Mathieu Ravignat

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 7th, 2014]

With regard to question number Q-263 on the Order Paper, what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?

[National Capital Commission, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the NCC has proven that it is unable of protecting Gatineau Park. More than 5,000 people signed our petition to stop the encroachment on the park and to protect this green space.

Will the minister commit to working with us to reform the NCC so that it is more transparent and more responsive to the people who live in the national capital region?

[Riding of Pontiac, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on October 21, I had the honour of attending the presentation of decorations for bravery ceremony.

In my riding, on April 19, 2011, Rachel Lacroix Pilon, Janelle Lanoix and Josée Pilotte managed to prevent an armed man from harming any students at the Saint-Laurent elementary school in Buckingham. They showed tremendous restraint and remarkably quick thinking. As a parent of young children, I want to personally thank them for doing everything in their power to keep the children safe.

I would also like to take a moment to highlight two important anniversaries. The Shawville Lions Club will soon celebrate its 65th anniversary. That organization's generosity has helped improve the lives of many vulnerable people and families.

The Gracefield Co-op is also celebrating its 75th anniversary. I wish to congratulate the co-operative, which contributes to Gracefield's local economy and employs people in the region.

Thank you to everyone for making the riding of Pontiac such a wonderful place to live.

[Public Service, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Professional Institute of the Public Service is calling on the Conservative government to investigate abusive contracting practices at Shared Services Canada. It seems that private companies are increasingly being used to get around the work usually done by our public servants. The Charbonneau commission showed that this type of privatization often translates into a loss of internal expertise and leads to the worst abuses.

Will the minister agree to look into the abusive contracting practices at Shared Services Canada?

[Telecommunications, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in 2011 the Conservative government promised to give power to the regions. Instead, it has given them the shaft.

In the Pontiac, less than 100 km from Ottawa, many of my constituents still do not have access to a high-speed wireless network. The absence of high-speed Internet access is impeding economic development in the entire region and preventing many businesses from being truly competitive.

What is the Conservative government doing to ensure that regions like the Pontiac will get access to a high-speed wireless network soon?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague for his answer. It is not reassuring. He spoke about consultation and a template for free trade agreements used in the past.

I asked this question because there are people in my riding who could benefit from this free trade agreement, but who could also be adversely affected. I am thinking of pork producers, for example.

What can he say to reassure my constituents who make a living in the agriculture industry and hog production?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as with any free trade agreement, we must ensure that Canadian markets benefit and, to a certain extent, that our businesses can compete internationally.

This requires that we conduct studies and gather information. We have to consider these studies when we move forward with a free trade agreement. Otherwise, there can be very serious repercussions for some sectors of the Canadian economy.

I would just like to ask my dear colleague if basic market research was done before this free trade agreement was negotiated.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there have been advances made in science and research in the last 20 years about how animals feel pain, how they feel suffering, their brain capacity, the impacts of abuse upon them, how the relationship between animals and human beings has changed and how, for example, certain animals can be used for therapy. That is quite a new area of scientific research and medical research. It is only natural that we take into consideration these new findings and that we review our archaic laws with respect to defining what an animal is and the rights that an animal has.

The reality is that we share this planet. There are more animals on this planet than human beings. We need to conceptually shift the way that our civilization understands that relationship. I think that begins with reviewing laws with respect to the definition of animals and ensuring that their rights are protected.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague from Gatineau for her question.

I want to say that she does an excellent job on this file and on all justice matters. She may not envy the size of my riding, but I do not envy all of the work that she has on her plate. It is incredible to see how hard she works.

I think it is clear that this government has a lack of respect for the debates in this House and for the views of the official opposition. The bottom line is that I represent my constituents. They often share their concerns with me about justice bills. Fortunately, the member for Gatineau stands up for the interests of people in the region on justice matters.

In light of what the Conservatives have proposed, I think it would be reasonable to take a moment, to take a little time to think about how all of these bills will work together. Where is there overlap and what can be simplified? We need to look at everything as a whole. I am not convinced that the government is doing that.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to rise in the House to speak to a bill. Before I begin, however, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the events that transpired here last week, because I thought about them a lot over the weekend. Most of all, I thought about the tragedy, the death of Corporal Cirillo, and the impact it has had on his family and his son. I would simply like to add that my thoughts and prayers are with his family, and I extend my condolences to them.

I attended various events in my riding this past weekend, and it is always a pleasure to do so. Many people came to see me in Wakefield to say they stand in solidarity with me, our team, our leader and all members of this House after the tragic events of last week. I thank them for offering their sympathy, for supporting me and for expressing how much hope they have in our work here.

That said, once again we have another bill that blurs the lines between the government, politics and the legislature.

This is an issue that the government has brought several times to the House in legislation. Time and time again, we are the only party that seems to stand up for this basic principle that it is judges who are best placed to decide what a sentence should be.

During a trial, what goes on is questioning. It is almost like a form of investigation. Through this process, in what I would call a dialectical process of exchange, facts come up and it is discovered that things are not as simple as they appeared before. The situation appears different under questioning, and there needs to be a process in place so that those things that are revealed during a trial are taken into consideration in sentencing.

This is a principle that is fundamental. It is also a principle of how democracy should work, which is that there should be a very long arm between the legislators and the government in place on the one hand and what happens on judges' benches on the other.

Bill C-35 was announced in the 2013 throne speech, so it is not very surprising that we have it before us today. The bill proposes Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence specifically prohibiting the killing, injuring, poisoning or maiming of trained animals being used to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities or the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have to say that I have no problem with the principle of protecting animals that do this kind of work. On the contrary, I really like animals. I have had animals around me ever since I was a young boy. I learned to respect them and to see them as our companions on the beautiful planet we share with them.

It is commendable to have legislation to protect them further. However, I see that the government is being contradictory. Not so long ago, we introduced bills to do exactly this: improve legislation on protecting abused animals. I do not know why, perhaps it is simply because it was not the government's idea, but the Conservatives voted against our bills. How can they vote against this principle and then turn around and propose the same principle? On this side of the House, when we see such inconsistency, it makes us wonder. What is behind this? What are they trying to get passed that might not have anything to do with the well-being of animals?

This bill is meant to improve legislation. For example, persons convicted of such an offence could face up to five years in prison, with—and I want to emphasize this—a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law and the offence is prosecuted by indictment. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed while on duty, the sentence for that offence would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising out of the same event.

This is definitely a case of interfering with judicial independence. Judges make decisions that they consider to be appropriate. After all, judges are not appointed just for the fun of it. It is clear that we must respect their work and their experience.

Therefore, it is a bit odd that the provisions of Bill C-35 do not change the sentences and fines set out in section 445 of the Criminal Code for all animals that are not cattle. The Edmonton police department seems to be supporting the bill, and it seems reasonable to believe that the other police forces, as well as individuals with service animals, will want to support this bill. That is true.

However, the fact remains that there are two very serious problems with this bill. As I mentioned earlier, it introduces a six-month minimum sentence and consecutive sentences if a law enforcement animal is killed when a crime is committed.

Consequently, it would be good to hear in committee what the experts and other civil society organizations have to say about these two issues. However, the government must listen to them. If we go to committee, which we would like to do, consultations must be robust and rigorous and expert opinions must be considered. There is a problem, though.

Time and time again, what we have seen is that when we support a bill going to committee, either the committee process is shortened or we do not have access to all of the experts or to a healthy debate. Additionally, when we propose amendments that would help the piece of legislation to be enacted and to be balanced, every single amendment from the opposition is opposed. That does not seem to be particularly reasonable when, after hearing from all of these experts, it is clear that the proposed legislation could be improved.

In closing, I have a few fundamental questions for the Conservatives.

For example, why does the government want to once again remove discretionary authority from the courts? That is a basic question but the government still has not answered it. Also, why does this government always try to amend good bills by inserting unreasonable clauses, such as consecutive sentences? Have the Conservatives assessed the impact that including a minimum sentence and consecutive sentences will have on the justice and prison systems? Once again, we have not received any answers in this regard. Finally, why do the Conservatives think it is necessary to include a minimum sentence in this bill?

These are reasonable questions. The problem is that we are the only ones talking about this bill. We are the only ones asking questions about this bill. Nevertheless, we are here to do that. How can we get the answers we need to really know whether the government is serious about wanting a common sense bill?