Raymond Côté

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very relevant question.

Indeed, that is somewhat disturbing. I hope this is not related to some form of excessive control. I am inclined to think that the government had little interest in following up on the treaty that was signed. The negotiation and the conclusion of that treaty took place before this government took office.

I do not want to impute motives to government members, but given the Conservative government's general attitude, we know that when an idea is not its own, it can often drag its heels and even actively oppose such an initiative.

I salute the government for taking action and finally introducing this bill. Better late than never. However, in this case, it is really late.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for sharing his time with me so that I am able to speak to this bill, which I will have the honour to study with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, failing unforeseen circumstances. I truly appreciate this privilege because this bill is actually very important for a number of reasons.

I will begin by examining a practical aspect that directly affects us almost daily. We must not forget that we live in a world where nuclear and radioactive materials are very present.

Bill S-9 talks a lot about nuclear materials and civilian or military applications. These very specific applications are not under the direct control of mere individuals. The bill also covers radioactive substances that have civilian applications in our day-to-day life, such as medical applications or other civilian applications, where radioactive materials are used in measuring devices. Members will recall that some models of smoke detectors once used substances that emitted radiation, which was banned for obvious safety reasons.

This type of substance is much more common than people think. As a result, it is very important to go beyond the existing provisions of the Criminal Code that already impose sanctions for the improper or criminal use of this type of substance and extend them to cover terrorist activities. These activities go well beyond the simple desire to harm an individual or group of people. They are used to pressure and terrorize in order to force a country or group of people to basically change their behaviour and be subject to a regime that is completely unacceptable for a democratic state.

In addition to this first clarification, another concept that the NDP supports and wants to implement if and when we take office is respect for and the implementation of key international agreements governing various activities. I even asked a question in this regard. Long gone are the days when Canada demonstrated leadership, when Canada successfully adopted and implemented a treaty to prohibit landmines.

The example of the landmines treaty is important in that, even if a convention of this type is adopted, it can still be limited in terms of what it can accomplish by the non-compliance of some states in the world that prefer to avoid restricting their potential for action.

And so, beyond the perfectly valid amendments to the Criminal Code, we must ask the government this question and hope that it goes much further and truly demonstrates an ability to act to convince—if not compel—the community of nations to ratify the nuclear terrorism treaty so that it has the force of law not only within each of the different countries, but so that the countries co-operate to prevent things from getting out of control and to prevent the occurrence of any terrorist activity that we are seeking to prohibit through amendments to the Criminal Code.

I repeat that I am very honoured to be able to debate this bill today and to discuss the amendments proposed in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We must ask ourselves a number of questions on the proposed amendments and their scope. When the bill was introduced in the Senate, a serious flaw was pointed out related to the creation of a device using nuclear and radioactive materials, which can be harmful to people. This omission is very serious. Nuclear terrorism experts are concerned that a traditional nuclear bomb could be built, even if it is quite beyond the scope of terrorist organizations. They especially worry that an explosive device or radiological dispersion device could be built, as it is much simpler to build and would be harmful to a number of people.

I am very pleased that this is now included in Bill S-9. It is good to widen the scope, but my colleague from Toronto—Danforth wondered about the multiplier effect of the crimes targeted by this bill. We will have to look into the individual effect and the scope of these actions, and whether the amendments made to the Criminal Code are in line with the constraints imposed by our society to preclude the arbitrary power of the state.

In the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I had to examine some bills that were not charter-proof, in whole or in part. That is very disappointing; aside from the waste of time they represent, it is a serious problem for all Canadians. They could be unwitting victims of harsher laws, which do not fully achieve the desired objective and could potentially invalidate certain sections. There could be some very unfortunate consequences.

During our review in committee, my colleagues and I will ensure that the proposed changes are not invalidated by the Criminal Code because they are too broad in scope, or because they do not provide enough safeguards regarding the charter, which would result in Canada no longer being able to fully implement the requirements of the international treaties to which it is a signatory.

One issue raised in the Senate is the case of a protest taking place at the electrical generating facilities of a nuclear plant. It could be a protest organized by environmentalists to prevent employees from entering the facilities to keep the plant operating at full capacity. Under the proposed sections, could these people be charged with carrying out a terrorist activity? We are talking about a peaceful protest whose objective may be highly questionable, but still legitimate from a freedom of expression and a freedom of mobility point of view.

So, I am going to review the bill with 11 of my colleagues to ensure that we do not find ourselves in the totally unacceptable situation of the law being invalidated because it goes too far.

There is a major concern. The changes to the Criminal Code are perfectly legitimate and they are an important first step. However, once we review them, we will have to ensure that all the preventive and concrete measures taken by Canada in the future, because of its place on the international stage, will restrict the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which is another issue dealt with in these treaties.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Jean for his speech.

He addressed some important issues. Again this boils down to the government's inaction with regard to introducing this bill, which in the end was introduced in the Senate. That is not necessarily all bad considering some very specific technical aspects.

However, let us not forget that a convention was agreed to and negotiated before this government came to power. This convention was negotiated multilaterally. I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where the government's modus operandi is to sign bilateral treaties.

Considering the success that was achieved before the government came to power and how much time this government has taken since then to legislate and ratify this convention, does my colleague believe that Canada could conclude other similar multilateral negotiations on other subjects?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her speech. The Anti-Personnel Mines Convention is from another era, an era when Canada was a leader on the issue. We are now living with the shame of being a follower and having to make up for lost time. Fortunately, we are now taking action.

After listening to my colleague's speech, I have the following question. Does she believe that simple amendments to the Criminal Code and the government's measures are enough to ensure compliance with the terms of the convention? Changes to the Criminal Code can be useful, but they must be accompanied by precautionary measures and we must take concrete measures internationally that go beyond mere amendments to the text.

[Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for that clarification. I will take full advantage of my six minutes.

I am truly shocked by the parliamentary secretary's speech. She completely ignored a very important problem and that is the reversal of the burden of proof, a consequence of the hon. member for Wild Rose's bill. I am not going to speculate on what the courts will do with this, but this reversal could lead to many problems and nullify some or all of the provisions, the amendments that the hon. member for Wild Rose has made.

I am not going to belabour this point, but I would just like to note, as did my colleague from Gatineau, that, unfortunately, this bill is redundant and has a lot of room for improvement. People can unwittingly find themselves in an unlawful assembly or riot, as defined in sections 63 to 66. They can be victims of circumstance and arrested. It has happened to many people, to honest citizens who simply wanted to express their opinions publicly and take advantage of the opportunity to participate in our society, in the democratic process, which is fundamental and important.

I would like to give an example that is very well-known in Quebec. A philosophy professor dressed up as a giant panda called the Anarchopanda, something he will no doubt do again at other protests. This philosophy professor's main goal was to defuse problematic and potentially violent situations by giving hugs to everyone, protestors and police officers alike. In fact, many police officers agreed to be hugged in order to defuse potential crises.

Reversing the burden of proof would require the Anarchopanda and any other legitimate protestor in a mask to provide a legitimate excuse. The Anarchopanda, who unfortunately attended a demonstration that escalated into a riot, could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. It is absolutely unbelievable that the simple act of wearing this costume with the stated purpose of supporting a completely legitimate demonstration, which is a fundamental right in our society, could lead to a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. That is the sentence imposed for criminal activities such as the financing of terrorism, firearms trafficking, and sexual abuse or assault.

How far will we go? I have quickly given some examples to show that, in its present form and without our amendment, the bill is absurd. We proposed a constructive amendment so that wearing a mask would be a criminal offence in keeping with section 351 of the Criminal Code.

The opposition parties and some groups are not the only ones opposed to this bill, and with good reason. The Canadian Bar Association clearly stated that people conceal their identities for various legitimate reasons such as protecting a family member or friend in another country or for other non-criminal reasons, including medical and religious reasons. The Barreau du Québec took a similar stand and stated that people can have a very good reason for concealing their identity or wearing a mask to make a statement.

If the bill were to be passed, what would the implications be for the fundamental right of freedom of expression? The act runs the risk of being thrown out. The additional amendment to the Criminal Code could be struck down by the courts because it touches on our fundamental freedoms and fails to achieve the original objective of fighting crime during unlawful assemblies.

I am asking all members of the House to vote against this bill to avoid making a mistake that would have unacceptable consequences for thousands of innocent members of our society.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for asking the question, and because I am a Catholic and a believer, I will take a Judeo-Christian approach and continue to give a lesson in morals.

Canada does not operate in a vacuum. It is but one country in a world of nations. While my colleague chooses to remain completely blind, refuses to consider the reality of climate change and accuses us of being so evil—when all we want is to set a price for carbon, which the Prime Minister has considered—and while the Conservatives stick their heads in the sand, Canada is marginalizing itself and becoming a bum, while possibly racking up a bill that will go way over the $21 billion, which seem so high.

I have a question for my hon. colleague. When our entrepreneurs go to Europe, Asia, Africa and the rest of the Americas and start having doors slammed in their faces, what is he going to say to those entrepreneurs and all the workers who will lose their jobs because of this government's laissez-faire approach? It is appalling.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her question.

I am going to give a lesson in economics and another in morals while I am at it. When I hear this nonsense about John Maynard Keynes, I realize that many people just accept what they are told without learning the facts.

In economics, it is very important to consider all costs when we want to understand the consequences of certain actions. We can choose to internalize the costs and thus to take into account the economic, social and other costs.

Take, for example, the case of the Stadacona plant. When we let a supposed investor devastate an industry such as this, there are tremendous consequences. The local community loses a great deal of money while, in this case, a New York multi-billionaire rakes in the cash while watching his horses in a polo match.

We have a magnificent caucus with a great number of young members who have their future ahead of them. If we blindly and wilfully refuse to internalize environmental costs, these young people will be footing a very expensive bill. That is very troubling for them.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, to win without risk is to triumph without glory. I am beginning with this saying as it will be the theme for my speech about the budget implementation bill.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that this bill would be a step backwards in terms of employment: 43,000 jobs would be lost. Imagine. We are applying the brakes again to our economy, making it more fragile and endangering it. This is very important, because the 43,000 jobs that are being lost are primarily in the area of direct services to Canadians.

As members of this House—and it is certainly the case of my colleagues in the government—we see every day in our offices an absence of and a reduction in access to services to the public. It has come to the point where someone who does not have Internet access and who ultimately does not have much tax-related expertise, for instance, is literally being abandoned and held hostage by the incredible restrictions imposed on our public servants. These restrictions mean that someone who wants to understand what will happen when he tries to file his income tax return will probably never have an answer, unless he calls on a professional whose services he must pay for or, in a best-case scenario, a close relative. In both cases, that person will give an opinion, but mistakes may be made because it is always difficult to keep up to date when it comes to taxes. Therefore, it is always best to check the source, but the source has dried up: the tap has been turned off by the government.

We are talking about high-quality jobs. We are talking about jobs serving the public. I find it absolutely shocking to see the government taking these sorts of workforce reductions so lightly.

I would like to point out that in Beauport—Limoilou, we have had a disaster. A large pulp and paper mill that had 1,600 employees in 2003 has allowed a foreign investor, through Canada's lax legislation and regulations, to liquidate most of its expertise and production capacity for its own benefit. There are currently fewer than 300 employees in the mill. Retirees are losing some of the funds they contributed over 30 or 35 years. How can this abandonment be explained? What does this mean? It is just one of many signs that our economy is living on borrowed time, that things are going wrong, and that problems are piling up.

My esteemed colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges spoke just now of the $500 billion accumulated by our businesses. This cannot be blamed on our entrepreneurs; it is a sign that they are proceeding with caution because they are worried about the future.

There have been so many gratuitous attacks that we might even call it a disease. This $500 billion is a very clear sign of this government's poor decision-making. The government is just aimlessly stumbling along. Moreover, the government is shutting its eyes and is wilfully blind to anything other than its own ideas, which it implements without verification or validation.

Another aspect of Bill C-45 is quite shocking. I only have a little part of it, by the way, because it was impossible to staple all the pages together. When you take a look at the summaries, you see that a number of sections of the bill have absolutely nothing to do with a budget or with the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance.

We might wonder what division 9 of part 4 is doing in this bill, since it amends the Judges Act. We might also talk about division 13 of part 4, which amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to transfer it to the Department of Health. Division 16 of part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is unbelievable. A lot has also been said about the provisions of division 18 of part 4, which amends the Navigable Waters Protection Act, given that it has environmental repercussions, which the government denies, of course. Government members are not content to fling gratuitous insults at us; now they want to alter reality and are refusing to face facts.

I will use an image to illustrate the extent of the government’s bad faith and desire to drag Canadian society down into mediocrity. Bill C-45 looks a little bit like this situation. I will play the role of a rather outrageous husband who, in a single fiscal year, demands that his wife agree to a new marriage contract, a will, a contract for cable, telephone and Internet, and terms requiring that she take out the garbage and empty the cat litter. Then I tell her not to complain. All she has to do is say whether she agrees to the contract, yes or no. If she says no, she is really acting in bad faith. It is truly appalling, because she is against emptying the cat litter. She wants to leave the cat in its feces. How horrible.

That is exactly what this government is imposing on all of the legitimate representatives in the House: a fool’s bargain, something made up out of whole cloth to try to get the upper hand. It is really a hugely mediocre thing to do. It is a terribly easy victory that this government is going after. I do not know what part of the public it will be able to look to for admiration for this scheme. I find it truly appalling.

Some speakers on the other side have praised the merits of the budget. What is very interesting is that on our side, we could easily support several aspects of it or agree to look at them seriously in co-operation with the government. But when it comes to the question of seriousness, do not get me started. Seeing the Conservatives laugh every time they are asked serious questions about our constituents’ futures, we realize that the only thing they take seriously is their own behinds. Impenetrable darkness is the refuge of the weak.

My first election campaign was in 2006, in the greater Quebec City region, specifically on the south shore of Quebec City. From that first campaign, I remember five visits by the Prime Minister. He presented himself in a very favourable light, playing the good, responsible father. There was absolutely nothing threatening about him, and he made promises. He sang the same tune on all of these occasions, and one of the things he called for was transparency and accountability. He did not blush as he shamelessly sang his own praises on that score. I really do not understand why, because if we look at the track record of this government, which has been in power for almost seven years, we see that it is truly mediocre.

What is interesting is that if the government continues to carry on this way, showing contempt for most of the public, it will be leaving future generations with a state of affairs that will be very hard to fix. It is absolutely not too late to extend a hand to the opposition and agree to what it has courteously offered: to split this bill and engage in a truly democratic process that is transparent, open, and most importantly courageous.

I call on all government members to do this and I ask that at long last, they show some courage.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am deeply disappointed that we are being muzzled. This shows, unfortunately, how spineless the government is. I congratulate my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her speech and for her endless dedication to hounding the Minister of Industry for all his shortcomings and inadequacies.

I used to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I witnessed how incredibly naive the government can be when it comes to fostering Canada's competitiveness and its ability to achieve its rightful place in international trade.

I would like to talk about research and development. Could my colleague tell us about the ridiculous waste of funding, from public funds and other sources? Could she tell us about the results Canada's research and development community is expected to deliver? According to some studies, results in that area are truly dismal.

[Criminal Code, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-299.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have worked on this bill with my 11 other colleagues to look at its strengths and weaknesses.

I must say that I understand where the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia is coming from. I am sensitive to that and I absolutely do not doubt his desire to improve things.

Unfortunately, the bill before us may not have the scope or produce the results that my colleague is looking for. I think that is a shame.

I will provide two sound reasons why we strongly oppose the passage of this bill.

When we look at case law and the sentences handed down in court, we see that the sentences far exceed the five-year minimum proposed in this bill. The minimum sentence of five years has no practical purpose. It is almost impossible to find a case where the sentence was less than five years.

When we go back a number of years, we can see that generally, sentences imposed in similar cases ranged between 12 years and 14 years. That is what one of our witnesses, retired Supreme Court Justice John C. Major, told us during the work of the committee. In addition to confirming that he did not find a sentence that was less than 10 years for this type of crime no matter how far back he looked, the honourable justice questioned the purpose of including a minimum sentence in the legislation.

I must say that this concept, this option, lends itself to discussion. I am perfectly open to that. It is not a problem at all to think it may be useful to contemplate mandatory minimum sentences for certain categories of crime. Unfortunately, hon. members opposite do so too systematically, without any basis. They do not rely on experience, or on research that support the fact that it is good to have mandatory minimum sentences for certain categories of crime.

I can even mention the R. v. Mills case, in 1998, in which a court of appeal judge decided, after reviewing the accused's conviction, to reduce from 13 years to 11 years the sentence that had been imposed and which was significantly longer than the five years proposed in Bill C-299.

Therefore, the concern raised by the member for Kootenay—Columbia is totally unjustified.

The second reason is the deterrent effect invoked in many bills amending—or dare I say “altering”—the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, this deterrent effect has never been clearly shown in our work.

Of course, I am not referring to belief, which is one thing. I must admit that some witnesses firmly believed in the deterrent value of a mandatory minimum sentence in the act. Our work in committee also clearly showed it, and this was even supported by Michel Surprenant, who was representing the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families Association.

Mr. Surprenant talked about the most despicable, the most shocking aspect of a child abduction, namely the sexual assault. He said that sexual predators ignored logic and were primarily, if not exclusively, guided by their instinct.

This raises a question. If we follow Mr. Surprenant's reasoning, no sexual predator will take into account this kind of clause, even if it is included in the Criminal Code, since he will never have it in mind. Rather, he will be guided by his instinct.

I think this is somewhat simplistic. During our work, we often received confirmation from experts that the typical criminal, regardless of the category of crime, does not act thinking he may get caught in the act. He always thinks he can commit a crime with impunity, without ever being caught. Therefore, since criminals believe they can get away it, why include this type of clause as a deterrent?

I would like to add to that the fact that in the course of our work, some of my colleagues unfortunately demonstrated a degree of confusion when they attempted to support arguments of this kind. For example, my colleague from Delta—Richmond-East cast doubt on the value of studies conducted in the United States on minimum sentences of up to 20 years. When she questioned our witness, Michael Spratt, he clearly stated that no studies in the United States had been able to demonstrate that a 20-year minimum sentence had a deterrent impact. How then could a five-year minimum sentence have such an impact? Unfortunately, this did not convince my colleague. I therefore leave her to her own reasoning, and to her conscience, because I do not want to give people a false sense of security.

Confusion reigned for my colleague from Brampton West as well, who in speaking of deterrence confused it with the restraint represented by incarceration. During the appearance of one of our witnesses, the member for Brampton West interrupted frequently to say that incarceration was deterrence when it is nothing of the kind. Those who are incarcerated cannot do harm, but prior to incarceration, the threat thereof is not a deterrent.

From my standpoint, it is rather unfortunate to see this bill go forward, when a rather serious study is known to have shown that it might give people a false sense of security.

I call upon my colleagues in this House to consider this unintended impact and the possibly very harmful effects it might have, and to reject Bill C-299. The problem is not the Criminal Code, but rather the mechanisms used to implement it within society.