Kennedy Stewart

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is why we are supporting this bill going through at second reading.

It would be good if the government were more straightforward with costs, and we are finding deficiencies all over the place in that respect. In fact, I was on committee the other day asking about science budgets. I am finding that the information the government is providing does not actually reflect what is happening on that file.

It is a constant disappointment for us that we do not get costing upfront. Hopefully in this committee study the government will see fit to do this, or perhaps we could ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer to help out.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I thank my colleague for it and the other excellent questions he has asked in the House.

I think a full costing of the bill would be a perfect thing to consider on committee . However, it should not just say how much it would cost in total but who would bear the cost. There is some thought that the provincial governments would bear some of the cost of these changes. They should also be consulted and perhaps brought in to committee to discuss whether they are willing to go forward with this.

Again, in principle this is a good bill, but we need to get these details right.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say first that I will be splitting my time in debate.

I will speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder). I would say from the outset that we support investigating this topic and we will vote for this proposal to move the bill to committee for study.

Before moving along further, I would like to thank the MP for Gatineau for her work on this file, and on many other files. I know the public safety and justice committees are some of the busiest here in the House of Commons, and she does great work, along with my benchmate, on these topics.

From a broad perspective, this is a very difficult issue for victims, families and communities in general. It is probably one of the most difficult issues any community must face: what to do when a member of that community is accused of perpetrating a heinous act, but is found by professional evaluation not to be of right mind. What to do with these individuals is really what we are trying to come to grips with here.

The sad truth is that I do not think there is any way that we will ever make a perfect decision. What we really have to do is try to figure out how to manage this in the best way possible and ensure that we do not make things worse than they already are.

Of course, we have to think of the victims first. We have to think of public safety. We also have to think of the broader communities in these senses and ask what is the best thing we can do to ensure that the community itself comes out as well as it can when we are dealing with these types of sad issues.

There is one bright spot, if we can call it a bright spot on this awful topic, and it is that through our health and social scientists, our criminologists and psychologists and psychiatrists, we probably know more about this issue than we have ever known in the past. My mind drifts back to the asylums of the 19th century, when people who were of healthy mind and body were incarcerated along with those who were criminally insane. We have gone well past that, knowing more about the causes of these mental shortcomings in the perpetrators of these acts, and also what to do to help victims recover. Through the good research of our professionals in this area, we are probably better equipped to deal with this problem than we ever have been in the past. This wealth of information should be used to help us make the best possible decisions in this area.

We are supporting moving this bill to committee because we need to have a reasoned and rational discussion. We need to bring in many experts and try to stay away from some of the partisan witnesses that sometimes parties are guilty of bringing to the committees. We should probably resist that and try to bring in the best experts we can in this area in order to have a reasoned discussion about what we should do in these cases and to evaluate the proposals being made in this particular bill. Therefore, I urge the government to listen to a wide range of experts when this inevitably comes to committee and to take the time to get it right.

In addition to the psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists, we should also take time to hear other witnesses. Often the people who are affected by these awful crimes are also from marginalized communities, so we should hear from these community leaders, including first nations. My mind is always drawn to the awful events of British Columbia, whether it is Clifford Robert Olson or perhaps Willie Pickton. Many members of the community were affected by these awful crimes perpetrated by people who were found to be mentally deficient, and mental deficiency was the reason these people were perpetrating or involved in these crimes. We should ensure we talk to the people in the communities who were most affected, because they are the ones who now have the experience of working through how to heal from these awful events.

When we go to committee, we also have to be mindful that our actions are bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes clear boundaries within which our laws must fall, so we should take care that we do not put new laws into place that would clearly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition to the criminologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and community members who come to committee, we should also make ensure there is the due diligence to make sure the laws we are bringing in do not violate any aspects of the charter. From the NDP perspective, public safety must come first on this issue, and we need to help the victims as much as possible. However, we have to make sure we are abiding by our primary law.

The issue at hand is to consider what to do when an accused is discharged. Increasing notification to victims and their families would seems like a reasonable thing to consider. If review boards would be able to issue non-communication orders with victims, keeping as much distance between the accused or somebody considered not criminally responsible and thus giving victims as much time as possible to recover, that is worth consideration. Even if there is no contact between the individuals, the peace of mind this might bring to victims is in itself well worth considering.

The bill would also create a new category of high-risk accused, and the review boards would have the option of tripling the length of time between reviews, from 12 months to 36 months. It is moving away from mandatory decisions imposed on judges and allowing the legal system to consider these cases in great detail.

I was reading some statistics by Mr. Chris Summerville, the alliance facilitator and chief executive officer of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, who stated, “In Canada's most populated province, Ontario, only .001% of individuals charged with Criminal Code violations were adjudicated [not criminally responsible for their actions]”. This law will affect a very small number of people, so we have to make sure we are also taking that into consideration.

We should also take care that when we are considering these and other types of similar bills that we do not try to hype up this issue at all. As is well documented in Canada, crime rates have fallen dramatically. Both violent crimes and crimes against property have fallen over the past couple of decades. While it is important to get these laws right, we do not want this type of debate making the public think that crime is somehow spiralling out of control.

With regard to victims who are affected by current crimes, we really have to do as much as we can to help them through these things. However, as public opinion will show, Canadians are more concerned about the economy, for example, than spiralling crime rates. While it is good to get these things right through reasoned debate, it should not be used as an excuse to try to scare the public into thinking that crime is at a higher rate than it has been in previous decades, because it is not.

When this goes to committee, New Democrats want to discuss the idea that public safety must come first, but any laws that are changed must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are open to change to ensure the way in which cases involving mentally disordered accused persons are handled is effective in terms of treatment. I note in the bill that this in no way should affect treatment. However, we have to make sure there is treatment in order to ensure the entire community is considered when we put these kinds of motions forward.

[National Defence, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, so to be clear, the government is not to blame for a government decision and quotes government bureaucrats to prove it. The Conservatives are so embarrassed with respect to danger pay they are forcing DND to send out a press release saying that it is not the minister's fault. However, the reality is that not only is the minister abdicating his responsibility for his department, he is still refusing to reverse this unfair decision on danger pay.

When will the minister agree to reverse this decision and provide danger pay to all troops in Afghanistan?

[Election of Committee Chairs, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight on the motion of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt on reforming how the House elects committee chairs, Motion No. 431.

I would first like to thank the member for his efforts to improve the vitality of our democracy. It was a real privilege to second his motion on this important subject. I look forward to working in this cross-partisan way in the future.

We should always be open to finding new ways of making Parliament transparent and more democratic. If passed, Motion No. 431 would initiate a comprehensive study by the procedure and House affairs committee of the practices governing the election of committee chairs. It further recommends that the study propose amendments to the Standing Orders so that committee chairs would be elected through a preferential ballot by all MPs. In principle, this is a very good idea.

Let me begin my remarks by outlining some of the virtues of this proposal and why we support the motion as it stands currently.

One of the fundamental challenges facing all Westminster parliaments is how to maintain a balance between the legislative branch and the executive branch. In recent years we have seen a troubling trend of the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet exerting a dominant influence over more and more aspects of parliamentary life, as well as over the activities of private members, especially those in the governing party.

In contrast, committees remain the lifeblood of any legislature. They are a forum where MPs can be free from the partisanship of question period and undertake in-depth, thoughtful studies on pressing policy issues. Some of that freedom is currently in play, but this may open it up even more. That is an important thing to try to do.

Committee chairs serve an essential role as neutral facilitators of committee business, including reviewing and amending bills coming through the House. Allowing chairs to be selected in a democratic fashion has the potential to enhance the independence of all MPs, allowing them more freedom to represent the will of their constituents. After all, that is what we are all here to do: to represent our constituents as best we can. Although we do of course organize ourselves using political parties, in the end it is our local voters who vote for us, and it is their voices that should be heard through us.

The motion, if the study were to be done and passed into law, could also ensure greater accountability, as qualified candidates for each committee would be selected by their peers in a transparent and fair manner. It would prevent party whips from using their discretion to make appointments that were purely political in nature, perhaps as a reward for good behaviour to the party. It would not only allow a lot more freedom for members to choose but also increase accountability as the committees progressed in their work.

The reform would extend the current and long-standing practice of how we elect the crucial position of the Speaker of the House. As mentioned by other speakers today, the United Kingdom recently moved to electing committee chairs in a similar fashion. This came in the wake of the U.K. members' expenses scandal in 2009, which really rocked the U.K. parliamentary system. It was the subject of much investigation and a resignation. A select committee was tasked with studying ways to rebuild public confidence and get citizens more engaged in the workings of parliament.

I was in the U.K. during the time of that scandal, and it really was day-to-day news every day. It really changed the way parties looked at themselves and the way members looked at themselves as parliamentarians. It is very worthwhile taking a lesson from the United Kingdom here.

The select committee recommended chairs be elected by way of a secret ballot using the alternative vote, and this system was put in place in 2010. I would like to quote from a report by the U.K. House of Commons procedure committee that assessed the changes one year after implementation. It stated:

...the move to elect candidates to key posts in the House has been right in principle as a sign of greater transparency, democracy and self-assertiveness on the part of backbenchers, and has also worked well in practice.

Being a political scientist myself, I know we talk a lot about theory. Sometimes practice does not match it, but in this case it seems to have done so, and the idea is very well worth considering. I hope we move toward this system.

Some may have legitimate concerns about how to implement this system in Canada, because we are not exactly like the United Kingdom. For example, we need to ensure that having open elections for committee chairs does not undermine gender equality. That is a very important principle that I would like to see enforced more rigorously, both in this place and outside. Appropriate safeguards must be put in place to preserve what we already have.

We must also preserve the practice that MPs from the official opposition always serve as chairs for those key standing committees that are essential to holding the government to account.

If the ideas in Motion No. 431 are implemented, the dominant influence of the Prime Minister's Office over some aspects of parliamentary life and over members of Parliament would be reduced, and this is a good thing. We can all agree that it is a worthy idea in principle and should be given close study and consideration, as the motion proposes to do.

I would like to underscore the importance of working across party lines on initiatives such as Motion No. 431. It is imperative for us to find common ground in improving our democratic institutions, despite partisan differences and ideological disagreements. Reforming our democracy in simple ways to make it fair, transparent and accessible is a worthy goal we all share. In this vein, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, as well as the member for Edmonton—St. Albert and many members of my own party, for seconding my motion on democratic reform, Motion No. 428.

My motion would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to conduct a study and make recommendations, similar to this one, within one year, on how to establish an e-petitioning system in Canada. Similar to Motion No. 431, this represents a practical proposal to reform Parliament in a manner that would enhance the vitality of our democracy. E-petitions would empower citizens to communicate their concerns to their elected representatives and to have the opportunity to set the agenda for debate in Ottawa.

Similar to Motion No. 431, my motion has been endorsed by respected leaders and organizations from across the political spectrum. In the case of my motion, it is Ed Broadbent and Preston Manning, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Samara and Leadnow.

More broadly, there are few issues as critical to parliamentarians as democratic decline. This is a constant theme that comes up in all Parliaments. Periodically we study this, but it is time to get moving and do something about it.

Fewer and fewer Canadians have a favourable perception of our democratic institutions or consider participating in the political process a worthwhile pursuit. In light of these troubling trends, it is incumbent upon all parliamentarians to take immediate action to engage with Canadians and restore public confidence in the strength of our democracy. Achieving meaningful reforms requires taking a realistic approach that identifies small but critical improvements that members from all parties can agree upon. Bringing e-petitions to the House and selecting committee chairs through fair elections both represent positive steps in this direction.

I would again like to thank the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt for his leadership in this area, and I encourage all members of the House to support our efforts. Even if he is forced to amend his motion, or if it is defeated in committee, I commend him for his attempts here, and I hope he continues to fight the good fight.

[Petitions, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions, including one that asks the government to immediately prohibit a new oil pipeline from proceeding through Burnaby—Douglas, commonly known as the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

My constituents believe that this will bring massive environmental and economic risks, but no substantial benefits to British Columbians.

This is an issue that is dominating the current provincial campaign. There are a number of people who oppose it, along with the petitioners, including the Mayor of Burnaby and me. I will work as hard as I can to make sure this pipeline gets stopped.

[International Investment, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the China-Canada foreign investment promotion and protection act is a badly negotiated agreement that binds Canadian law to Chinese law for the next 31 years.

Last night in a coalition of old-line parties, Conservatives and Liberals joined together to defeat the NDP's motion on the FIPA. These parties refused to formally abandon a flawed agreement that is clearly not in Canada's best interests.

Do any Conservative or Liberal MPs think that a Canadian company going up against a state-owned Chinese company would receive fair and equal treatment in a Chinese court?

Under this agreement, Chinese companies would also gain new rights to buy up Canadian resource industries, undermining provincial rights to control natural resources, and yet Conservatives and their allies in other parties are fine with this. Canadians deserve better, and in 2015 they will have a chance to vote for real change.

[Science and Technology, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit dumbfounded. I understand being attacked on this side of House, but I did not think that we would hear an attack on the basic principles of economics, that adjusting for inflation when we are looking at spending over time is somehow an NDP conspiracy or a kind of socialist plot.

In fact, I am sure the scientists who are watching this, or who will watch this and read the transcripts, will further see that the NDP is on top of things. We are a reasonable group of people who actually just agreed with the minister today on the tables we were looking at. He just has a different interpretation: the wrong one. We have the right one.

Again, I am happy to talk about that this evening.

[Science and Technology, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak to science and technology. There are two things on which I would like to focus in the brief time I have, and that is on S and T funding.

When we think about S and T funding, we need to think about the size of the pie and how the pie is sliced. Let us start with the size of the pie.

The Minister of State for Science and Technology is very fond of stating that under his leadership, the government has increased science and technology funding by $9 billion since 2006.

However, a closer look at the Cansim table, from which these figures are drawn, and we actually had the minister in committee today and he confirmed that these are the tables used, shows that in producing this number, the minister fails to account for inflation in his calculations. I am not sure if this is a mistake or deliberate, but nevertheless the error is there.

The responsible thing for the government to do is to apply the standard accounting principles of adjusting for inflation and using the consumer price index. This accounts for the fact that a dollar today is worth much less than a dollar ten years ago. This is economics 101. The Conservatives claim they have a sparkling economic record and this is a basic it should know.

When we do this, when we apply the CPI to spending over time, the new spending that the government claims turns out to be about half of what the minister has claimed it to be. It is not $9 billion, but rather $4.5 billion in real terms.

The Conservatives use some other trickery in their calculations, so I suggest, and I suggested to the minister today, that we do not use this number at all. In fact, what we do use is another basic accounting principle that shows in fact the S and T pie has shrunk under the government.

Using the same government tables, the same one the minister said today that the Conservatives relied on for their projections, when we apply these basic accounting principles, last year the government cut S and T spending by 8.6%. In fact, S and T spending by the government is now lower in real terms than when the Conservatives took power in 2006.

The audience that will pay attention to this is scientists. They are very good at math and they will understand that what the government has done since it has come to power is actually had a cut in real dollars. The Conservatives are shrinking the pie.

Let us look at how the pie is sliced. Last week I was in Washington, D.C., meeting with Democrats and Republicans about science funding in that country.

The Republicans told me the only thing the two sides really agreed on was that the government's main job in S and T was to fund basic research. Thus, the Conservative government, which is cutting basic research funding, is even more radical than the Tea Party members with whom I met. The Conservatives are shifting money from basic research to business subsidies.

We can talk about all the other things the government is doing, such as closing the Experimental Lakes Area, muzzling scientists and destroying the National Research Council in a very haphazard way. These policies really betray a lack of understanding about how scientific advancement actually takes place.

I have heard from scientists right across the country, and they speak over and over again. In fact, they were following the committee proceedings today. They are very disappointed in what is happening under the government and they want things to change.

We are the party that speaks for science in Canada. We are the party that just committed in our convention to matching our partners in S and T funding. I look forward to becoming government in 2015 when we can make that policy come true.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the hon. member could perhaps put herself in the position of the government and answer the question of whether or not the Liberals would be aiming to balance the budget by 2015, or whether they would perhaps run a deficit.