Mathieu Ravignat

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I am pleased to rise today to speak about this bill, which at the outset contained a number of clauses to which the NDP was opposed at previous readings.

After a difficult battle over amendments to clause 75, regarding criminal records, an issue on which we very publicly expressed our views, our party is satisfied that we forced the government to change nearly 95% of the offences under the Code of Service Discipline. They will no longer result in a criminal record. This is why I will be supporting Bill C-15.

It must be said that my colleagues worked very hard to ensure these changes were made. Today, we are proud of the tangible results we obtained for members of the Canadian Forces. Our efforts will make it possible to reform one of the most important pieces of legislation aimed at establishing a more equitable military justice system.

By way of background, Bill C-15 is a legislative response to the recommendations made by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, who tabled his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act in 2003. It contained 88 recommendations regarding the military justice system, the Military Police Complaints Commission, and the grievance process up to and including the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. In addition, another review of certain provisions of the National Defence Act was conducted by the Ontario Superior Court. This report was given to the government in December 2011, but it was not until June 2012 that the minister tabled it in the House.

Despite the fact that the Conservative government received the LeSage report more than a year ago, it has not yet incorporated a single one of these recommendations into Bill C-15. In fact, the Conservatives voted against the amendments put forward by the NDP, which was attempting to have a number of recommendations from the LeSage report included in the bill.

Bill C-15 has appeared in various guises in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Bill C-41 was tabled as a follow-up to the 2003 Lamer report and to the report by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It contained provisions on military justice, including sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and a number of provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints processes. Bill C-41 was amended in committee, but died on the order paper because an election was called.

Basically, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of the committee’s work during the previous session. However, major amendments that were put forward in the last Parliament at committee stage were not included in Bill C-15.

At present, a conviction following a summary trial for a military offence may result in a criminal record for the Canadian Forces member even though there is no guarantee that the trial was fair. In fact, during a summary trial, the accused may not consult legal counsel. There is no appeal, nor is there a transcript of the trial, and the judge is the commanding officer of the accused.

This results in consequences that are too severe for Canadian Forces members who are found guilty of minor military offences, such as disobeying a lawful command, feigning an illness and permitting or assisting an escape, even though the escape itself does not lead to the establishment of a criminal record. This is why the Right Honourable Patrick LeSage stated that the damage that flows from a criminal record and the potential effect on a person’s life is “far too severe a consequence” for most offences tried by summary trial and that the consequences are “totally disproportionate to the violation”.

Although some progress has been made, we feel that additional reforms are required and that there must be a review of the summary trial process.

Both in the House and in committee, the NDP has asked for changes and amendments to reduce the impact of disciplinary punishments and of a potential criminal record, and to raise the issue of the absence of a comprehensive charter of rights.

The NDP fought to improve the bill in committee. Our efforts resulted in a longer list of offences and cases that will not lead to a criminal record, as well as a number of other amendments to improve the bill, and this shows our commitment to reforming the system.

The NDP supports this update to the military justice system. We understand that members of the Canadian Forces must comply with very high standards of discipline, but we strongly believe that in return they must be able to rely on a justice system that meets standards that are just as high.

Many Canadians would be astounded to learn that the men and women who serve our country with valour may be given a criminal record because the system does not follow the procedural rules that are normally applied by civil courts. They may be subject, as the Right Honourable Patrick Lesage writes, to consequences that are “totally disproportionate to the violation.”

Moreover, for the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to be seen as an external and independent civilian oversight body, as it is intended to be, the appointment process must be amended to reflect this reality. Consequently, some members of the board should come from civil society.

One NDP amendment stated that at least 60% of members of the grievance board must be people who had never been officers or non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces. This amendment was passed in March 2011 as part of Bill C-41, but it was not kept in Bill C-15, as the Conservatives rejected it.

In order to guarantee the independence of the external committee, the NDP put forward an amendment to clause 11, to exclude serving members of the Canadian Forces. This measure was called for both by Justice LeSage, following his independent review, and by Bruno Hamel, chair of the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

Here again, the Conservatives voted against this measure, just as incapable as they always are of setting up the measures needed to ensure the independence of the grievance review committee, the military police or the judicial elements of the military justice system.

The NDP will work toward making the military justice system more equitable for all Canadian Forces members who put their lives in danger in order to serve Canada.

Many of our allies have considered it worthwhile to amend their summary trial processes, which leads us to wonder why it is taking Canada so long to modernize the military justice system for our troops.

The eminent jurist Gilles Létourneau has called for an independent and comprehensive review of all the National Defence Act provisions that deal with the military justice system.

When will the Conservative government stop making ragtag, piecemeal changes to the military justice system? When will it carry out an exhaustive and independent review?

I would like to end by saying that the official opposition has at heart the best interests of the men and women who defend our country and who risk their lives to make the world a better place.

[Government Services, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the mechanisms used to award and monitor contracts handed out by Public Works are clearly flawed.

The minister continues to change her version of the story concerning companies suspected of collusion and corruption.

Public Works can keep doing business with SNC-Lavalin, whereas CIDA and the World Bank have banned the company from bidding on their projects.

Will the minister put in place clear directives to standardize the ethics guidelines for awarding government contracts?

[Petitions, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to be able to present three petitions on behalf of my Pontiac constituents. They are opposed to this government's reckless and poorly thought-out employment insurance reforms, including the new definition of suitable employment and the deadlines to apply for benefits.

[Taxation, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we would think that after six years that number would be much higher.

The amount of outstanding tax debt under this government is huge and continues to grow. However, instead of giving CRA more authority, the Conservatives are making cuts. Over the next three years, they will cut 3,000 jobs and slash funding by $3 million, yet this is the agency that is supposed to collect taxes. It makes no sense.

When will Conservative backbenchers start to ask questions about real—

[Taxation, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in the Auditor General's 2006 report we learned that the government was failing to collect $18 billion in taxes.

Conservatives promised to fix the problem, but six years later they managed to actually make things worse. Now there is $29 billion in uncollected federal taxes.

Why are Conservatives clawing back danger pay for soldiers, cutting EI for seasonal workers, and raising taxes on everyday goods for Canadian families, while failing to collect $29 billion in uncollected tax debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. It is a very important question, because it touches on the substance of the issue.

Any decision or piece of legislation needs to be based on facts and science. We are wondering whether a consultation with stakeholders has been held.

For instance, have Canadian associations of psychiatrists and psychologists been consulted? These are crime experts. Have professors, scientists, criminologists and lawyers been consulted? The list is—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Pontiac. Public safety is a rather major issue.

One of the objectives of Bill C-54 is to protect victims. The bill seeks to increase the safety of victims by providing them with more opportunities to participate in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime, by ensuring that they are notified on request when the accused is discharged, allowing non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are being made about an accused person.

In addition, the proposed legislation would help ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the law across the country. However, it is important to note that these reforms would not change the current eligibility criteria in the Criminal Code with respect to exemption from criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder.

The proposed reforms would also define the concept of significant threat to the safety of the public, which is a current test for determining whether a review board can maintain its jurisdiction and continue to supervise a mentally disordered accused.

The bill would clarify the fact that restrictions could be imposed on an accused who presents a public safety risk of a criminal nature, though not necessarily of a violent nature.

Protecting the public and victims of crime and violence is obviously a good thing. Everyone probably already knows this, but crime has its most direct impact on victims in every respect: physically, emotionally, spiritually and financially.

From a financial perspective alone, many researchers have attempted to estimate the intangible costs borne by victims of crime, but none of the studies are official. Still, most agree that the intangible costs are often the most onerous ones for victims.

Of the total estimated costs, $14.3 billion was incurred as a direct result of crime for such items as medical attention, hospitalization, lost wages, missed school days and stolen or damaged property.

While crime has its most significant impact on victims, others around them suffer as well. In its 2008 report entitled “Costs of Crime in Canada”, the Department of Justice estimated that intangible costs were about $68.2 billion, which increased the total cost of crime to $99.6 billion. That is astounding.

However, even though this bill is important and may help victims, we have to keep things in perspective. We have to act according to facts, not fear. For example, in Ontario, Canada's most populous province, only 0.001% of individuals accused of a Criminal Code offence were deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The recidivism rate for these individuals is between 2.5% and 7.5%, while the recidivism rate for other federal offenders is between 41% and 44%.

Contrary to what the government would have Canadians believe, there is not necessarily a correlation between the seriousness of a crime and the likelihood that the offender will reoffend or his ability to improve his mental health and live a normal, happy life.

Some recent high-profile cases suggest that the current approach may not be effective. Like my NDP colleagues, I would like to know how we can help the victims in the process. To figure out the best approaches, we need to talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces.

It is also important to avoid politicizing this issue. We have to study the merits of the policy, and that study must be properly financed by the federal government.

In such a study it seems to me that it would be important to ask some of the following questions, as did my hon. Liberal colleague from Mount Royal.

What studies, case law and theoretical sources did the government rely in drafting this bill? What statistics did the government collect on persons deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders? For each of the past 10 years by province, territory and type of offence, how many people were deemed not criminally responsible? Which persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were found guilty of a subsequent offence? What was the nature of the subsequent offence? What persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were deemed not criminally responsible for a subsequent offence? What was the nature of that subsequent offence?

With good answers and data on these questions, we as legislatures would be far more informed to ensure that the legislation passed was well crafted and would do the job we needed it to do.

We in the official opposition, despite supporting the bill at second reading, still have a few unanswered questions, which we hope the government will attempt to answer in the months ahead.

We agree that public safety must come first, but we must also ensure proper compliance with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are open to change, but we must also ensure that the way in which we handle cases involving mentally disordered accused persons is effective in terms of the treatment of mental disorders. To that end, we must ensure that the provinces have adequate financial resources since they are the ones ultimately managing the situation.

With regard to the charter, we must always be careful that in our zeal to protect our fellow citizens we do not harm hard-won civil rights. It would be helpful to know whether Bill C-54 was reviewed by the Department of Justice to ensure its compliance with the charter and what measures the government took to prevent charter challenges concerning persons deemed not criminally responsible. If there was indeed a review, what were the review's findings?

I also wonder, on the role of victims, if consideration has been given to the fact that some people are unable to confront criminals who have victimized them. I mentioned the enormous cost burden to victims earlier because I also wonder why there are no provisions being made in the bill for more resources for the victims who have to live with the consequences of these criminal acts.

Also, what about financial support to the provinces? Is this new policy not being developed on the backs of the provinces? A spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated that the provinces would not receive any additional funding to address these new measures, yet we know there will be costs involved.

Despite these reservations, I agree that in order to protect our fellow citizens, there is a need for a mechanism by which certain individuals who are found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder may be declared high risk. I also agree that there should be an increase in the involvement of victims in this process. These are the reasons why I support the bill at second reading.

Truly, the voice of the voiceless should never be silenced, which is why I am happy again to support the bill at second reading.

[Public Works and Government Services Canada, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, after admitting that they were not carefully scrutinizing the contracts of companies named in the Charbonneau Commission, the Conservatives did a dramatic about-face. They must tell us what they discovered.

If there has been an abuse of public funds in any of the $21 billion worth of contracts granted, we have to get to the bottom of it. Yet, if we are going to do so, the minster cannot keep the reports secret.

Will the minister promise to release the reports on the contracts involving companies named in the Charbonneau Commission?

[Public Works and Government Services Canada, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, confusion continues to abound around contracting and how Conservatives will deal with companies named in the Charbonneau Commission.

Last week officials denied they were reviewing contracts given to businesses implicated in this inquiry. Now Conservatives are backtracking and saying the exact opposite.

Why the sudden change of heart? Could the minister confirm they are double-checking past contracts with companies named by the commission, and explain why it took so long to do so in the first place?

[Government Appointments, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that perfectly illustrates this government's “laissez-faire, I don't care” attitude. The Conservatives are fully and completely responsible for the fiasco that resulted from that appointment.

In his report, Mario Dion said that proper procedures for verifying candidacies were not followed when Shirish Chotalia was appointed to chair the tribunal. This was their candidate, a candidate who “repeatedly harassed employees at all levels”.

When will the Conservatives apologize?