone. Once again, I restate my enormous respect for the men and women who work at the RCMP.

However, we must protect the women who work for the RCMP. We know that our society is evolving. More and more women are entering the labour market. In some places, people's attitudes have not changed. I am not necessarily saying that this is the case in the RCMP specifically, but there are problems that we wanted to address. We really wanted to tackle this issue, to stop burying our heads in the sand and look at what we can really do to get rid of sexual harassment. Unfortunately, once again, this bill is not the answer.

Justice O'Connor made many recommendations. Fifteen of his 23 recommendations concerned the RCMP. As I mentioned, and I would like to mention again for the benefit of my colleagues, in the beginning we supported this bill. We found that it was indeed a step in the right direction. We wanted to move reasonable proposals to resolve the problems I mentioned a little earlier. We put forward 18 amendments that I find very thoughtful and reasonable.

For example, we wanted to include mandatory harassment training for RCMP members in the RCMP Act. How can anyone be opposed to that? Here again, it is obvious that if we bury our heads in the sand and put on our rose-coloured glasses we can say that harassment does not exist. The government is saying that maybe it does exist, that it problably does, that yes, it does. Now we have to take measures. We in the NDP understand that prevention and education are important. The members on the other side are primarily talking about repression. If we want to eradicate certain societal ills, harassment prevention and education are crucial. Among other things, this is what we are proposing here.

We also asked that a completely independent civilian body be established to review complaints against the RCMP. I think it is obvious that a certain degree of independence is essential. Here again, it is not only for the benefit of the RCMP, but also for the public’s benefit. Both the public and the RCMP would come out ahead.

Our goal in establishing this independent body is to reassure Canadians. Obtaining the public’s trust will help the RCMP directly. We must not forget that the RCMP works closely with the general public. It is important to show some transparency and some sincerity, and let Canadians know that not everything is being done behind closed doors. We know that is how the Conservatives prefer to do things, and unfortunately, it comes through clearly in their bills.

We are aiming for openness and consultation. Let Canadians be part of the process.

Moreover, we want to avoid cases where the police investigate themselves.

This bill does not really address the root of the problem, and one of the things that was really disappointing was that none of the amendments we brought forward, and I mentioned all of them, were accepted. We have a government whose members are not listening and not consulting. Unfortunately, that is why we have a bill that is flawed.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is really important, and we have stressed it, is for Canadians to know that we support the RCMP. The NDP tried to move some amendments so that we could actually support the bill. That is why, at second reading, we supported the bill going to committee. At committee, we proposed a lot of amendments and tried to work with the government to bring them forward.

Could my colleague comment on the reaction to the amendments we brought forward and how difficult it is, if we want to make a bill better, to work with the government? We know that none of the amendments were accepted. Could my colleague speak to that?

[Champlain Bridge, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the new Champlain Bridge will be the most important initiative in my riding and my region. It should include LRT. The mayors of Brossard, Longueuil, Boucherville, Saint-Bruno, Saint-Lambert and Montreal all agree. More importantly, the people are on board.

The choice of the public transit system is of provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government has a key role to play. Quebec and municipalities must have the necessary funds.

The minister keeps saying, “No toll, no bridge”, but the people in my riding still have many questions. Who gets the profits? Will the toll pay for public transit? Will there be tolls on all the south shore bridges?

The new Champlain Bridge is a wonderful opportunity to build two new bridges at the same time. The first would be a link between the south shore and the island of Montreal and the second, between the federal government and the people.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what that has to do with C-48, the issue on which I was speaking. This is an important bill. However, I would like to respond to my colleague’s question.

During the election campaign, we put forward the same idea as the Conservatives did in 2008, regarding what is called a carbon exchange. My colleague does not understand the difference. I would love to explain it but unfortunately I do not have the time.

She should look at the her party’s election platform in 2008. There is a difference between a carbon tax and a carbon exchange. Perhaps my colleague should read about it and find out more about the issue. I would happily provide her with information about it.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

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

Yes, in fact, for us in the NDP, the issue of tax evasion and tax havens is extremely important. This is why we were the ones who moved the motion to ask the Standing Committee on Finance to consider the matter. The NDP would also like to thank the other parties for agreeing to look into the whole issue of tax evasion and tax havens.

This is really all about fairness. It is about saving money. Corporations that use tax havens and avoid paying taxes should pay their fair share. This is completely normal and acceptable. However, in concrete terms, the government is not taking the necessary measures to address this scourge. This is why it took an NDP motion to make progress on the issue.

Let us hope that once the Standing Committee on Finance has completed its study, the government will finally take action and force corporations to abide by every aspect of tax law.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

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

Today the Liberals were criticizing the Conservative government. Everyone is passing the buck. It is always the fault of previous governments. When one party is in opposition, it blames the party in power.

There is a way of doing things, especially in this case. We have a 1,000-page document. What is important is not the number of pages but the number of years it took us to get here. When the Liberals were in power they did not do much on this issue. Now they are saying that it should be done every year. They just happened to think of this solution. They did not do their homework to find the simplest solution.

Simplifying things makes it easier for taxpayers. Even tax experts are calling for simpler legislation that people can understand better.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

The title is long, and the bill is voluminous. It is a necessary bill that makes amendments, and thus changes. The vast majority of the measures it contains have been in place for several years now. This bill makes them law.

Many people wonder why it has taken so long to introduce this bill. It is true that it is highly complex. Having studied law, particularly tax law, I can say that reading this bill is quite a difficult task. Let us just say that no one will be reading it for fun. The right frame of mind is essential.

I would like to thank the Department of Finance people who helped us during the briefing. They were very clear. They answered all our questions, unlike what the Conservative government is doing. The department's co-operation with us on this bill was good.

As my colleagues have already mentioned, no technical changes or clarifications have been made since 2001. That is a problem because we need more constant and regular review to achieve a degree of credibility and stability so that we can clearly understand the laws. In this case, the Conservatives have been asleep at the switch. It is time for them to wake up and do their job.

Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, stated the following in her 2009 report:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

Yet, of the some 400 amendments in question, only 200 are included in this bill. There is therefore a problem with the government's approach. The government needs to do some housekeeping. It is important in order to build some degree of stability and understanding.

In this regard, the Standing Committee on Finance—of which I was a member not long before I joined the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—mentioned tax simplification in its report. Many organizations testified before the committee of its importance. Tax simplification was even included in the Standing Committee on Finance's recommendations.

What is meant by tax simplification? With this 1,000-page bill and the Income Tax Act, tax legislation is piling up and becoming increasingly complex. Tax professionals and tax lawyers are increasingly sought after in order to sort everything out.

The more complicated this legislation gets, the more chances there are for loopholes or opportunities for evasion. Fortunately, this bills implements certain measures to close these loopholes.

The government is not doing enough to stop tax evasion. However, I am very pleased that our colleagues from the finance committee are currently examining the issue of tax evasion and tax havens. My colleagues know that I feel very strongly about this issue since I am the one who moved the motion. I am therefore very happy that the finance committee is moving forward on this. That being said, the government is clearly not doing enough from a practical standpoint.

In fact, the government has no estimate of how much money Canada is losing. Canada is losing billions of dollars, but they seem to be saying they are working on it. However, when we look at how the government is working on it, we see that there have been cuts at the Canada Revenue Agency and that the positions of people responsible for looking into tax evasion are even being cut.

To come back to the bill, I will say that some measures tackle tax evasion, or rather what is called tax avoidance, to close the loopholes. That is very important.

The bill is quite lengthy, but some parts are very worthwhile. As I explained, the bill is very technical and very lengthy. However, in order to understand the bill better and have a better idea of its scope, I am going to refer to a few aspects of it.

Part one deals with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts. The changes are aimed at taxing the worldwide income of Canadian residents.

It is therefore a good proposal.

Parts two and three deal with the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations. Again, that is an interesting and important issue.

Part four deals with amendments to ensure that provisions that use certain private law concepts reflect both the common law and civilian law in both linguistic versions.

It is quite technical, but it is important to make progress in this regard.

Part five of the bill implements a variety of technical elements.

In this case, I will not go into too many details, because it is rather tough going. Generally speaking, it is quite technical, but these are necessary amendments.

Part six includes housekeeping changes to the Excise Tax Act, repealing a provision that has not been used since 1999.

Once again, we see that the existing measures have not really been used, and that it takes a long time for the government to do something.

Part seven talks about certain powers of the minister. Certain things relating to that are dealt with.

Part eight says that Bill C-48 covers all of the amendments made in Bill C-45, which was introduced last fall.

To come back to what I was saying in relation to simplification and the fact that the government is not doing that enough, as I said a minute ago, I can tell you what people are saying about the need to make things simpler.

For this I blame both the Conservatives and the Liberals, who talk about simplifying taxes and ask why nothing has been done since the Carter Commission, that is, for several years now. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have done anything in this regard. I find that quite deplorable, and I am not the only one. A number of groups, including the certified general accountants, a rather important group that has much to propose in this regard, feel the same way. I am going to read the recommendation made by that group in the pre-budget consultations.

—we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated, which ultimately will eliminate the ever-growing backlog of unlegislated tax measures once and for all. With this provision, if a tax policy change is announced and not incorporated into legislation within a reasonable amount of time, the measure would lapse. This would bring greater clarity and certainty to tax legislation, reduce the compliance and paperwork burden, and, perhaps most importantly, prevent any future legislative backlogs. Those are a few simple but important steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system.

Those are a few simple but important steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system.

Again, the sunset provision is important; it should be a priority. It would keep us from having so many bills that go back more than 10 years, as has been mentioned, and whose tax measures have not been implemented.

Bill C-48 is a good start, but we would like the government to be more responsible, both administratively and fiscally.