Sylvain Chicoine

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a fourth mammoth hodgepodge bill that seeks once more to amend legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is a scandal. We also have to debate it under the pall of a time allocation motion. Once again, debate is being limited. We are only in our second week of work. It is an absolute scandal.

Should we be surprised? We have just started work again after a prorogation, and the more things change, the more they stay the same, as the saying goes. It is a new session of Parliament but we have the same old tactics from this government.

This is the fourth mammoth bill with which the Conservatives are trying once more to push through legislative changes so that Canadians will not notice. Here we have a 300-page document that amends a number of pieces of legislation that have nothing to do with the budget.

The NDP is familiar with the Conservatives' bad-faith manoeuvres, and we will do everything in our power to put a stop to these underhanded tactics.

This bill is a travesty. It is supposed to implement the budget, but it includes measures that have nothing to do with the budget. I am thinking particularly of the government's shady attacks on the rights of public service workers. That is why we have been demanding, since the start of this debate, that Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, be divided into several parts so that the appropriate committees can properly analyze and study the proposed changes.

We were only on the first day of the debate when the Conservatives moved a time allocation motion in order to cut off debate and once again prevent Canadians from seeing the entire content of this bill. To us, this way of doing things is completely anti-democratic. We cannot even debate a bill without debate being cut off. This has become the norm in this institution. It is a complete scandal.

Not so long ago, the Conservatives were talking about democracy. Unbelievable. They were saying that they listen to Canadians and co-operate with other governments. However, when they are here, they do everything they can to obstruct the work of the House. They would simply like us to support their bills with no debate, no discussion. This government would like Canadians to write them a blank cheque. Speaking of cheques, we know what they do with those. It does not always make much sense, so this is a cheque they are not going to get.

Canadians are not fools. As the NDP leader told the Prime Minister, Canadians are going to judge this government's actions harshly. Canadians do not want to see their government act this way and show so little respect for democratic institutions. The NDP is offering Canadians a true alternative to this government's anti-democratic ways. In 2015, the NDP will show Canadians that we can govern this country and that we will not engage in these underhanded tactics.

Coming back to Bill C-4, I would now like to discuss a division of the bill that deals with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Section 4 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act will be replaced with the following:

There is established an independent board, to be known as the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, consisting of not more than 25 permanent members to be appointed by the Governor in Council and any number of temporary members that are appointed under section 6.

Thinking about this change to the number of board members, I can only wonder whether the Conservatives learned anything from the VRAB study in committee. Several accusations were made during that study, and many witnesses mentioned that the board was rife with patronage appointments, interference, procedural unfairness, a lack of expertise, and so on.

I will summarize what Mr. Leduc said; he was one of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He said that, unfortunately, our veterans do not have the benefit of a fair and equitable hearing. I think that that statement is a good summary of the problems veterans encounter with that board.

Have the Conservatives made any changes to ensure that this board will be made fair and impartial? Absolutely not. They preferred to reduce the number of members who will sit on it from 28 to 25; the effect of this will be to slow down the work and increase waiting periods.

The Conservatives will also continue to appoint their friends to that board despite the fact that many of them have no expertise and no knowledge that would qualify them to sit on it. Once again, veterans are the ones being penalized by this type of measure.

As my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore stated quite rightly, the government now wants to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans, on the backs of our heroes. Is that a good approach? Of course not. The Conservatives are only bringing in half measures that do more harm than good to our veterans.

If we take a look at budgets in this period of fiscal austerity that prevails throughout the world, we see that our allies have absolutely not cut their veterans' budgets; in fact, several have increased them. The Conservative government is clearly bucking that trend and is making deep cuts to the Veterans Affairs budget. That is a clear sign of the lack of respect the government has for veterans.

In addition to these new cuts and those to the number of members who sit on the VRAB, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the government is going to close nine district offices throughout the country. These Veterans Affairs Canada offices provided services to veterans. The Conservatives are also going to transfer Ste. Anne's Hospital, the last hospital to provide care for veterans, to the provincial government. The Conservatives continue to transfer veterans' services to government agencies that have no expertise, such as Service Canada, or they offload the task of caring for our veterans to the provinces.

According to the Conservatives, veterans are no different from other citizens. The government considers that it owes injured veterans absolutely nothing. The government feels that it has absolutely no moral obligation to veterans, which is scandalous. These days, veterans are angry with the government because of everything it has done over the past few years.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, the veterans affairs critic, recently introduced Bill C-447, which would completely dismantle the VRAB and implement a system with a peer-reviewed process for making medical decisions, which would be much more beneficial for veterans. A more effective and impartial board would better serve our veterans.

True to form, the Conservatives decided to introduce only half measures, such as reducing the number of VRAB members from 28 to 25, which could potentially increase wait times for hearings before this board. That is the extent of the government's respect for veterans.

Not just veterans will suffer the consequences of this budget implementation bill. The rights obtained and gains made in recent years by workers and public servants are also under attack. The most significant and most unacceptable changes in the latest budget implementation bill target Canadian workplaces.

In fact, the bill fundamentally changes Canadians' right to a safe and healthy workplace. How does it do that? It will take away the powers conferred on health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and give them to the minister.

The bill will also reduce a worker's right to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. We are convinced that no worker should be made to work in conditions that would put their health and safety at risk. This provision is ridiculous and we strongly oppose it. The government has always served as the watchdog for private business to ensure that workers have a safe environment. We wonder if the government knows what it is doing in this file. We really do wonder.

In addition, Bill C-4 will put practically all of the power related to health and safety into the minister's hands, without taking into account how that will affect protections for workers.

Bill C-4 also makes changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, eliminating binding arbitration as a method of dispute resolution in the public service. The only explanation for this change is that the government wants to provoke disputes with public servants.

I could go on and list more situations, but I will leave it at that.

[Veterans, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on another subject, there is absolutely nothing new for veterans in the throne speech. What is more, the government is in court trying to block a class action suit brought by a group of veterans who oppose the new veterans charter because some of them do not have access to their pension or to adequate health care.

The government is spending millions of dollars on propaganda and extremely expensive legal battles. Why is the government determined to treat our veterans unfairly?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre for doing a great job as the foreign affairs critic for the official opposition. At the same time, I would say I am rather shocked that the minister has failed to recognize the hon. member's excellent work.

Indeed, judging by his question to my colleague, he seems to have been offended by some of the points he raised. Yet my colleague was quite right when he said that this bill does not go far enough and will barely lift Canada out of Transparency International's bottom rankings, in terms of the transparency measures in its anti-corruption legislation.

My colleague mentioned several extremely interesting points. I would like him to talk about them a bit more. In particular, he stated that Canada is a laggard when it comes to bringing its legislation in line with the international treaties it signs. Often, Canada simply does not live up to these treaties.

What does my colleague think Canada can do to improve its image, which has taken a serious beating in recent years?

[An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to use these four minutes to speak to this bill we will be supporting.

I am always interested in speaking on issues related to public safety and victims' rights.

Today we are debating an important bill that seems to follow up on recommendations from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which tabled a report in 2010 in an effort to move towards greater respect for victims in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The recommendations contained in that report seem to be reflected in this bill. One recommendation was to shift the burden of responsibility to provide information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act from victims to the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

Another recommendation was to give victims the right to attend National Parole Board hearings through the use of available technologies such as video conferencing.

In addition, it was recommended that victims be given a stronger voice in the timing, frequency and scheduling of parole hearings.

We support the initiatives set out in this bill, which promote fairness for victims. We will study the bill in detail to ensure that it addresses as many of their needs as possible.

I find it curious that this government often uses backbenchers to introduce these types of bills, instead of having the department do it, which is how it should be done. During this Parliament, we have noticed that a large number of public safety and justice bills have been introduced by backbenchers, which is not customary.

In 2007, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime organized a round table where participants identified the fact that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act did not contain any provisions on how victims of crime should be treated. This law dictates how offenders should be treated, but it does not include any provisions about how victims should be treated.

One participant remarked that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act embodies the principles that govern the treatment of offenders—that is, decisions concerning offenders must be clear and fair—but there is no law that sets out principles for the treatment of victims. The participants suggested that the same principles should apply to victims.

The observations of the round table participants corresponded to the findings of the National Consultation with Victims of Crime conducted by the Solicitor General of Canada in 2001. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act only mentions the release of information to victims and communications with them.

In her report, the ombudsman for victims of crime indicated that, in order to ensure that victims have legitimate rights within correctional and conditional release systems, the laws must clearly indicate how they are to be treated, and these laws must be applied.

That is what the hon. member wanted to do by introducing this bill, and I thank him for this initiative, which I still think should have gone through the Department of Public Safety. Still, it is an important step toward defending victims' rights, and we thank him for that.

I will support his bill at second reading.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his question. Our domestic legislation and international obligations should have been aligned 10 years ago. It has taken a fairly long time. However, I must mention that Canada is not the slowest country because, if I am not mistaken, the United States has yet to amend its legislation.

On a number of occasions, Canada has been slow to align its legislation with its international obligations. However, it is important to mention that at least this time, it is going to fulfill its international obligations. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. In fact, on a number of occasions, Canada has ratified agreements and not met its commitments, which is deplorable. This time around, things moved very slowly, but at least Canada will meet its commitments.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Obviously, the initial bill did not include the provisions that my colleague mentioned. Was it a lack of foresight or a lack of planning? I really cannot say, but it obviously was an oversight.

The Liberal senator proposed the amendments needed to add these provisions to the bill so that it fulfills our obligations and the treaties we have signed. These amendments were accepted unanimously and are now an integral part of Bill S-9, making it consistent with our international obligations.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, ever since September 11, the international community has been worried about international terrorism.

The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council have been trying to establish international co-operation to eliminate terrorism. They have paid particular attention to nuclear terrorism.

The UN General Assembly and Security Council passed resolutions that resulted in treaties on nuclear terrorism, calling upon member states to pass laws and adopt policies to keep up with the constant evolution of the terrorist threat.

Canada has been involved in this international co-operation for a long time. Canada ratified the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which encourages countries to create measures to prevent, detect and punish crimes involving nuclear materials.

In 2005, that convention was amended to improve physical protection for nuclear materials and nuclear facilities. These changes will increase the scope of the convention and cover nuclear materials used for peaceful purposes while in domestic use, storage and transport, as well as domestic nuclear facilities.

Also in 2005, Canada signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, but that convention has not yet been ratified. A treaty can be ratified only when national legislative amendments have been made.

The ICSANT calls upon countries to create new criminal offences for acts of nuclear terrorism. That is the purpose of Bill S-9. The bill will amend Canada's laws to bring them into line with the two conventions I have just mentioned.

Once this bill has been passed, Canada will be able to ratify both international conventions and thus we will fulfill our obligations.

We are in favour of multilateral approaches that encourage co-operation between countries. Such co-operation is important in so-called transnational areas of concern, such as terrorism.

International co-operation is the only way we can protect ourselves from such threats. When a problem goes beyond our borders, our national laws cannot eliminate transnational activities or protect us from them.

That is why it is important to establish good co-operation that leads to international conventions that make it possible to extend the limited coverage provided by our own legislation. We support co-operation among the countries that have ratified these conventions.

That is why we will support this bill. Its content meets the requirements of the convention very well.

This bill was introduced in the Senate in March. It has 10 clauses that create four new crimes to be added to the Criminal Code. The bill would make it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment.

It would also make it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything.

I would like to emphasize the word "compel". It is important because the prime objective of terrorism is to force a government or organization to do something, and that can include not doing certain things as well.

How many attacks or kidnappings have been committed by terrorist organizations in order to discourage countries from taking part in the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? Terrorist groups use threats and retribution to force governments to give in to their political demands.

The bill also makes it illegal to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access to or control of a nuclear facility.

Protecting against someone obtaining a nuclear device may be problematic. Quite often, people who try to make a nuclear device will try to find the parts individually and, often, the parts may seem harmless because they could be used for many things. One of the biggest difficulties for the RCMP and the security service is identifying how the parts will be used.

The bill also makes it illegal to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.

This bill makes other important amendments to the Criminal Code, for instance, to add definitions for the terms used for these new offences.

The bill also adds a new section to the Criminal Code to ensure that individuals who commit or attempt to commit any of these offences overseas can be prosecuted in Canada. This provision contains specific criteria, however. The offence must be committed on a ship that is registered or licensed or on an aircraft registered in Canada, by a Canadian citizen or someone who is present in Canada after the commission of the act.

This bill will amend Criminal Code provisions on electronic surveillance and the taking of bodily substances. The Anti-Terrorism Act amended the code provisions on electronic surveillance.

Therefore, the four new offences were added to section 183 of the Criminal Code to justify the use of electronic surveillance for these offences. This provision was included to allow peace officers to apply for a warrant for the seizure of bodily substances when they are investigating individuals for these offences. It will also be mandatory to collect bodily substances from those convicted of these offences.

These two tools are important for our front-line public safety officers. However, these provisions will have to be used in accordance with Canadian legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When new powers are granted, limits must be set to prevent any abuse on the part of our public safety officers who, I would like to stress, have my full confidence.

Finally, the bill amends the Canadian rule regarding double jeopardy. That rule does not apply if a trial abroad does not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. In such cases, a Canadian court may retry the person for the same crime for which he was convicted abroad.

This Senate bill enables the government to meet its international obligations by creating new Criminal Code offences, but that is just one side of the coin. The other side, which is just as important, has to do with prevention and security.

Mr. Jamieson, from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, made a presentation before the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act on June 4. He gave a brief outline of the prevention provisions adopted by the commission. He explained that the requirements relating to physical protection are gradual and reflect the level of risk and its consequences. He presented a partial list of security measures in nuclear facilities. The requirements range from controlling access to sites to providing an on-site response force. Employees and supervisors must meet security protocol awareness and training requirements, and they must undergo background checks.

Licensees must develop and maintain contingency plans as well as practise regular emergency drills. The transport of nuclear materials requires a licence. In order to obtain it, the licensee must submit a detailed security plan including a threat assessment, the proposed security measures, the route and other arrangements along the route. Security plans are required for all shipments, including those in transit through Canada.

Canada is a model for the world when it comes to nuclear safety, but the government must continue to invest the necessary funds in order to maximize the safety of Canadians, while minimizing the likelihood of a crime or a terrorist attack being committed in Canada or elsewhere in the world.

The International Atomic Energy Agency documented nearly 2,000 incidents related to the unauthorized use, transport or possession of nuclear and radioactive materials between 1993 and 2011. Government agencies with anti-terrorism responsibilities must work in an integrated manner in order for these organizations to be able to properly protect Canadians.

It is not just a matter of creating indictable terrorist offences. It is also a question of investing the necessary funds to allow these organizations and their front-line officers to carry out their mission and the mandate assigned to them, which is to protect the safety of Canadians.

[Korean War Veterans Day Act, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to stand today and speak in favour of Bill S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War.

The bill would designate July 27 as Korean War Veterans Day to remember and honour the courage and sacrifice of Canadians who served in the Korean War and performed peacekeeping duties following the armistice of July 27, 1953.

July 27 was chosen because the Korean War armistice was signed on that day in 1953, putting an end to three years of fighting. The contribution of Canadian veterans of the Korean War has gone unrecognized for far too long.

This war started shortly after the end of World War II. Unfortunately, historians did not give the Korean War the importance it deserved, given the magnitude of World War II. As a result, the Korean War was too often forgotten.

This bill will again focus attention on the Korean War and do right by our veterans who fought in this war by giving them a day of commemoration to remember the sacrifice they made for Canada and South Korea.

This bill is in addition to the January 8, 2013, announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who declared 2013, which marks the 60th anniversary of the Korean War armistice, the Year of the Korean War Veteran.

Designating 2013 as the Year of the Korean War Veteran will allow Canadians to pay tribute to the 26,000 Canadians in uniform who came to the aid of South Koreans during that war. We will also be able to honour the 516 Canadians who died in service, defending the values of peace, freedom and democracy on the Korean Peninsula.

The NDP will support this bill because we want to highlight and commemorate the significant contribution made by our armed forces and our veterans, as well as the sacrifices made by their families during this major war.

I would like to congratulate the members from all parties and the veterans groups that worked together to create this bill.

Our critic for veterans affairs, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, also took part in the drafting of this bill from the beginning. He suggested some improvements that were accepted right away so that everyone could support this important bill in order to do justice to the veterans of the Korean War. Everyone was able to work together for once. It is nice to see that, now and again, we can all contribute to the drafting of a bill.

I would also like to give some general background information on the Korean War conflict. Anyone who would like more detailed information can consult the Veterans Affairs website, which gives an excellent description.

At the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union occupied North Korea while the Americans moved into South Korea.

After a communist government had been established in the north and a democratic government in the south, tensions between the two governments grew to a climax and, on June 25, 1950, the military forces of North Korea crossed the 38th parallel into South Korea. This marked the beginning of the war.

The newly formed United Nations decided to enter into its first armed intervention. Thus, 16 member nations, including Canada, would contribute military forces under the command of the United States.

Early in July 1951, ceasefire negotiations began. However, it was not until 1953 that peace was finally restored on the Korean Peninsula with the signing of the armistice on July 27, 1953.

It took two more years of negotiations and combat before peace was finally restored, when the armistice was signed at Panmunjom.

As I said, more than 26,000 Canadians were deployed in Korea, including the sailors on eight destroyers and the aviators who took part in numerous combat and transport missions.

I would therefore like to point out that Canada’s contribution was among the largest of all the nations that participated in that conflict. I would also like to point out that the duty to support applies every day, and not just on national memorial days or during Remembrance Week.

In my opinion, tributes from the government are not the only way to honour our veterans. Obviously, the respect we have for our soldiers and how we commemorate our veterans can also be seen in how the government treats them through the services offered by Veterans Affairs Canada.

The NDP listens closely to what our veterans need and are asking for. In fact, our leader has met with a number of veterans’ groups, as recently as this afternoon. That is how we keep in touch with Canadians and listen to what they need.

In my opinion, the best way to honour veterans is to treat them fairly. Today, for example, the compensation they are paid when they are injured does not treat them fairly. If they had been injured in a different workplace, various labour boards would have given them a lot more compensation than they receive at present. One of the best ways of paying tribute to our veterans is to treat them fairly. That is why, as the new charter is about to be revised, I call on the government to sit down with veterans and listen to what they are asking for, because there are a number of things to be done to improve the new charter.

In conclusion, we are supporting this important bill to give the Korean War and the veterans of that war a day so that it is no longer a forgotten war. This is a significant bill, and we thank the person who introduced it. I hope we will give this bill our unanimous support.

[Volunteerism, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, each year, thousands of people offer their time to an organization, for free, to help those in need. Each act of volunteerism has a profound, positive impact on society as a whole. Given that the current government demonstrates nothing but a lack of commitment towards those most in need, volunteerism is taking on immeasurable value.

In the past year, I have had the opportunity to pay tribute to the following people and their commitment to volunteering by presenting each of them with a Queen's Jubilee Medal: Marika Draper, Raymond Simard, Celina Yarish, Howard W. Graham, Joseph Henri Dollis, Michel Gendreau, Georgette Dulude Fyfe, Daniel Villeneuve and Bernard Boyer.

I would also like to congratulate Pauline Miron Gaudreau, who was recently awarded a medal by the National Assembly for her more than 50-year involvement in various community organizations, including the Marie-Reine association in Saint-Constant, which raises money to help abused women. As National Volunteer Week just ended, I would like to wholeheartedly thank these generous volunteers.

[Veterans, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, veterans and their families deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

However, a number of low-income veterans' families cannot use the last post fund to help pay for funeral expenses.

The $12,000 exemption is simply not high enough; it falls well below the poverty line.

Will the Conservatives finally increase the exemption?