Pierre Jacob

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the praise from my hon. colleague regarding our cooperation in meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I would like to ask my colleague if his party will learn from this and if, in the future, the justice priority will pertain to respecting the charter and the Constitution, rather than the Conservative political agenda, as has often been the case.

[Petitions, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a certified petition signed by many people in my riding of Brome—Missisquoi and in the Eastern Townships with regard to financial support for Development and Peace. These individuals sent me a petition that calls on the government to fulfill its international responsibilities by recommitting Canada to contribute 0.7% of its GDP to overseas development assistance. They want the government to give priority to funding NGOs that Canadians support and that have had their funding cut by CIDA. In the spirit of global solidarity, these individuals are calling on the government to fully restore the $49.2 million in funding requested by Development and Peace over the next five years. I am very proud to present this petition on their behalf.

[An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine), February 27th, 2013]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House, in both official languages, a bill entitled “An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act”. The bill's summary reads as follows:

This enactment amends the Federal Sustainable Development Act to provide for an examination of bills and proposed regulations to ensure that their provisions are not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of that Act.

This concept is very important to the people of Brome—Missisquoi and to all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and am very pleased to see that the Liberal Party of Canada supports the opposition's motion. However, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question.

When the Liberal Party of Canada was in power, why did the Liberals just talk about this issue and make promises? They failed to take real action to support infrastructure in Quebec and Canada. Why do they have the bad habit of constantly signalling left and turning right?

[Petitions, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition in support of Bill C-400, which would ensure safe, affordable, accessible, adequate housing for every Quebecker and Canadian.

[Employment Insurance, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, not only do the Conservatives want to drag us backwards, not only do they not want to help us, but with employment insurance reform, pregnant women will be encouraged to lie to potential employers for fear of being seen to refuse employment and thus losing their benefits.

The Conservatives not only want to reopen the debate on abortion, they also want women to stay at home, just like in the good old days. That is not just discriminatory, it is despicable.

Can the Conservatives admit, once and for all, that there is nothing good about this reform?

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-444, introduced by the hon. member for Red Deer.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code to establish that personating a peace officer or public officer for the purpose of committing an offence must be considered by a judge to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

This bill is a good, balanced response to this real problem, and I support it at second reading.

It reproduces what was in Bill C-576, which died on the order paper during the 40th Parliament, and it adds the notion of personating a public officer.

The purpose of this bill is to sanction such actions. I commend my hon. colleague from Red Deer who worked on this issue. During previous debates, he mentioned a number of sad stories from across the country in which criminals have used this scheme to commit offences ranging from theft to forcible confinement.

The hon. member for Red Deer also mentioned the fact that Canadians' trust in peace and public officers must be protected. He said in the House:

By supporting the bill, we are also helping to preserve the trust and respect that citizens have for real, bona fide police officers. When citizens see a police uniform, they naturally trust and respect the authority that comes with it. Our laws must reflect this reality.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice clearly explained the importance of this relationship of trust, and the bill seeks to strengthen that relationship between citizens and police officers.

I would also like to comment briefly on the reservations the hon. member for Mount Royal has about this bill.

Although he agrees with the objective and supports the bill, the hon. member doubts that the bill will have the desired effect, namely, of making it possible to impose longer prison sentences. He also mentioned the efficacy of the deterrent effect of longer prison terms. This is a very interesting debate, and I will have the pleasure of talking to him more about it when this bill is sent to committee.

We must recognize that, for once, a bill that amends the Criminal Code is a good thing.

There is no reference to minimum sentences, the independence of the justice system is not being challenged and respect for victims is being made a priority. These things do not happen often enough in this Parliament, and it is important to point it out.

Too often, the Conservatives do not take a logical approach to justice, and I always criticize bills that are sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that either seriously undermine judicial independence or add standards to the Criminal Code that weaken its legal logic.

I would like to commend the hon. member who worked long and hard on this issue and introduced this bill on September 27. I will vote in favour of it.

I would like to come back to the valid statements made by the hon. member for Mount Royal, who brought up some things to think about as we work to solve this rather uncommon problem of personating a peace officer or public officer.

The hon. member brought up the problem of access to police uniforms and equipment. It is true that that is a concern. Restricting access to this sort of clothing and other equipment could be worth looking into.

My hon. colleague also suggested that there be a campaign to raise awareness about police identity cards. These are two interesting possibilities that in no way diminish the merits of the bill. I would like to talk about another point that the bill sheds light on, the fact that people have lost trust in our police institutions.

The member for Red Deer insisted that this was something he thought about when drafting his bill. Therefore, it is essential that people who are approached by police officers for whatever reason know who they are dealing with.

I will come back to my colleague's comments, which echo the member for Mount Royal's suggestion concerning badges, which could be explored:

This is an opportunity to encourage people to think about why they are being stopped, to make sure they ask to see a badge and look for the number. The police are prepared to do that. When I spoke with police officers they said it was common practice. I know a lot of times we think that if we ask for the number, it will cause more concern, but that certainly was not an issue in my discussions with the members I spoke with.

This quote shows that some people are intimidated by the police and do not dare make this legitimate request. The bill brings this out into the open.

I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Gatineau, who provided a good explanation of how the judge and crown prosecutor determine the sentence when the offence is punishable by indictment or by summary conviction.

In closing, I would like to recognize the work of the member for Red Deer and give him my full support for his bill, because it respects the victim and also the independence of the judiciary, and provides appropriate punishment for the offender. This is a well thought out and balanced approach. If a similar approach is taken again, I would be happy to collaborate.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a top-notch speech.

If I understand correctly, the NDP is determined to build safer communities. One can achieve this by improving the witness protection program and by giving police forces the added tools they need to deal with street gangs.

I would like my colleague to comment on what I read on the RCMP's website, which says:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants problems to be solved, especially those that affect women and involve harassment. We want the issue to be dealt with fairly.

We also want people to feel at ease when they file a complaint, and we do not want job security to be compromised because someone reports a case of harassment. We want a clear policy that includes specific standards of conduct and evaluation and performance criteria for all employees.

Above all, we do not want police investigating police. We want independence.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

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

We can say that this bill does not do enough as far as women are concerned. In fact, female employees of the RCMP want real action as well as a more open, safer work environment. They are tired of being harassed.

Unfortunately, and as is usually the case, the Conservative approach does not make the needs of female RCMP employees a priority.

Bringing in a union could lessen members' job security. A number of witnesses expressed this concern to the committee, focusing specifically on workers who file harassment complaints.

Members must have a clear anti-harassment policy that defines specific standards of conduct and establishes evaluation and performance criteria for all employees.