Isabelle Morin

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

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

It is indeed a great shame that the government does not listen to the people. Since I have been in this House, we have tabled a number of petitions. Of all those I tabled, none was favourably received by the government. This government is highly ideological.

This evening, for example, I heard speeches that were very ideological. The government is not at all prepared to hear talk of amendments, or discuss them with us. All the time allocation motions make that very clear. Today we saw the 45th such motion. That, in fact, is a record in the history of Parliament.

This government knows only one road, and follows a single path without ever leaving it. It listens neither to experts nor to Canadians, who want only to be heard. It is a pity. When I see the low voter turnout during elections, I find it scandalous, but with such a government, people do not even feel they are being listened to.

I mentioned this in my speech, because I find it is crucial to realize that so many Canadians have asked the government to ratify this convention, and the government is quite simply not listening.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

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

I have compared the Canadian legislation the Conservatives have put before us with other laws, because according to a number of experts, this legislation is very weak. That is where I want to focus my comments; that is what I want to put the emphasis on.

The government is refusing to ratify a convention that will save lives. Consequently, whether in relation to section 11 or any other, and by comparison with any other country, we are looking at a government that has knuckled under to lobbying by the United States. It tells itself that it did a good job in 2008, but it is going to forget that and water the legislation down to make it very weak.

I don’t need to compare us to every other countries. We had a good convention that the Conservatives now refuse to ratify, and that is where the problem lies.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are examining a bill that comes to us from the Senate, Bill S-10, an Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

For some weeks now, we have been here, gathered together late in the evening, to debate bills that the Conservative government wants to push through Parliament. Although we in the official opposition are proud to rise and represent the interests of our constituents, discuss matters of substance, propose better solutions and put forward concrete amendments, I would like to underline the fact that the procedure whereby we are here to talk about Bill S-10 this evening is unacceptable.

The Conservative government is forcing Parliament’s hand to have its bills passed as quickly as possible by using time allocation motions—the 45th one today—and many last-minute votes.

What happened to the time traditionally allocated for debate, in-depth, non-partisan studies by parliamentary committees and government consultations with national and international experts? All of these steps are essential to the democratic process of drafting legislation before bringing it for a vote in the House of Commons. I am raising these procedural points on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP. We will be trying to have Bill S-10 amended in committee.

We are opposed to Bill S-10 as it stands because, although its title appears to say that its purpose is to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, in reality, it does not implement it, it destroys it. Bill S-10 serves to set Canada against the 110 other countries that have signed the convention and the 68 that have already ratified it. The bill will be used as a place for the Conservative government to hide. It is an attempt to make an exception to the convention. The NDP cannot stand behind an approach that is, in the words of former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser, timid, inadequate and regressive.

So that all my colleagues in this House are just as informed about cluster munitions as my constituents are, I would like to define some terms. The Convention on Cluster Munitions is an international disarmament and humanitarian treaty that bans the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions and provides for their clearance and destruction.

The 111 states that signed the Wellington declaration took part in a conference in Dublin, Ireland, thereby supporting the draft convention. These states included Canada. The convention was adopted on May 30, 2008 and Canada signed the convention on December 3, 2008. In signing the convention in 2008, Canada made a number of commitments.

Canada committed primarily not to use cluster munitions; not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone cluster munitions; and not to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention.

It also committed to destroy the cluster munitions in its arsenal no later than eight years after the convention enters into force, and to clear and destroy, or ensure the clearance and destruction of, cluster munition remnants located in contaminated areas under its jurisdiction.

Furthermore, Canada must provide assistance to the victims of cluster munitions in areas under its jurisdiction, provide assistance to other states parties to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the convention, and take all legislative measures necessary to implement the convention.

Article 2 of the convention reads as follows:

“Cluster munition” means a conventional munitions that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions.

Cluster munitions were used on battlefields in World War I and more recent conflicts, including Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. These weapons disperse hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time. Nobody can escape them.

It is sad to say, but 98% of all injuries resulting from cluster munitions are inflicted upon civilians. According to the Cluster Munition Coalition, over 25% of victims of cluster munitions are children, who are especially drawn to unexploded sub-munitions. The bombs look like toys, and up to 30% of them do not explode upon contact with the ground. These bombs patiently lie in wait for their victims.

The Conservative government wants to vote for a bill that will annul Canada's commitment to the victims of cluster munitions.

This is not just about past victims, but current and future victims.

Bill S-10 will, in fact, invalidate the convention. It circumvents the interoperability provision, allowing Canada to aid, abet, counsel and conspire to use cluster munitions.

Why is the government, which negotiated and signed the 2008 convention, doing an about-face? Does the government not agree that these weapons must be completely banned and that Canada needs to walk the talk?

Speaking of taking action, I would like to congratulate the many Canadians who have signed petitions calling on the government to act responsibly and ban cluster munitions. I commend my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, who took receipt of these petitions and tabled them in the House.

Just like the NDP, the people of our great country are calling for amendments to Bill S-10. They are asking that no Canadian be liable for their involvement in the use, production, purchase or sale of cluster munitions or financial investment in these activities. They are calling on the Government of Canada to make a positive and ongoing commitment to the convention it signed in 2008, as an addendum to Bill S-10. They are urging the Government of Canada to recognize the massive impact that cluster munitions have on civilian populations in wartime and for decades thereafter.

I would like to quote Mines Action Canada:

…no Canadian should ever be implicated in the use of cluster bombs for any purpose, in any location, or on any mission.

According to Paul Hannon, the director of Mines Action Canada, Canada should have the best implementation legislation in the world. We should be the frontrunners. That is absolutely not the case given the bill before us this evening.

I encourage everyone to sign the petition from Handicap International Canada against cluster bombs. To date, the petition has 708,318 signatories. I would also like to commend my colleague from Ottawa Centre on the excellent work that he has done in this area.

Globally, unexploded sub-munitions and land mines kill some 4,000 civilians each year. In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and 112 were injured in Afghanistan as a result of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive weapons. These weapons are dangerous because they are virtually uncontrollable, even long after an armed conflict has ended. These weapons are unacceptable.

Bill S–10 taints Canada's record in terms of leadership on issues of international importance. If it is passed in its current form, this legislation will be the weakest legislation in the world when compared to that of the 110 other countries that have signed the convention. Yet thanks to the amendments suggested by the NDP, Canada could redeem itself and win back its role as a protector and defender of human rights, including victims' rights.

Why is the government bent on undermining all these efforts? There was a brighter day. In 1997, thanks to Canada's leadership, the treaty prohibiting land mines, better known as the Ottawa treaty, became the most ratified disarmament treaty in history. In memory of this historic moment, I hope that all my colleagues, across all parties, will support the NDP's efforts and the amendments that it puts forward.

In closing, I would like to quote an article that Craig and Marc Kielburger wrote last year, on Remembrance Day. Craig and Marc Kielburger are two exceptional young Canadians who founded the not-for-profit organization called Free the Children. They continue to encourage over 100,000 young people every year to get involved in their community and promote justice, peace and social solidarity.

This week we pay homage to Canadians who served and died to uphold global peace and freedom. What better way to honour their sacrifices than to advance peace by eliminating a weapon that kills and maims hundreds of children every year.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this makes me sick.

I am very disturbed that a Conservative member would begin her speech by talking about the children who play with bombs, children who die because of these bombs. I think it is hypocritical and perverse. It makes no sense that this hon. member, who is part of the Conservative government that is attempting to destroy a convention, is talking about these children.

I do not know if the hon. member is aware that her government wants to destroy Canada's international leadership on this convention. I would like the hon. member to try to explain that to me, because I do not understand. I find it inconsistent that she can make such a speech and support a bill that will destroy that convention.

I would like her to explain that, because I just cannot see how it works.

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I am not a judge, but as a member of Parliament I am a student of the law and a lawmaker. I speak for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to represent the interests of the people in my riding. This allows me to understand and bring forward the concerns of regular Canadians.

Like my colleagues, I am here to study Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

I have several concerns with this bill and cannot vote in favour of it in its current state. The whole idea of changing sentencing to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole from 25 to 40 years seems quite arbitrary. In fact, I ask the member opposite who proposed this bill to explain his reason for choosing 40 years. Why should it not be 35, 75 or 100 years? What motivated his decision to change the Criminal Code of this country?

Many of my colleagues opposite will state that they are moved by victims' rights as if this were a black and white issue, but one cannot be either for or against victims' rights. I believe that all parliamentarians care deeply about victims' rights, and the Conservative government does not have a monopoly on that.

The NDP remains sensitive to the extremely difficult situations that victims and their families may have experienced, but Bill C-478 is not a bill about victim care or victim services, and I am not sure that it is even in accordance with the Charter of Rights and the Constitution of this country: the bill is about sentencing, tougher punishments and a Conservative tough on crime agenda.

The Conservative government has developed a tradition of bringing forward measures to amend the Criminal Code through private members' bills, and this is another example. I ask the member opposite who sponsored this bill why he chose to have this issue addressed as a private member's bill when we know that it is not reviewed by the Department of Justice to ensure it is in accordance with the Charter of Rights and the Constitution.

As I mentioned earlier, I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. Therefore, I will refer to the experts and quote Steve Sullivan, first ombudsman for victims of crime, who stated this legislation was nothing but “smoke and mirrors”. He said he “did not believe that many judges would sentence a criminal to life in prison for 40 years without the right to parole”. Judges simply would not do this. He said that “a life sentence of 25 years already means that a person who presents a danger or a risk will not have access to a parole hearing, although the family must still be present at hearings, and that this would apply to a very small number of criminals, those who abduct, rape and murder one victim”.

He pointed out that “such sordid crimes are rather rare” and that “this measure would be used a few times a year at best, but would not change anything for the victims' families”.

If the law works as it is currently and it is used by judges efficiently, why suggest Bill C-478, if not for a political agenda?

I would also like to quote two other experts who spoke to this bill. They lead me to believe that this is not a bill that we as parliamentarians should support. I would like to share what Michael Spratt, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario, had to say. According to him, Bill C-478 is superfluous and does nothing for the victims of crime.

For 10 minutes, the government member has been saying that the purpose of this bill is to protect victims' rights. I am sorry, but this changes absolutely nothing for victims. It extends the punishment, that is true. However, it does not change the fact that the victim suffered the crime.

I used to work as a teacher in a prison. I know that the current system will not make things any better for the victims as long as we do not have a better rehabilitation system, a better system for helping inmates not to reoffend, and as long as we do not have psychologists.

On the contrary, criminals will be kept in prison longer. We will wait until they have learned better tricks and then we will release them. Prisoners teach each other their tricks. They tell each other everything they did and they make plans. Often this is because they are not getting psychological help and they have nothing else to do. Then we release them. If we wait an extra 15 years will that really change anything? I am not so sure.

According to Michael Spratt, even if the purpose of the bill is to spare families from having to attend parole hearings, the truth is that a person who commits first degree murder has to serve a minimum of 25 years before he is eligible for a parole hearing.

Mr. Spratt says that second degree murder cases have hearings every two years. He adds that, by extending the period of ineligibility for parole from 25 years to 40 years—and why not 100 years while we are at it—there is a big chance that we will encounter constitutional challenges or that we could be violating the charter. According to him, the result would likely be that people would no longer plead guilty, which would jam up the justice system. Any hope for rehabilitation and any related incentives would be lost.

Prisons should be full of hope for rehabilitation. We send people there to have them pay for a crime they committed against society; everyone understands that principle. However, rehabilitation is the important part of the process. I do not believe that an extra 15 years in prison will make someone a better citizen when they are released. Yet that is what the goal should be.

Michael Spratt added that there could be a disproportionate impact on third parties, such as people who join a gang and have to go through an initiation. He said that the bill does not do anything for victims of crime and their families.

I would like to share what the Canadian Bar Association said about this bill:

Finally, the CBA Section does not believe that Canadians would benefit from a system where individuals are condemned to spend their entire lives behind bars, with no hope of ever being released. Even those convicted of homicide, the most serious of all crimes, should know there is some slim possibility, after serving lengthy periods of their sentence behind bars, of being released into the community and contributing to society, provided that their behaviour while incarcerated makes them deserving of such a privilege.

All of the experts agree that rehabilitation is important. That is the impression I get from these texts.

Our prison system is designed to make criminals serve a sentence and pay society back for the crime they committed with years of their life. However, I will say it again: no one is going to help these victims, despite what the Conservatives are saying. Instead, this bill will add 15 years to a prisoner's sentence but will not provide additional rehabilitation services or education for prisoners who are released from prison and who could give back to society.

The quote continues:

Further, release does not erase the fact that those convicted offenders are still serving life sentences. They continue to be subject to appropriate supervision, and to suspension and potential revocation of parole for a minor breach, or even in anticipation of any breach to protect society.

What these experts are saying is very clear. The president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario, the first ombudsman for victims of crime and the Canadian Bar Association therefore oppose this bill. These are experts who must be trusted.

To conclude, the government claims that the purpose of Bill C-478 is to support victims of crime, but a deeper look will show otherwise. According to case law, this affects very few offenders already serving a life sentence, and it will benefit very few families. The Conservatives are still trying to pull the wool over our eyes, as they often do. They have—through a backbencher, no less—introduced a bill that may conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For all these reasons, I must oppose this bill. I hope all my colleagues in the House will do the same.

[Environmental Stewardship, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an exceptional citizen from my riding who shows great leadership, dedication and community spirit in her care for the environment. Every spring for the past three years, Maja Vodanovic leads a team of families, students, teachers and local residents to clean out the Bouchard Creek. This year, more than 100 students from 10 schools participated.

This is a noble effort to reclaim a piece of land that belongs to all of us and to pass on the importance of environmental stewardship to our kids.

I commend Maja and all the volunteers on their good work. The Conservative government is jeopardizing the water quality of our lakes and rivers with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. An NDP government will protect and respect the environment, and it is precisely this optimism, this hope and these actions that we will bring to Canadians every day.

By coming together to clean riverbanks and waterways across Canada, Canadians are showing the Conservative government the right way to go.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

After boasting that this is the fourth version of the bill, and that it has been improved, she ended her speech by saying that it is time to stop debating this bill.

If this is the fourth time that this bill has been improved, it must not have been very good to begin with, and additional improvements may be needed.

The Conservatives say that they consulted extensively. However, I do not think that they listened to people. I do not believe that they used these consultations to improve the bill enough. A number of aboriginal groups still do not support it because it does not really apply to their situation.

I am wondering how the member can say that this is the fourth time they have introduced this bill, that they have continually improved it and that they now have to hurry up, stop the debate and pass it as quickly as possible. This approach does not make much sense to me.

Can my colleague explain her position? I do not understand it.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that 100 meetings were held and that there were consultations. I am wondering why the results of these consultations are not reflected in the bill before us. Consulting the people is a good thing, but it is not enough to go somewhere, say that the people have been consulted, but not listen to what they had to say. I believe that consultation means taking into consideration what was said.

Had that been the case, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations would be able to support this bill. They are not. This means that they were not consulted to the extent required to make amendments and for the minister to know what would have secured their support for the bill.

I wonder why the minister consulted people without listening to them and without amending the bill he has introduced.

[Petitions, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition was signed by the people of the West Island. They are calling on the federal government to recognize the importance of the West Island rail line and its contribution to Montreal's economy. They are also asking for funding from the federal government.

[Petitions, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to present two petitions this morning.

The first petition is from citizens from the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. The petitioners call upon the government to demonstrate its international responsibility by recommitting Canada to contribute 0.7% of GDP to overseas development assistance.