Philip Toone

[Search and Rescue, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Needless to say, the government would like to assure us that there is no risk. However, when marine traffic centres are closed, it is obvious that the risk increases. It cannot be otherwise.

He says that we have nothing to fear in view of the improvements to the networks and that the employees in question who will be sent to the 12 remaining centres will be sufficient. However, everyone knows that networks can fail. We know full well that the networks have a history of malfunctioning. And we also know full well that there is a risk such failures could still occur.

I am therefore asking the parliamentary secretary a very straightforward question: what is the life of a sailor worth?

[Search and Rescue, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the Conservative government strongly believes in cutting costs to resolve financial problems and improve government programs and services. It says that we simply have to do more with less and everything will be fine.

The Conservative government imposed this ideology on the Canadian Coast Guard by calling for the closure of search and rescue centres and marine radio stations throughout the country in order to increase efficiency and cut costs. But what about the protection of sailors, fishers and recreational boaters?

Canada has the world's longest coastline. Unfortunately, when it comes to saving lives and protecting the marine environment against oil spills, the Conservative government's mantra of “efficiency” will almost certainly lead to disaster.

In order to achieve minor savings, the Conservatives are prepared to seriously weaken the Coast Guard's ability to ensure the safety of fishers, recreational boaters and other sailors in distress and to safely guide cruise ships, ferries, oil tankers and other ships through dangerous waterways. I am shocked that this government actually believes that it is going to make the Coast Guard more efficient by shutting down the search and rescue centre in Quebec City and the Rivière-au-Renard maritime radio station.

Despite its 108-year history, the Rivière-au-Renard marine radio station will be closed by 2015. Only the Quebec City and Les Escoumins marine radio centres will remain operational in the province. Even though the 16 current employees of the station will be offered positions in Quebec City or Les Escoumins, the Gaspé region will lose 16 well-paying jobs, as well as local knowledge that could save the lives of fishers and others who venture out to sea. Coast Guard employees are familiar with the geography and language of the region. These centres thus possess a familiarity with the local geography and language that enables fishers to be quickly understood in the event of distress.

In a related matter, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommended the following in his final investigation report: that the language requirements of coordinator positions be immediately amended; that all incumbents of bilingual positions be able to meet the language requirements; that there be a sufficient number of bilingual positions to ensure that the Trenton and Halifax centres can provide services in French and English at all times; and that the workplace be conducive to learning both languages.

Above all, however, the report recommended that the closing of the Quebec City centre be postponed until all these requirements are met. Is the Conservative government going to comply with the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages?

The time has come for the Conservative government to realize that Canadians are no longer pawns in its cost-cutting game. How many marine accidents that threaten human lives or the environment will it take before this government realizes that efficiency is not the solution to everything and that you can't put a price on the lives of Canadians?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot to learn from other countries. Canada used to serve as an example to other countries. It was always on the forefront in terms of criminal penalties, but it no longer is today. We have a lot of catching up to do.

We must first determine the targeted objective, which we have lost sight of. The objective is not to put people in prison or impoverish our military personnel by saddling them with a criminal record. I repeat: having a criminal record can hinder access to employment. Some people live in poverty their whole lives because they have a criminal record. If that is really what the government is proposing, I do not think it is giving our military personnel the respect they deserve.

The government should rethink Bill C-15 and withdraw it. It should introduce a new bill that will benefit Canadian society, instead of harming our military personnel by saddling them with a criminal record.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. In 2003, Justice Lamer produced a very interesting report. It contained 88 recommendations, and the government has acted on only 28 of them. I suggest that the members opposite read the report to see what it says; they would be surprised. By keeping only one-quarter of the recommendations, the government is not showing military personnel the respect they deserve.

The Right Honourable Chief Justice Lamer made 88 recommendations and only 28 were accepted. Justice Lamer did his job and made his recommendations after giving much thought to the issues. Once again, the government has hastily put forward an ill-considered bill that seeks to punish people. The Conservatives believe that if they continually hammer away at people, those people may vote Conservative later on.

That is not at all what I want in a bill. I want a bill to be well-thought-out and useful. The objective must be to return our military personnel to their units, not to alienate them.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-15. It appears that there are many shortcomings and problems with this bill. I believe the issue of criminal records is one of the main problems.

There are many others. I will begin with the others, but I will come back to criminal records shortly. We find the system of grievances and the Military Police Complaints Commission very worrisome.

This bill has been before the House many times in various forms. It was introduced in 2006 and died on the order paper in 2007-2008 because of the election.

We must not forget that this is a new version of the same bill that was passed by the previous Parliament in March 2011. The new version—the one before us today—implies that the will of the House, expressed only a few months ago, is being totally ignored.

In the opinion of the official opposition, one of the criteria is very troubling. We want 60% of the members of the Military Grievances External Review Committee to be neither officers nor enlisted personnel. We want civilians to have oversight over military procedures in Canada. We have often heard this opinion expressed by our constituents. The military must be subject to the will of the people and not the opposite; it is just common sense.

The NDP is adamant that 60% of the members of the Military Grievances External Review Committee should be civilians. Passing Bill C-15 without this element is unacceptable.

The part of this bill that worries me the most is the one dealing with criminal records. The people who defend our country deserve better than to have a criminal record based on ordinary behaviour.

Clause 75 of the bill, recently mentioned by a government member, lists the cases in which a person might acquire a criminal record. A new section will be created in the law, section 249.27. In it we see that a person who commits an offence under sections 85, 86, 90, 97,129 and 130 of the Contraventions Act may have a criminal record. This aspect that might give a person a criminal record must be carefully studied.

Clause 85 deals with an act of insubordination, such as a threat or verbal insult to a superior. This means that someone could have a criminal record for nothing more than a verbal insult. Having a criminal record is a big deal. It can hinder a person's access to employment. That person could be forced to live in poverty their entire life because they threatened or verbally insulted a superior. Frankly, it is a little much.

The legislation talks about quarrels and disturbances. Anyone who quarrels or fights with another member of the military—unfortunately it can happen—or uses provoking speeches or gestures toward a person so subject that tend to cause a quarrel or disturbance is guilty of an offence.

This includes not only quarrels or fights that do happen, but also the risk of quarrels or disturbances. This could all lead to a criminal record. Once again, this goes too far.

Absence without leave could lead to a criminal record. The same is true for drunkenness and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

Working in the military field is a very risky and very stressful job. It would therefore not be surprising if military personnel shouted insults at one another, especially if they were drunk.

In my opinion, those are not reasons to potentially subject someone to a criminal record. It is important to remember that only summary trials carry that risk. We agree that, if a real trial were held before a judge, at least people would have a chance to defend themselves. They would be judged by someone who knows the law and who is trained to be fair and equitable.

“The Code of Service Discipline and Me: A guide to the military justice system for Canadian Forces members” is posted on the Department of National Defence's website. It explains what a summary trial is. I would like to quote from it briefly.

Summary trials are designed to deal with relatively minor service offences that are important for the maintenance of military discipline and efficiency at the unit level. Summary trials allow a unit CO, delegated officer, or superior commander to effectively administer discipline and return the member to duty as soon as possible.

The important thing to remember from this is that the purpose of a summary trial is not to punish people by giving them a criminal record. The guide says so. According to the Canadian Forces, it is very clear that the reason for a summary trial is to have a fast and effective justice process designed to reintegrate the person into his military unit. A criminal record has nothing to do with that purpose. If the summary trial were to be used for that purpose from now on, then such use would contradict the information on the Canadian Forces website.

The website also indicates the following:

Courts martial are formal military courts established under the National Defence Act that are presided over by military judges. A military prosecutor is assigned to prosecute each case and the accused is represented by defence counsel, either military or civilian.

In the case of a court martial, there is a person who is defending himself, a prosecutor, a judge, lawyers and a full defence. The problem with the summary trial is that it is the commanding officer himself or herself who will decide what punishment to impose on the person who broke the rules. And let us not forget that a verbal insult is one of the offences.

Clause 75 of Bill C-15 goes much too far. It is not just a matter of possibly amending it. This goes beyond the very purpose of summary trials. It completely disregards their purpose. We might as well abolish summary trials and go directly to court martial if we are going to give such serious penalties.

I want to say that in the past, the NDP requested that the list of offences that could be considered minor be expanded, so that in summary trial cases without a criminal record, offenders would have a better chance of being reintegrated, as the directives state on the website.

When people enlist in the forces, they will see what to expect. They will see what the Department of National Defence itself says and what new recruits can expect. Now the government is misleading them about what could happen to them once they join the forces. They are the ones who defend our country and who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. That is not a respectful way to treat our armed forces.

I urge the government to withdraw this bill and to rewrite it so that it better reflects Canadian values.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.

I thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for the excellent job she does. She works very hard for her constituents. I think we should applaud her for everything she has done since being elected.

It is true that introducing a bill in the Senate means introducing it in a chamber that is full of unelected people who, in my opinion, do not adequately represent the Canadian people.

Bills, especially ones that are so fundamental they change an accused's right to defend himself, should be the prerogative of this country's elected members, who are able to debate, make amendments, testify and invite witnesses.

The Senate should not be the chamber to introduce this kind of bill. That is undemocratic. The Senate does not really have a place in a modern state like Canada. The Conservative government should be ashamed of trying to bypass the House of Commons. The debate should be held here.

If this bill passes second reading, it will be sent to committee. This bill should have been sent to the House of Commons committee from the beginning. That is where the debates should be held. Canada's elected members should debate this fundamental bill. I would like—

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question.

In my opinion, the government is not on the right track. Once again, the government wants to crack down. The Conservatives are introducing bills in the House to solve problems that, frankly, do not actually seem to exist.

I would like to remind members that when this bill was debated in the Senate before it arrived in the House, the testimony showed that there were no examples of actual cases where this legislation could have been used. Let us think about the Toronto 18. In that case, the measures already set out in the Criminal Code were more than sufficient to deal with the situation, this dreaded risk of terrorism.

Since then, we have seen that the existing and available laws in this country are completely sufficient. Is the government on the right track with Bill S-7?

It seems that the government is selling a product to Canadians. It is trying to lead Canadians to believe that they should be afraid, that they should hide and that only the Government of Canada can defend them. That is not the case.

We already have before us all the tools we need—tools that were debated in minority parliaments and agreed upon by all the parties across Canada. It is really unfortunate to be in a position where a single party is trying to run everything, because that leads to absurd measures such as Bill S-7, which, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will resume where we left off before question period today.

The bill before us today could violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why I am opposed to the bill.

With respect to investigative hearings, the bill would allow for someone who is charged to be required to attend an examination and present evidence. This is certainly not a court in the traditional sense. The answers given during such a hearing cannot be used against the individual. However, the individual must attend and answer questions.

It is not standard practice for a judge to examine the so-called accused. This goes against Canada's legal principles. The judge must not play this role. Why would we create such a situation and force the judge to do so?

We must avoid violating the fundamental principles of justice. That is exactly why we insist that the judge remain neutral. But this bill would have the judge play the role of prosecutor. That goes completely against legal principles that have existed for hundreds of years.

I would also like to talk about recognizance with conditions. We are talking about preventive detention, without any charges. In other words, a person can be detained for up to one year without ever being charged. Once again, we need to really ask ourselves whether we live in a free and democratic society. Can someone really be detained for one year without any charges? Frankly, this is an outrage that violates the fundamental rights upheld in this country. It is completely unacceptable. In a free and democratic society, I would like to think that any reasonable judge would ignore this legislation.

Unfortunately, a bill that is simply nonsense and unconstitutional is being introduced in the House. This is a waste of our time and an insult to Canadians.

We already have legislative measures to deal with terrorist activities in Canada. I invite the members of the House to read the Criminal Code, which includes many items already dedicated to the matter, including for instance, section 83 onward.

Once again, I will ask the same question I asked earlier this morning: what has changed in Canada to justify this crackdown regarding charges of terrorism?

Parts of the Criminal Code already deal with this issue. The government is creating new parts that, in my opinion, will be inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why not start with prevention?

Again, the government's approach is to deal with things after the fact. However, prevention would help avoid a situation or circumstances in which terrorism could threaten Canada.

In its 2012 budget, the Government of Canada cut $688 million from Public Safety Canada's budget, or 10% of its budget, which affected 1,300 Canada Border Services Agency officers. In total, 1,300 jobs were lost.

Again, it is a matter of prevention. In this case, prevention eliminates the need to get tough later.

That being said, there is no evidence of there ever having been any need to invoke our country's anti-terrorism laws. There have been very few opportunities to invoke our anti-terrorism laws that are currently in the Criminal Code, let alone the laws that were quickly passed following the events of September 11, 2001, which were in effect from 2001 to 2006. We do not need these laws because we already have all the tools we need. In the same breath, the Conservatives insist on cutting budgets and thereby putting the Canadian public at risk.

Why not focus on prevention? I would truly like to understand the Conservatives. Often, they come up with bills for the optics of it all, when in reality they are making such extensive budget cuts that it is becoming impossible to protect the Canadian public. Let them introduce a meaningful bill that truly addresses the problem instead of this farce from the Senate.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.

I will be voting against the bill under consideration today, essentially because it will violate rights entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must not take away basic human rights in Canada unless there are real, substantial, indisputable reasons to so do. There must be fundamental criteria to justify trampling on human rights. Quite frankly, I have not heard any in our debate on this bill. Furthermore, the Senate said quite the opposite.

We do not see why this bill should proceed.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill S-7, which originated in the Senate. I have a question. Why did it originate in the Senate and not in the House of Commons? The Senate is less democratically elected than the House of Commons. It is very important that it is the representatives of the public, not the people appointed by the Prime Minister, who debate these important bills.

Bill S-7 has four main objectives, which I will summarize here. First, it amends the Criminal Code in order to provide for investigative hearings and to allow for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions—the so-called preventive arrest; second, it amends the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information about a trial or an accused once the appeal period has expired; third, it amends the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act; and fourth, it amends the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who has committed or is likely to commit a terrorist act.

Again, the government is cracking down on imaginary terrorists. In 2001, the Chrétien government had similar provisions passed in the House. None of those provisions have been in effect since December 31, 2006. Since then, given the very small number of terrorist acts or presumed terrorists acts in Canada, the laws that were in effect between 2001 and 2006 have not been necessary.

Why was this bill introduced in the Senate? What motivated the government to introduce it? Let us not forget that it was the government that introduced this bill in the Senate. It was not a senator who did this on his or her own initiative. It was truly the government that introduced it and that is telling us that it is important.

What is motivating the government? What exactly should we be cracking down on? This bill will have serious repercussions for human rights in Canada. Canada has always been a world leader when it comes to human rights. They are enshrined in our Constitution.