Michel Picard

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, since I am the one who moved the motion before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommending that the House not continue the study of Bill C-226, I would like to submit my arguments to the House out of respect for my colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, and to inform the House of the debate that took place in committee.

Driving while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol is a serious problem. Road crash victims and public safety officers need our support. The provisions on impaired driving are the most frequently challenged provisions of the Criminal Code. We therefore need a robust and comprehensive plan to strike a balance between public safety and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The intent of Bill C-226 is very commendable. However, the bill's legal problems heavily outweigh its potential benefits. I want to talk about three problems with this bill.

First, there was the minimum sentences. The only group of witnesses who supports this measure in the bill is the group that helped the hon. member draft it. The other group that contributed to drafting the bill, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, testified against minimum sentences during review in committee. I would like to quote what some of the witnesses had to say about minimum sentences.

Andrew Murie, Chief Executive Officer at the National Office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving said:

We also base our whole organization on evidence and policy. We can't find any deterrent effect for minimum mandatory penalties. That's one. The other issue is that in our legal analysis we don't believe it would withstand a charter challenge.

Michael Spratt, from the Criminal Lawyers' Association, said, “there are sections of the bill that are unquestionably unconstitutional”.

Abby Deshman, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the following:

First, simply put, mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They are ineffective and unjust. Decades of research has clearly shown that stiffer penalties do not deter crime.

Lastly, Micheal Vonn, from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, who was quoted by members across the way, said the following:

While failing to provide a benefit in deterrence, mandatory minimums create significant risk of harm. These include excessively punitive and unfair sentences....

The second problem is random breath testing, the centrepiece of this bill. There are two problems with this measure. We have no clear sense of what good it would do, and it, too, presents a constitutional risk. In most places where random breath testing has been introduced, there were few or no legislative measures to combat drunk driving beforehand. That was the case in Australia and Ireland, two countries that are mentioned frequently in random breath testing studies.

Here in Canada, we already have a system in place to combat drunk driving. We have all been stopped at roadblocks, and there is a legal framework in place for the use of Breathalyzers. That is why studies of the benefits of random breath testing are not really valid in the Canadian context. We do not know if this bill will have the intended effect because there are no studies that look into implementing random testing in places that already have measures to combat drunk driving.

In addition, what we need to remember about the studies in Australia and Ireland and the success of random breath testing is that it must be paired with a major education and awareness campaign. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to address education and awareness.

One of the constitutional problems related to random breath testing is that it is not truly random. It is being referred to as “random” only because the word appears in one of the bill's headings. That same mistake was made in the Australian legislation, and we need to avoid repeating it here in Canada.

In fact, under the proposed system, police officers would have the power to stop anyone on the road and subject them to testing. I have a great deal of respect for our law enforcement bodies, but near-absolute power such as this only invites abuse. We need to find a real solution, testing that really would be random. For instance, one out of every ten vehicles could be selected, or a binary light system could be used that would translate into a truly random, and also potentially more dissuasive, measure.

Lastly, I want to comment on support for victims. The third reason we recommend not sending this bill to committee is that it contains nothing for victims.

ôWe heard one truly heartbreaking testimony during the course of our study. I want to thank Sheri Arsenault and Markita Kaulius from Families for Justice and Patricia Hynes-Coates from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who testified in committee. All three lost people near and dear to them to traffic accidents.

Ms. Arsenault, director of the Alberta chapter of Families for Justice, said:

Someone over there said that victims are given so little consideration, and that is very true. Offenders have every right in the world. They have a right to an expert defence. They have a right to appeal. The victim has one right. My one right is to prepare a victim impact statement and present it.

My colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has very personal experience with this. I would like to take this moment to commend his daughters who, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, chair public consultations on road safety. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to help the victims. I think it would have been useful to include measures against the phenomena of victimization during court testimony, for example.

In closing, since it was introduced as a private member's bill, it was not subject to the Department of Justice's examination under the Department of Justice Act in order to determine if it is consistent with the charter. The members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security would have liked to have had the chance to read the opinion on the constitutionality of Bill C-73, the version of the bill introduced when the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was still the minister, but we were not able to access it.

Furthermore, with the exception of random breath testing, representatives of MADD told the committee that even if all these measures were found to be valid under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they would not have much of an impact on impaired driving and the resulting collisions, deaths, and injuries.

For all these reasons, I encourage the members to support the committee's report and not proceed further with the study of this bill.

Nevertheless, I would like to draw members' attention to one part of the report that we tabled. Even though we are proposing not to proceed with the study of Bill C-226, we recommend that the government introduce solid legislative measures in order to reduce the prevalence of impaired driving as quickly as possible.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I would quickly point out that a country will develop based on the resources and services it is able to secure. A trade agreement is bound to ensure greater success than any lethal weapons supplier can provide.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

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

It is important to understand that Canada and Ukraine are partners. Discussions regarding RADARSAT imagery showed that, after a certain time, from Ukraine's perspective, it made sense to focus its efforts elsewhere. At Ukraine's request, the two parties agreed to stop that information sharing service.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, discussions with Ukraine aim to cover every possibility, and they are still ongoing.

Personally, I think Ukraine, which is benefiting from Canada's assistance and wisdom, needs to adopt the means to eventually take charge of its own destiny. When it does, it will no longer need our assistance, which is unfortunately necessary for now.

Discussions regarding the possible need for military assistance continue. However, Canada's decision to offer humanitarian assistance, as has already been mentioned, is in response to what Ukraine asked for.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kanata—Carleton.

I am pleased to speak to the House today about extending our military contribution in Ukraine, especially Canadian development co-operation.

As the first western country to recognize Ukraine in 1991, Canada was among the first international donors to provide significant development aid to this country. Independent evaluations have proven many times that Canada has a comparative advantage thanks to the knowledge, language skills, and expertise of the Ukrainian Canadian community. In addition, Canada has an ability to promote innovation and to adapt to a political and socio-economic context that is constantly evolving.

When Ukrainian citizens took charge of the future of their country with the revolution of dignity in 2013, they argued in favour of democratic reforms and integrating with Europe.

Ukraine, which was facing a huge political crisis, the risk of economic collapse, and aggression from the east, seized the opportunity to determine its own future. Canada was among the first donors to increase its support to Ukraine in order to help that country defend its territorial integrity, stabilize its economy, and lay the foundations for long-term development in terms of independence, democracy, and prosperity.

Since January 2014, Canada has contributed approximately $700 million in technical and financial assistance to strengthen security, deliver critical humanitarian support, stabilize the economy, and support Ukraine's efforts to implement profound and comprehensive democratic and economic reforms.

Canada is very concerned about the individuals who have been affected by the conflict in eastern Ukraine and by the increased risk of poverty. We are committed to delivering effective humanitarian assistance in a timely manner, in accordance with the humanitarian principle of impartiality, humanity, neutrality, and independence.

The Ukrainian government has reported nearly 1.7 million internally displaced people. Those individuals need support, especially since over 73% of those displaced people consist of single-mother families. Canada's humanitarian response involves meeting the needs of the most vulnerable, particularly the specific needs of women and girls.

Since the beginning of the crisis, through our humanitarian partners, Canada has provided more than $27 million in humanitarian assistance to help millions of vulnerable people who are directly affected by this armed conflict. This assistance includes several components including basic health services, food aid, protection, shelter, and other essential support measures.

Canada also plays a key role by providing the Ukrainian government support in developing policies to help it respond to this conflict. To deal with this external aggression, Ukraine must adopt reconstruction and peacekeeping measures.

The need for humanitarian assistance remains high. This need is exacerbated by the fact that the country does not have control over a significant part of its territory and millions of people are trapped, with nowhere to go.

From an economic standpoint, Ukraine posted 2% growth in 2016, which is quite impressive given the tough recession the country has gone through over the past two years. Ukraine has also made unprecedented efforts to reform its public administration and its security and justice sector, while promoting decentralization.

Ukraine has significantly strengthened its anti-corruption measures by creating some key institutions and increasing transparency especially in its public procurement systems. In terms of macroeconomics, Canada has helped Ukraine avoid economic disaster by strengthening the International Monetary Fund's extended credit facility and providing long-term technical support to the National Bank of Ukraine and to the department.

I would be pleased to take any questions about other aspects or key points.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

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

I would remind my hon. colleague that what I have just said is that certain information that is kept confidential during operations will be available to the committee members afterward, so that the committee can analyze national security-related operations.

I would also remind the member that the party to which she belongs was prepared to remove from the legislative landscape the bills that we are trying to improve to ensure Canadians can be safe, which is the basis of this bill, and, most importantly, can have confidence in a committee that will be able to verify and oversee what at least 17 agencies, organizations, and bodies in the security field are doing, to ensure that operations are conducted properly and that their freedoms and rights are upheld.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today in support of Bill C-22, an act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

After considering this bill at second reading and reviewing it in committee, we now have the opportunity to examine it at report stage. The sound parliamentary process has served us well. The bill was carefully reviewed by members from all parties in the House, who listened to advice from expert witnesses, and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security proposed amendments.

As currently worded, the bill will move our country towards a more accountable and effective national security system. The creation of a new national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians will allow the government to keep one of its major promises to Canadians.

This committee will be a very important addition to our parliamentary landscape and will allow the following: extraordinary access to classified information in order to closely examine intelligence and security operations; increased scrutiny of national security and intelligence activities; a broader mandate than that of corresponding committees in other modern democracies; the ability to develop its own agenda completely independent from government; the duty to be accountable to Canadians by reporting annually to Parliament; and the power to examine activities across the entire federal government, including ongoing operations.

Under the current version of this legislation, the committee must meet the dual objectives we set in that regard at the outset: ensuring that our national security apparatus works properly in order to keep Canadians safe, while also protecting Canadians' rights and freedoms.

When this bill was first introduced, it proposed a more robust committee than those of many of our international allies. The amendments would further broaden the scope, powers, and access we are proposing for the committee, and the government indicated that it would accept most of those amendments.

With respect to the scope, for example, we all agree that the committee must have the authority to examine all operations related to national security and intelligence. As amended, this would now include the activities of crown corporations. Furthermore, according to the amendments, if the minister were to determine that a study would be injurious to national security, his power to delay would be limited to the time during which the activity is under way. The committee could examine the activity afterwards.

The provision concerning whistle-blowers is another important amendment that would require the committee to inform a minister and the Attorney General of any activity related to national security or intelligence undertaken by a department that may not be in accordance with the law. Like my colleagues, I am pleased to see that this amendment received broad support.

I also agree that the committee chair should have a vote in the event of a tie. I also agree with the many changes regarding exemptions to access to information that the bill initially proposed. The recent amendments, for example, will allow the committee to receive information about activities under way, related to defence intelligence, in support of military activities.

The Committee will also have access to pertinent information collected by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and the information protected by the Investment Canada Act. The government also agreed to amend the bill so that the reason for any redaction is provided.

The government was open to reasonable amendments throughout the parliamentary process. Not only did we carry out a careful study of this vital bill, but we also benefited from many years of reflection on the creation of a committee, and a long collaboration with international partners.

Each member of the Five Eyes alliance, including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, has a legislative body with access to classified information in order to monitor national security issues.

Canada has tried for more than a decade to create one. It is time for us to give Canadians and parliamentarians a mandate to examine these activities that we all want to have and that we all need.

Today, we are taking one more step toward implementing this important new body. We are getting closer to a system in which parliamentarians are in a better position to hold the government accountable. We can have greater assurance that concrete measures are taken when we target the flaws and problems associated with our security framework and operations.

We have learned lessons from some of our allies’ best practices. We are getting closer to a genuinely Canadian approach to accountability when it comes to national security. This is a major step forward for Canada.

This bill is as bold and progressive as it is well-thought-out and balanced. I am very proud to be part of the Parliament that will finally, I hope, put this essential accountability mechanism in place.

I would like to thank all the members and all the parties for their support, advice, consideration, and discussions, as well as the constructive attitude that has made it possible to craft a better bill. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this important legislation.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I now have the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with my colleague, and her current position surprises me.

The existing committee is proposing a solution based on consultations and several years of experience, primarily in Great Britain. The formula currently before the House is therefore an improved version in terms of powers as well as the committee, and the committee's needs are clear. I would like to understand how the bill in its current form is a weaker version of the solutions already in place.

[Supreme Court Act, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite just showed that the bill is not required because, as he said himself, there already exists a policy on the ability of judges to function in both official languages.

Aside from that, I am also wondering how he can evaluate the judges' level of bilingualism. What is his definition of the ability to function in both official languages?

Expertise is an important quality we look for in candidates, because we must safeguard the rule of law.

How does my colleague reconcile these two aspects?

[André Savaria, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this week, we lost a great man. André Savaria passed away at the young age of 83. Born in Sainte-Julie, he was a municipal councillor from 1972 to 1975, then mayor from 1975 to 1980.

Under his watch, countless parks and playgrounds were opened, as was the first municipal library—and let us not forget his significant involvement in getting the arena built. He also left his mark in a number of other areas. To honour his memory, the flags at city hall will fly at half-mast until March 4.

I offer my deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Savaria, his loved ones, his friends, and the people of Sainte-Julie. The lunch we had coming up will have to be postponed for now.

Mr. Savaria, as you rest in heaven keep watch over your beautiful Sainte-Julie.