Paul Dewar

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, we acknowledge that when it comes to the Canadian Forces, to the military, it is a different institution, so for the example the member gave, it is obvious there is a propensity, and an understandable one, to deal with situations differently. That said, we really have to take a look, and I mentioned the stats of the use of summary trials, and see that this is an outdated method of dealing with justice for our military and it is time we respect the forces and the institution itself and modernize it.

As I said, this has been done in many other jurisdictions. The question is: Why can the government not provide that solution? Maybe Conservatives either do not want to or they have not done their homework to put forward a proposal on which we can all agree.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the debate many of us are having on this side of the House, which is good to see. I am glad to see the Minister of National Defence added his two cents to the debate, but we really hope we will have other members of Parliament from other parties join in. The debate we are having is extremely important when it comes to our Canadian Forces and modernizing the Canadian Forces.

As has been mentioned, it was the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, one of our sharpest jurists, who contributed to our country in many different ways. We honoured his passing just a couple of years ago. I had the opportunity to get to know him a bit from a social point of view and he was someone who contributed to our system in so many ways. He had also examined concerns around the issues of justice in Newfoundland and helped reform some of the systems there. When he brought forward his report in 2003, it was thorough. It was also a blueprint for what we needed to do. We needed to, in his opinion, modernize the justice system within the military.

It is strange when the government talks about getting the bill to committee and getting it done. As my colleague from Vancouver East, the bill was before us in two different iterations. One of the times it went through the House with a minority Parliament, but it was stopped abruptly because of prorogation.

It comes with a qualifier when the government criticizes anyone in the House, particularly us, about slowing things down. The Conservatives pulled the fire alarm on the House of Commons with prorogation because they were worried about holding on to power.

The other thing that is important to understand in the bill and its context is the government has constantly talked about the importance of our military, the importance of supporting the troops and ensuring that is a brand of theirs. However, when we look at how that works, whether it is the reforming the justice system, as we are debating today, or supporting veterans, particularly for those who are coming back from the conflict in Afghanistan, there is a gap between the rhetoric of the government and the results.

In the context of the bill there are things like the Military Police Complaints Commission. We went through a very long debate over the role of the Military Police Complaints Commission when we debated the question of detainees. It came up in the House during debate that the government was not being responsible and responsive when it came to supporting the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The Conservatives changed the chair. They did not renew the chair's mandate because the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission was doing the job. The Conservatives were not sufficiently supporting the Military Police Complaints Commission with documentation and that led to a parliamentary crisis in the end, which someone in your chair, Mr. Speaker, had to rule upon.

It is important that we understand the context. If the Military Police Complaints Commission is not able to do its job sufficiently, then that puts the system at risk.

The reason we set up these bodies is so there will be a fair hearing, a due process. That is extremely important. However, if the executive branch interferes with that and does not support the Military Police Complaints Commission, either in the appointment of the chair or ensuring that it has all the material sufficient to do its work, then we have a dilemma. The dilemma is that the commission is no longer really independent because the independence of the Military Police Complaints Commission is compromised because of lack of co-operation from the executive branch. We cited this before in the case with the Department of National Defence and the minister in providing documents, and ultimately up to cabinet.

We need to see more clarity. As others have mentioned, this issue has been examined in other jurisdictions. The MPCC is an important institution that was set up to deal with issues like those we saw with the Somalia inquiry and what happens when things go wrong within the military. It is a different organization obviously, a different institution, and it does require different methods in terms of dealing with issues around justice, but we really do have to modernize here. We have been very vocal and clear that the MPCC needs to be given full independence. The government needs to comply with the requests it makes and not put barriers in its way.

The bill does not go far enough to really address some of the issues around grievances, as was mentioned by my colleagues.

With respect to the summary trial system, I just want to read into the record again some of the important statistics around the use of summary trials. Summary trials are seemingly the dominant disciplinary method that is being used by the Canadian military. A lot of people are shocked to note the statistics we have available. Between 2008 and 2009, there were a total of 1,865 cases, 96% of which were determined by summary trial. The other 67 were heard by court martial, 4%. It is important to note that if we do not deal with the issue of summary trials, then we are really not dealing with the big problem, and that is modernizing our system of justice within the military.

If the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are able to deal with this legacy of summary trials, then why can we not deal with it here? I have just listed Westminster models, and they are able to do that, so it is certainly not a question of our parliamentary system. The countries I just listed were able to do it. They are all within the Westminster tradition. Why is the Conservative government not able to see that, to put that forward? We have put this case forward many times. We were debating this particular bill in its previous iterations when the Speaker was a member on the floor of the House.

The government is saying it will just get it done when the bill gets to committee. Government members already know what the problem is. Why did they not deal with it before? Why did they not deal with it perhaps after the second iteration? Here we are the third time. The government could have dealt with it. If the government is going to deal with it in a fulsome way, it could have put that in place. It could have strengthened the Military Police Complaints Commission and dealt with the whole issue of summary trials and grievances.

As I stated before, the military is a different institution. My father was a sergeant who served in the second world war. He used to joke about what his role was within the military. He was at times a disciplinarian with the troops because he was a sergeant. There was a code and they had to follow it. That was then, but times have changed. It is time to modernize, and that is why at this point it is difficult for us to support the bill at second reading.

We look to the government to tell us why it did not get the job done before. We ask the other opposition parties to see the problems we have. Let us get this done right. Let us get this done well, so we can fully support our troops.

[Foreign Affairs, October 23rd, 2012]

Maybe we will ask a bit more about this, Mr. Speaker, because what Treasury Board officials admitted was that there was no convincing case to the criteria that the minister is talking about. In other words, they went ahead and did this without making the case for security concerns. They announced with great fanfare new arrangements with other countries to do management of joint embassy administration, but the question is: If we cannot follow our own rules, how are we going to get into arrangements with other countries and ensure Canadians that we are actually being accountable to them?

If we cannot follow our own rules, how can we ensure that we are going to follow any rules at all?

[Foreign Affairs, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's words, but we need more action right now. Turkey is spending more than $400 million to host the Syrian refugees. We are talking about 100,000 Syrian refugees right now in the country and many more who want to get in. Winter is coming, these are harsh conditions. Turkey has asked all countries and other countries have said yes.

Will Canada say yes? Will we support Turkey in hosting the refugees? Not only will we, but when will we?

[Human Rights, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the minister for his statement in support of Malala Yousufzai.

Today, our thoughts are with Malala. We support her and pray for her recovery. We salute her courage. We stand in solidarity with millions of people around the world who, like Malala, are struggling for equality.

Sixty-four years ago, the world community signed onto the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sixty-four years ago, we all reaffirmed our faith in fundamental human rights, the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights between women and men.

However, 64 years later, women are still not equal. Their bodies are strewn on the front lines of conflicts. A young woman's call for equal access to education is answered by bullets of hate.

It is obvious today that we, as a global community, have failed to promote and protect the fundamental rights which 64 years ago we declared to be universal. However, the violence of the extremists will not deter us.

Look how Malala's determination is echoed by millions in Pakistan and around the world. The forces of hate that shot a young woman in the head will not and must not be the ones that we listen to.

We must listen to her voice. Malala has a dream of equality, access to education and opportunity and a world where everyone's human dignity is recognized.

As Gloria Steinem once said, “Without leaps of imagination, or dreaming, we lose the excitement of possibilities”. Without those opportunities, we lose these things.

The extremists and reactionaries do not want a young woman to know the excitement of possibilities, but the excitement of possibilities is universal. We must strive for equality at home and abroad. In this struggle, Malala is not alone. We cannot let her be alone. We must not turn our backs now.

The minister spoke about Malala as a source of inspiration. Let this ministerial statement today mark the moment that Canada's Parliament stood united for women's empowerment. Let it be the start of a real and tangible contribution to realizing the dreams of millions for true equality and true human dignity.

[Patent Act, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Bill C-398. I will start by giving some context to this bill. Then I will build on what has already been mentioned.

I want to discuss where this bill will matter the most, and that is in places like Africa. In fact, it is where the Prime Minister just visited, the Democratic Republic of Congo. I was there a couple of years ago to see some of the projects that had been funded by the World Bank. One of the projects I remember well was the HIV testing labs that had been set up. This was a good project. It was one that allowed people access to testing for HIV-AIDS and other diseases. Particularly important, was that access to testing there had been elusive and the capacity was set up. This is important because this is part of the bill that people have critiqued before, the capacity on the ground and that some might interfere.

I was able to see the testing being done with modern equipment. Testing all people was very successful, young people, men and women, and it was done in a way that we would see here. There was the same standard of anonymous testing that allowed people to be tested without stigma, which has been a huge problem during the years that people have been fighting this disease and others.

I was then taken to a warehouse, which Canada in the past had been helping out, where medicines were stored. That warehouse was half empty. This was the place where the medicines were stored for the people who had been tested and identified as having the HIV virus, in some cases full blown AIDS and other diseases were reliant upon. I was stunned. I was there with members of Parliament from other countries and asked where all the medicines were. They said that they could not get any. I asked why not and they said that was the problem with the system, that they could not get any because there were problems with patent barriers and getting safe drugs.

I will never forget it because we essentially gave people false hope. We gave them the indication that we were going to be helping them out, fortifying their health system and ensuring that people who we wanted to help were going to be identified first. We all know that without the next step, without providing treatment, we are essentially giving people notification of a death sentence. We are not there to help them. In fact we are there to say, “Here you are, here is your death sentence”, and walk away from them. That is what I saw on the ground in the Congo. That story is happening right across the developing world. We can do something about that. This bill is about that.

We can talk, and I will, about compliance, what happens with the WTO. This is about standards and ensuring there will be requirements in this bill to ensure we are going to follow the highest standards we have in place and not jeopardize the pharmaceutical, generic or research companies. We will be saying that a kid in the Congo will get the same access as my son would get, or a woman with HIV-AIDS in any part of the developing world will have the same access as my sister or nieces. That is what this is about. Fundamentally, this is about social justice. That is why so many people are in favour of it.

When we passed the bill in the House, I was very proud to be the author of the bill. However, it was not about me. It was about many people in the House who saw the value of working together as members of Parliament to make a difference for people in the rest of the world, in particular, the people in two-thirds of the world who live in poverty. It was a proud moment for me. I saw members of the Conservative Party working with members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc and New Democrats. It was a very proud day.

I would like to re-energize the House on this bill again. For those who might have some questions, let us talk about it. Let us see how we can make this work.

As was mentioned already, when the bill was first passed, it was a great idea. However, looking at the record, we were unable to get the drugs to those countries that needed them because of the barriers. Rwanda tried once, but there were too many barriers and it would not do it again.

This is analogous to getting oneself, or someone in one's family, a prescription for a life-saving medicine, but each time a pill is needed, one has to go back to the doctor, get the prescription, go to the store again and one may not even have money to buy it. This is what we are talking about, but on a national scale.

The bill would refine the process to have one licence. Therefore, once there is an arrangement between a country, ourselves and industry, it is done.

Do we monitor? Absolutely, and those provisions have been talked about. Do we make sure there is quality? Yes, no question about it. Who would want to jeopardize the quality of Canadian drugs?

One of the stories we heard today was from a senator who had been to Uganda. It was a very touching story about a pen pal of her grandson who she went to meet on a regular basis in Uganda. This past year she went to meet with this young boy, who is younger than my son who turns 14 today, and it was for the last time. She could not meet with him because he did not have access to safe malaria drugs in Uganda. This is the real world now and this bill could deal with that.

There are so many stories. There are stories of women who have been tested and have been told they can be helped. They could be given first-line treatment and if that did not work, then they could go to the second-line treatment. On this file, things have not stayed static, some things are fluid, and that is another important point.

We have fought the fight against HIV-AIDS and we have won many battles. We have not found the cure, but we have been able to manage the disease. However, as members know, over time the virus adapts to some of these medicines, so we need to have second and third-line regimes, or different combinations of drugs. The bill deals with this as well and it is crucial for the people we have helped in the past to stay alive.

For my friend for Peace River, let us talk. Anyone on that side who has a concern, let us sit down and talk. We have been talking to industry and this is something we can do. There are so many people who are counting on us to do this. This is not the time to turn away. It is not about partisanship. This is about reaching out to each other to help people somewhere else.

I am so damn proud of what the House did before. I saw Conservative members and people from all parts of Canada come together, faith communities particularly, standing up to say that they were going to do something to help their fellow men, women and children. They did not want to talk about it; they wanted do it. Fundamentally, that is what the bill is about and that is why I support it.

We need to talk about the issues so we can solve the problem. When I go back to Congo with any member of Parliament and we go to that warehouse after people have been tested, we will not see an empty warehouse. We will see it full. We will see people being taken care of. When we are asked, we can say that we stood up, we were there for people and we made a difference.

[Correctional Service Canada, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, picking and choosing on this subject just will not wash. This is not a costly program. The minister has no justification for cutting it.

The parliamentary secretary should listen to her colleague who said that “religious freedom is a fundamental freedom, one we are very, very supportive of and feel very strongly about”. That was said by her colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

How can the Conservatives be so hypocritical in being strong apparently on religious freedom abroad when they will not support it at home?

[Foreign Affairs, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is a sensitive issue for the Conservatives because they are not representing our interests on the world stage.

Conservatives delayed Mr. Khadr's case for years at a great cost to taxpayers. The government admitted that the U.S. pressured Canada to stop dragging its heels. Secret American documents were leaked, a serious breach of trust.

How is mishandling the Omar Khadr case and alienating the U.S. good for Canadians' interests with our U.S. friends and our reputation on the world stage?

[Foreign Affairs, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, finger wagging at the UN and alienating our closest ally is a heck of a way to get along with our closest ally, the United States—

[Foreign Affairs, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to walk even a few blocks to address the UN and promote Canada. Today, he is refusing to meet with Canadian media to answer questions.

While our allies are doing the hard work of diplomacy, Conservatives have put Canada on the sidelines. Does the Prime Minister think that a policy of self-imposed isolation is the best way of advancing Canada's interests?