Richard Martel

[National Defence Act, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It was extremely important. What retired Lieutenant-Colonel Perron said was extremely important.

Another thing people need to know is that the Conservatives will always protect victims of crime and ensure that they are treated more fairly in the Canadian justice system

[National Defence Act, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, of course we support that.

I want to come back to something. The Liberal government does not want to admit that it is simply copying Bill C-77. They know full well that is what they are doing. I cannot blame them because that was the thing to do.

However, it would be nice if my colleagues in the government showed some good faith and acknowledged the excellent work we did on victims' rights under the previous government. Honestly, it is the least they could do and would be a good show of non-partisanship on their side of the House. The bill is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-77 introduced by the Conservative government.

I might ask why it took so long to introduce it in the House.

[National Defence Act, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House as the official opposition's national defence critic to once again speak to Bill C-77. I sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence with the members for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who have a great deal of experience. Members will no doubt recall that I addressed them on the same subject on October 1, 2018.

Bill C-77 seeks to make changes to Canada's military justice system, which was created in 1950 and has undergone a number of legislative amendments over the years, more specifically in 1998, 2001, 2008 and 2013.

While the court martial system is similar to Canada's criminal justice system in terms of its independence and the burden of proof, courts martial are distinctly military. However, as my colleagues know, decisions at a court martial may be appealed before Canada's civilian courts, if necessary.

The existence of Canada's military justice system has been recognized over the years, particularly in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which makes reference to it. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court, in 2015, the judiciary upheld the requirement for the separate system by indicating that the existence of a parallel system of military law is deeply entrenched in our history and supported by compelling principles. The court martial system should help make the armed forces better at conducting operations and contributing to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale. I examined Bill C-77 with that in mind.

As I pointed out last October, this bill is very similar to Bill C-71 that had been introduced by our Conservative government. The purpose of our bill was to bring our military justice system in line with the Criminal Code of Canada. Some of our proposed changes included writing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights into the National Defence Act, limiting summary trials to six months and clarifying which cases would be eligible for a summary trial. Bill C-77, which is before us today, proposes the same changes.

Before I venture into a certain part of the bill that we see as problematic, I would like to strongly reiterate that the Conservatives will always protect victims of crime and make sure that they are treated fairly in the Canadian criminal justice system. In fact, it was our Conservative government that created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Of course we will support integrating it into Canada's military justice system. That was precisely our main reason for introducing Bill C-71.

The Liberal government does not want to admit now that it copied us with Bill C-77, but the Liberals know perfectly well what they are doing. I do not blame them, for this is the right thing to do. However, it would be nice if my colleagues on the government side would act in good faith and recognize the excellent work we did on victims' rights under the previous Conservative government.

Honestly, that is the least they could do. The government should be non-partisan about this.

Overall, Bill C-77 is not a bad bill. However, there is something that bothers me about this bill and that is clause 25, dealing with division 5, which amends sections 162.1 to 164.2 of the National Defence Act.

This part is very different from what we had proposed in our Bill C-71. In Bill C-77, the burden of proof shifts from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “on a balance of probabilities”.

This obviously does not afford the same level of protection to our men and women in uniform who are going into a summary hearing. Imposing criminal penalties by making decisions on a balance of probabilities rather than according to the principle of reasonable doubt opens the door to challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the parallel system of military justice is supported by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately, the Liberal government did not support the amendment moved by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. This amendment could have easily resolved the problem by changing “on a balance of probabilities” to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Now that Bill C-77 is expected to move to the next stage, I hope that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence will propose amendments to that effect.

In committee, retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron and the Quebec bar expressed doubts that the balance of probabilities could violate the rights enshrined in the charter.

The Conservatives support our Canadian justice system as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. However, we do not support a parallel justice system that violates our rights and freedoms.

This is one of the reasons why the report of the Standing Committee on National Defence approved on division some amendments to the bill.

In conclusion, I think members should remember that Bill C-77 is largely a copy of the Conservatives' Bill C-71. I would be happy to see the Liberals simply acknowledge the excellent work we did for victims rights and for them to acknowledge that they are just picking up where we left off by seeking to add a victims bill of rights to the military justice system.

[Justice, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin was informed that the trial would proceed. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general decided not to interfere in this matter, but we know that government actors attempted to intervene.

Section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence.

When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice?

[Regional Economy, February 22nd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, Canadians in every riding in Quebec, including Mirabel, and especially Lac-Saint-Jean, Jonquière and Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, will be paying the price for the Prime Minister's mistakes.

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region still has a negative migration rate. The new free trade deal is going to hurt dairy farmers. The tariffs on steel and aluminum are still in place. The softwood lumber dispute has not been resolved. Resolute Forest Products says it paid out $103 million U.S. at the border in 2018. The finance minister's reform is a threat to forestry co-operatives. Ottawa's standard for the protection of woodland caribou, which is based on old surveys, is jeopardizing $600 million in economic activity and 9,000 jobs in Quebec. Above all, the government's spending is out of control, and its deficits will go on forever.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is going to raise Canadians' taxes and make their lives harder.

The people of Mirabel, Lac-Saint-Jean and Canada as a whole will get the opportunity to choose a government that is dynamic and honest by voting for the Conservative Party this fall.

[Employment Insurance, February 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I arrived on Parliament Hill just six months ago. I have met many wonderful people here, including two I did not get to work with very often and who were taken from us by a horrible disease. I want to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the families and friends of Michael Ferguson and Paul Dewar, two great Canadians we lost this week.

In the few interactions I had with Mr. Ferguson, I developed a great deal of respect for his thoroughness and values of justice. His exemplary reports were critical of both the Conservative and the Liberal governments and forced us to keep the course and to remember that we serve each and every Canadian.

I must admit that I did not know Paul Dewar before the photo shoot for the Parliamentarian of the Year awards, for which I was asked to prepare a few words in recognition of this big-hearted man. I will, however, always remember his speech. That evening, Mr. Dewar spoke about collaboration and working together. He asked everyone there to remember when they first got interested in politics and in serving the public.

I wanted to be the voice in Ottawa of the proud people living in the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and also in the beautiful region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is satisfying when every person I meet shares a part of their life with me. When I went door-to-door, many people talked to me about EI sickness benefits. I am pleased today to address their concerns and support their efforts, by debating in the House Motion No. 201, moved by my colleague from Sydney—Victoria, which reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities should examine the possibility and practicality of extending the maximum number of weeks of Employment Insurance sick benefits for those with long term illnesses; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than six months from the adoption of this motion.

I also think the subject reflects the wishes of Mr. Dewar, who said that we are stronger together. To borrow his words, is it not time to take off the armour of our political party and work together as people representing citizens to build a better country for everyone?

The reason I am speaking in the House today is that, as the Quebec Conservatives said, 15 weeks of EI benefits for people with chronic illnesses is not enough.

I would like to echo the sentiments of Marie-Hélène Dubé, the founder of the “15 weeks to heal is not enough” movement, who said that partisanship has no place in matters as important as illness. She made that statement during the general council for Quebec Conservatives that was held in Saint-Hyacinthe in May 2018.

On that same weekend, our dynamic Quebec members also expressed their support for Ms. Dubé's movement. As I learned on the campaign trail, and as everyone has probably realized at some point, it is all too easy to fall into a financial abyss after a serious illness. The financial burden only adds to the anxiety and fear. That does not help the healing process.

It is vital that we do our job as MPs and support our fellow Canadians who are already dealing with the stress of a serious illness. They should not have to worry about whether they will have enough money to make ends meet. I had already approached my Conservative caucus colleagues about this on my own initiative. I am very proud to debate it today in the House, where we seem to be coming to a consensus.

I support the motion because that will give us the opportunity to discuss it in detail in committee. Committee is the appropriate forum in which to closely examine all of the potential impacts of increasing the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits and to work together to lay the groundwork for a joint proposal in the interests of all Canadians. It is important to look at the costs and benefits of such a proposal. It is also critical to determine what impact it would have on Canadian taxpayers.

Here are a few examples of the details that need to be worked out in committee. First, can we look into the possibility of shortening processing times and doing away with the deductible that is the one-week waiting period? Second, can we ensure that the system pays for itself without increasing employer and employee premiums? Finally, can we analyze regional differences as we do for regular EI benefits?

According to the “Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report”, in 2016-17, the average duration of employment insurance sickness benefits was 9.8 weeks, and 35.7% of claimants exhausted the maximum entitlement of 15 weeks.

What is more, the average duration of EI sickness benefits increased with the age of claimants. As many people have told me, when cancer hits, it is not hard to imagine how more than 15 weeks of benefits may be needed.

First, the awful news comes as a shock to the person and those close to them. Then the person has to wait for surgery when surgery is possible. That may be followed by rounds of radiation and chemotherapy. If the disease is inoperable, treatment may make it operable. Before getting any good news, however, the person may have been unable to work for several months or even a year. I wonder if there is some way to target illnesses or injuries that require more than 15 weeks of benefits.

According to the “Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report”, age is a factor in the number of weeks needed for full recovery. I imagine the type of illness or injury is too. If we want to control costs and act responsibly, might we consider scaling the maximum number of benefit weeks based on categories of injury or illness?

In conclusion, I am sure that, by working together, we can find a solution to help those who need help by increasing the maximum number of weeks of sickness benefits for people with serious illnesses without having a significant impact on the federal budget or hard-working Canadians like the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Government Spending, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord are going to pay dearly for the Prime Minister's mistakes: the broken relationships with our trade partners and allies; the purchase of a pipeline at an astronomical cost; the diminished confidence in our immigration system; and, above all, the out-of-control spending and permanent deficits. Not to mention that there is no plan to balance the budget.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is going to increase Canadians' taxes and make their lives more difficult. When asked if he manages the country like he manages his own finances, he said that he no longer has dealings with the way his family finances are managed. It seems that he does the same thing with the country: He simply doesn't look after its finances.

The people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Canadians deserve better. Fortunately, they will be able to take a positive, dynamic and honest step next fall by voting for the Conservative Party and its leader, a real leader with integrity who accepts his responsibilities, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague.

In this matter, it is essential to listen to Quebec. Let us not forget that both times that Quebec wanted to separate from Canada, the federal Liberals were in government. In the Conservative Party, we always respect provincial jurisdiction. That is the way we operate.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in our leader and our party, and we will keep our word.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

My colleague is trying to get into the details instead of debating the principle.

The Liberals know full well that the details will be resolved after several hours of negotiation with the provincial government. They should listen to Quebeckers, like our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, has done in recent months. The member would have learned that having to file two returns is a major irritant.

We need to find constructive solutions, and our proposal to move to a single tax return is a constructive one. The problem with the Liberals is that they centralize powers in Ottawa instead of better serving the interests of ordinary Canadians.