Kennedy Stewart

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

At this stage, I am opposed to the bill but, as always, I will keep an open mind and watch how it progresses through the various stages. As we have waited a long time for these reforms, we need to ensure we get them right, which is what I will speak to today.

I thank the MP for St. John's East for all his work on the bill, as well as for preparing us for these debates. He really does Newfoundland and Labrador credit.

I will take a moment to speak to the value of our armed forces personnel and to recognize their service and sacrifice. We are talking about a fairly detailed bill that would amend a lot of little clauses in other bills, including the National Defence Act, but we also need to recognize the service that the armed forces give in general. Many of my family members have served in the armed forces. I admire their professionalism and discipline. We are also addressing a very small portion of those who have served so proudly in the armed forces with this bill.

Every time I get a chance to speak to defence or military aspects of government policy, my mind drifts back to my great uncle, F.R.W.R. Gow, who was a commander in the Royal Canadian Navy working for military intelligence. Sadly, he died in service in November 1942 on the same day as my birthday, which always brings him to mind on Remembrance Day and during occasions such as this. Because of that, and when I think of my other relatives who have served in the armed forces, as well as all of the great veterans in my constituency, Remembrance Day is the most important day of the year for me as it marks the reason that we celebrate all of the other holidays. We should keep that in mind as we move through these bills to ensure we do the best we can for those who serve us so well.

Before I speak to the details of the bill, I will talk about a few other laws and policies surrounding the military, many of which are far from perfect. For example, with respect to recognition of those who have served in the past, I have been working in my office with a constituent who served in the Korean War who has not yet received official recognition for his sacrifice despite numerous appeals. This gentleman is t past 90 now and it is time to ensure that we recognize all of those who have served Canada in the past. We have taken some steps in Burnaby to recognize Korean War veterans. We have a beautiful Korean War memorial in Central Park in Burnaby. However, individual recognition is also crucial and I will continue to work on behalf of my constituent for that recognition.

This whole idea of lump sum payments for injured veterans is really abhorrent to me and goes against how we should treat those who have given so much.

I will now move to Bill C-15. It was introduced in response to a 2003 report tabled by the right hon. Antonio Lamer, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning his independent review of the National Defence Act. In my mind, this is a housekeeping bill but an important one as it would adjust current laws concerning military justice. As we can tell from the title of the bill, it is not just the National Defence Act that would be altered but it is also consequential acts. Therefore, the bill would make broad-sweeping changes to a number of different pieces of legislation.

The Lamer report contained 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal.

The bill has seen many iterations since the Lamer report was tabled. It is important to keep in mind that in response to the 2003 Lamer report, Bill C-41 was introduced in 2010 and has been the subject of much of the discussion today.

The bill outlined provisions to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels and a number of other institutions and procedures. More important, during the debate on Bill C-41, we submitted a number of amendments during that committee stage, which have been talked about, but many of the amendments that were agreed to at that committee are not in the current version of the bill, which is why we are objecting.

The amendments include the following: the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding directly to Justice Lamer's recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilian membership; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted for an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. I will return to these points through my speech, but as it stands, we can talk a little about the good parts of the bill.

Bill C-15 would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process. It would provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and restitution. It also would modify the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person. It would modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and would allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods. It would clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces provost marshal and it would make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grieving process.

For those positive few points I have pointed out, I believe Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. It would bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it does fall short on key issues that we have pointed out over and over again and that we will take pains to do it again today and in the future. The issues it falls short on include reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

I will speak to two of these shortfalls in more detail, beginning with the military grievances. At present, the grievance committee does not provide a means of external review. Currently, it is staffed entirely of retired CF officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the CF grievance board is to be perceived as external and an independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality.

We believe that some members of the board should be drawn from civil society. In fact, our NDP amendment provides that at least 60% of the grievance committee members must never have been an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. This civilian oversight process is something common in other government institutions, including, for example, CSIS, which has a civilian body appointed to oversee its procedures. Therefore, this seems to be an entirely reasonable request that we have put forward in the past and will continue to press for. The amendment was passed in March 2011 in Bill C-41 but was not retained in Bill C-15. Therefore, it does seem that there are at least some on the other side of the House who agreed, at least at some point, that there should be some civilians present in this oversight process. We think it is important to see this amendment included in the bill.

I will now to strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. Although what is included in the bill is seen as a step forward, we believe that more needs to be done to empower the commission. The complaints commission must be empowered by a legislative position that allows it to rightfully investigate and report to Parliament. Transparency is key here.

We oppose the bill at second reading because we do not think it is complete. There are key amendments missing that had been agreed to in the past and have not been included in this form of the bill. We ask that they be included. We ask that we do as well by our military personnel as they do by us.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is entirely the problem here in Canada. Our productivity and innovation levels are plummeting. The Conservatives seem lost about what to do with it. They have cut money away from the science, technology and R and D budgets.

What will happen is these foreign-owned companies will do all of the research and development abroad, whereas if they were Canadian-owned companies all of the R and D would stay in Canada and we would have Canadian patents and protection of Canadian intellectual property. That is what we should be doing, not just selling it off to a state-owned company in a country that has 100,000 riots a year.

That is a huge problem, and I am opposed to this.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has his facts entirely wrong. The new proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby is an export-only pipeline. It would run bitumen-based crude, as per the proposal, down to the Westridge docks to be put on tankers and shipped out. The local refinery cannot use any of this oil, as it has stated over and over again. In fact, we will probably see it oppose this new expansion.

Right now Kinder Morgan is pinching off our local refineries, so they are not getting enough of the crude oil they need to supply British Columbians with the gas, diesel and jet fuel they need to get on with their everyday business.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal approach to this seems to be quite confusing, especially when it comes to the energy file.

Some members approve pipelines; some are against it. Some want a national energy strategy; some do not. It will be nice when we finally have a solid answer from that party.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question, and also not much of anything.

I was sitting on the natural resources committee, where we had a clear commitment from the minister to provide a national energy strategy for Canada. There was a clear commitment, a promise, and a promise from Alberta. Then it was dropped.

What we do have are these piecemeal decisions that are made on Friday night without any concern for what is going to happen to Canada in the long term. These members from Ontario should know that they import 85% of their oil from abroad, when we could be using Canadian oil. That is what we should be doing.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to speak on this important motion. I would first praise the work of my colleagues from Burnaby—New Westminster and LaSalle—Émard, who have really helped Canadians come to grips with this important issue. I commend them for their excellent work.

I am worried about two things concerning this debate today. The first is how careless the Conservatives are with their promises, which I will point out as I go through my speech today. The second thing is how the Conservatives are abandoning their responsibilities to Canadians. These are two important points that Canadians need to hear about.

I will go over these two points by relating four sub-points. Here I would like to talk about the broken 2010 promise to clarify the Investment Canada Act and the broken promise that the Conservatives made in 2008 to prohibit the export of raw bitumen. I would also like to talk about energy security and how this Nexen takeover would have a real impact on Canadians, including British Columbians in general and my constituents in the riding of Burnaby--Douglas in particular. Finally, I would like to give the House some ideas of how the NDP would really fix this mess.

I will start with the Investment Canada Act. We are worried about how the Nexen deal will really affect Canada. The Conservatives have rubber-stamped the takeover of this significant Canadian oil company by a Chinese state-owned company without any real public consultation whatsoever. It was mostly done behind closed doors, with little facts dribbled out here and there, but there was really nothing significant at all in terms of consultation.

Even the Prime Minister admits that this sort of state takeover of a Canadian energy company is not good for Canada, which really makes one wonder why he approved the deal in the first place.

Looking at the FIPA the government signed with China, once takeovers by Chinese state-owned companies are approved, these companies will be treated like Canadian companies. For example, CNOOC will gain powerful new rights to expand its control of the oil sands, such as buying new oil leases. This will undermine our ability to control the actions of foreign investors in our critical resource sector, and it is a very good reason that we need to clarify the investment act before, not after, approving these massive deals.

In 2010 we put forward a motion in the House calling for a clearer net benefit test and a more transparent investment review process. In 2010 the Conservative government unanimously supported our motion and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry promised to clarify this whole idea of net benefit. A promise was made; a promise was broken. This of course is not the case here today.

The NDP continues to call for mandatory public hearings with affected communities as well as public disclosure of all conditions attached to the approval of a takeover, with enforceable penalties for non-compliance.

The Conservatives must clarify whether the goal of the act is to encourage foreign investment that brings in new capital and technology and creates jobs, or simply to allow foreign state-owned companies to control strategic Canadian resources. That is my first point.

On the second point I am going to refer to a passage out of the 2008 Conservative election platform entitled, “The True North Strong and Free”. In ratifying the CNOOC takeover of Nexen, the Conservatives have broken their 2008 election promise to ban the export of raw bitumen. There is a heading in their platform entitled, “Prohibiting the Export of Raw Bitumen to Higher Polluting Jurisdictions”, followed by text that reads, “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will prevent any company from exporting raw bitumen (unprocessed oil from the oil sands) outside of Canada for upgrading in order to take advantage of lower pollution or greenhouse gas emissions standards elsewhere”.

I would like members to think about the Nexen takeover in this context, which clearly seems to contradict the promise. A promise made; a promise broken.

I really have to ask the Conservative members who were in the House in 2008 whether, when they went door-to-door in their ridings and talked to people through the 2008 election, they looked their constituents in the eyes and said they would protect Canadian interests and the environment. They flip-flopped in a massive way by breaking this specific promise.

I will now move to the idea of energy security. This is probably what a lot of Canadians are thinking about and will be talking about much more in the near future. The Nexen takeover will have real effects on the ground in Canada and British Columbia, including in my riding of Burnaby--Douglas.

At the moment, state owned Chinese companies, such as PetroChina, Sinopec and CNOOC, control more than 7% of oil sands reserves. However, control goes beyond ownership of the oil sands. In fact, many of these companies now own parts of the entire supply chain. For example, Chinese state-owned companies own the bitumen mines, the oil tankers and the refineries, and now they can own the pipelines. Not only that but they can also bring in temporary foreign workers to build these pipelines.

Just to remind the Conservatives, Nexen is one of the firm service shippers for the proposed Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. That means it has a long-term agreement to transfer oil along the pipeline as a firm service shipper. The Conservatives might not know that firm service shippers also have the right to buy equity shares in the pipeline.

The FIPA agreement says that once a Chinese company is established in Canada it must receive “national treatment”, meaning that it is to be treated in the same way that the government treats Canadian companies. This means that a state-owned Chinese company can now buy the entire northern gateway pipeline. They already have 7% ownership of the bitumen mines, and we have already had a Chinese equity bid on the northern gateway pipeline that was later withdrawn. They can buy up the pipeline, have the bitumen mines and have the tankers. Of course, our refineries in Canada are shutting down at a rate of one per year. We used to have 44 oil refineries in Canada; now we have 15. The oil refinery in my riding of Burnaby--Douglas is under threat. In fact I am going in front of the National Energy Board in the spring to try to save that refinery.

It seems like the larger picture is being lost by the Conservatives, and I really think they have to take a step back and see what is happening to the entire oil supply chain in Canada. Chinese state-owned companies own the bitumen mines, they own the oil tankers, they own the refineries, and now they can own pipelines and bring in temporary foreign workers to build these pipelines.

If I turn to my own riding, the number one issue in Burnaby--Douglas is the Kinder Morgan application to build a new Edmonton to Burnaby export only crude pipeline. Nexen has signed a binding 20-year firm service agreement with Kinder Morgan to be a partner on this line. There are no provisions in place to stop Nexen from buying out Kinder Morgan. Therefore, Chinese state-owned companies can not only own the Northern Gateway pipeline but they can also purchase the future Kinder Morgan export pipeline. If this continues we will not own the mines, we will not own the pipelines, we will not own the oil tankers, nor the refineries.

Therefore, we wonder what Canada is getting out of this deal. Since the Conservatives have slashed the corporate tax from 22% to 15%, and companies pay as little as 1% royalty to Alberta to extract bitumen, it really means that Canadians are not getting much out of this at all. It is as if we are just sticking a straw in Alberta and shipping the oil right out to China without any benefit to us at all.

Therefore, what is left for Canada? There is a different vision on this side of the House. Picture this: Canada produces about two million barrels of oil per day and in fact consumes about two million barrels of oil per day, meaning that we could ensure energy security for Canada if we had the political will. We could have a stable domestic source of energy for Canada if we wanted it. However, instead we make Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces import about 85% of the oil they need for transportation and home heating, while exporting unrefined crude abroad from the west.

This really does not make any sense to me. Why are we importing 85% of oil in one half of Canada while exporting oil in the other half of Canada? Why do we not have a made in Canada energy security policy? With minimal effort we could make Canada energy secure.

However, energy security is not a Conservative priority. It is not a Liberal priority. It is our priority.

In conclusion, Conservatives have broken two key promises and abandoned any chance of ensuring energy for Canada in order to allow a communist dictatorship to own our resources. In contrast, we are advancing a number of proposals that we think Canadians support.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the other day I had the opportunity to ask the minister about expropriating territory on first nations reserves to put pipelines through. The minister's response should have been, “No, we will never do that”, but he did not give a proper answer.

I wonder if he would now give a more complete answer than he gave the other day.

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. We would have, god forbid, families with a critically ill child or a kidnapped child who would now have to go through call centres to get their two week extensions. There would not be any face-to-face meetings. My constituents are saying that, because of front-line service cuts, access to EI has been greatly undermined.

There is a small adjustment in the written law but how it hits the ground has been radically undermined by the government.

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it will take a few more years before I can ask a question or respond with the style and substance of my hon. colleague. I thank him for his comments and I do think he has a great point.

We need to shift this debate to a much larger look at how we treat workers in this country. I am sure that all of us in our constituency offices are being inundated with calls and visits from people who are out of work, in fear of losing their jobs or who are working two or three jobs at one time when in the past they used to have to work at only one. We need a comprehensive plan to deal with this, which is what we are doing on this side of the House. When we are government in 2015, we will show them how it is done.

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we do have a minor measure that would deeply impact in a positive way 6,000 Canadians who are suffering, which is important. However, as I just mentioned, up to 20,000 civil servants will be laid off this year by the federal government. With the changes, for example, in science and technology, we will have tens of thousands of people laid off from their jobs.

We cannot be distracted. Although the Conservatives have done a good thing here, we cannot be distracted by these minor measures when we have a much larger problem to address.