Sylvain Chicoine

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleague for his question and remarks. I was under the impression that there were a few more offences that could result in a criminal record. That is something we need to look at. I believe that other offences can also lead to a criminal record. We must give this issue very serious consideration.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I especially thank him for pointing out that Canada is lagging behind other countries that have already updated their criminal justice systems.

Bill C-15 corrects some of the current shortcomings, but it does not go far enough, as I said earlier. We should be looking at the countries my colleague mentioned, as they went much further in reforming military justice. We obviously need to move in the same direction and follow their lead as we reform our military justice system.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his observations and comments. Since we are on the subject, we would really like to see the amendments to the previous bill included in this one. We want to update all of those things. Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, a lot more could be done to make the military justice system more consistent and more equitable for some people who have to face military justice, sometimes for offences that are more like insubordination. When that happens, as I said, they get stuck with a criminal record. In our opinion, the bill should go even further and include more summary offences that could be—

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously very honoured to be here in this House to discuss Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which we are examining today.

On this side of the House, we believe that this bill is a step in the right direction, but it is unfortunately a small step. We believe that military justice must be a part of Canada's justice system as a whole. Military justice laws must be consistent with other laws in our justice system, particularly when it comes to the principles of fundamental rights. Military justice must be fair and equitable so that it does not negatively affect discipline and so that it helps maintain morale among our troops. Our soldiers volunteer to participate in our armed forces. They must always be entitled to fair treatment.

During the study on a bill that dealt with the same issue, we tried to ensure that the military justice system procedures were effective and consistent with the need for disciplinary issues to be resolved quickly. However, efficiency and speed should not trump the fundamental principles of justice. Just because they are members of the military does not mean that the fundamental principles of justice do not apply to them.

The origins of this bill date back to 2003. I would like to provide some background so hon. members understand its origin and scope. In 2003, the Right Hon. Justice Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, submitted a report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. This report contained 88 recommendations on various military justice issues.

The government introduced Bill C-15, in response to this report and its recommendations. I must point out that, of the 88 recommendations in the report, only 28 were included in this bill. The provisions in Bill C-15 appeared in other bills that were previously introduced in Parliament. There was Bill C-7 and Bill C-45, which both died on the order paper.

In July 2008, the government introduced Bill C-60 to simplify the court martial structure and establish a system for choosing the court martial format that would harmonize best with civilian justice. In 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs examined Bill C-60 and made nine recommendations for amendments to the National Defence Act. In 2010, Bill C-41 was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and to the Senate committee's 2009 report.

When the committee studied the bill, it approved some of these amendments, which would have resolved some of the problems raised by the bill. Oddly enough, they are not included in Bill C-15, which has been introduced and is before us.

Some of these amendments had been proposed by the Judge Advocate General as compromises to correct the system in an acceptable manner. They removed certain offences from the list of those that would not result in a criminal record. However, the government simply deleted these amendments when drafting Bill C-15.

That is the extent of the Conservatives' respect for the work of Parliament. Unfortunately, they believe that they can do as they wish without regard for the previous work of Parliament because they have a majority. Basically, Bill C-15 is similar to the version of Bill C-41 introduced by the Senate committee in the last Parliament. However, that bill contained the provisions of bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper, as I mentioned.

The provisions in the bill were not included in Bill C-60. The bill also implemented the recommendations made by Justice Lamer in 2003 and those made by the Senate committee in 2009. At committee stage of Bill C-41, my colleagues on the Standing Committee on National Defence proposed amendments to Bill C-41 to lengthen the list of offences that could be considered minor. My colleagues believed that these minor offences did not warrant a criminal record. The proposed amendments also would have lengthened the list of penalties that could be set by a tribunal without resulting in a criminal record.

However, many of the amendments proposed for Bill C-41 were, unfortunately, not included in Bill C-15. Although it contains some worthwhile provisions, Bill C-15 also has some shortcomings. If the bill makes it through second reading, we hope to be able to discuss those shortcomings and ensure that the bill will make the military justice system as fair and effective as possible.

I would like to focus on the provisions concerning summary trials, since some of them, as they are written, could have serious consequences for soldiers, particularly during their transition to civilian life.

A summary trial is one where the chain of command is allowed to judge subordinate soldiers. It is important to point out that these trials are held without lawyers, without a jury, without a system of evidence and without witnesses, unlike in the civilian justice system. Over 95% of military trials are summary trials. A conviction in a summary trial sometimes results in a criminal record. There is no recourse and no transcript of the proceedings. This is too severe for members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of minor offences.

These minor offences include insubordination, quarrels, misconduct, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobedience of a lawful command. These offences are undoubtedly very important for military discipline, but do not necessarily call for a criminal record.

In committee last March, the NDP proposed amendments to Bill C-41 to increase from five to 27 the number of offences that could be considered minor and would not merit a criminal record if a minor sentence were imposed. The amendment also added to the list of penalties a tribunal may impose without giving the offender a criminal record, for example, a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal to one month's salary and any other minor sentences. These amendments were very important to us, and that is why we want them to be included in Bill C-15.

A criminal record can make soldiers' lives very difficult after they leave the military. A criminal record can make it hard for veterans to get a job, rent an apartment, travel or get insurance. Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that the soldiers who so bravely served our country could end up with a criminal record because of flaws in the military justice system.

I have seen first-hand the problems experienced by some veterans during their transition to civilian life and I know it has been extremely difficult for some. As I said, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Veterans shared their concerns with us loudly and clearly and talked about the obstacles they face in their transition to the civilian world. It is hard for veterans, especially for injured veterans, to find work in the civilian world. Considering the number of veterans working in the public service, it is clear that priority hiring for veterans is not always respected.

The private sector, and especially the construction industry, is trying to do its part, but this private sector initiative is not available to all veterans, since it is not available in all provinces. Veterans therefore have to obtain educational equivalencies for the training they received during their service. If they are saddled with a criminal record on top of that and have to go through the commission to get a pardon, which costs $600, we are doing nothing to help them reintegrate properly into civilian life.

As I said earlier, we would like the bill to include these provisions.

[Bullying, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate an extremely important issue that concerns all Canadian youth: the scourge of bullying.

Bullying has serious consequences for our youth. That is why I am rising today to emphasize to my colleagues opposite that it is important to take action to address this serious problem affecting our communities.

I believe the members here present are aware of the impact this scourge has on our youth. We need only think of all the cases that have made the news in recent months. Young victims of bullying have committed the tragic act of taking their own lives.

In response to this problem, more and more Canadians are calling on the government to take action to combat bullying properly. Current efforts are inadequate, and the governing party has unfortunately come up with no solution to the problem.

The leadership of the Conservative Party refuses to adopt a tough approach to bullying and prefers to leave that task to the provinces.

We hope the federal government will show some leadership and work with the provinces and groups that combat bullying, as well as all other stakeholders, to solve this problem once and for all, instead of simply washing its hands of the matter and handing it over to the provinces and schools concerned by the problem.

As proof of the Conservatives' inaction, when my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, whom I congratulate for this important motion, asked a question about the suicide of Marjorie Raymond, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety suggested that bullying was the responsibility of everyone except the federal government. This lack of leadership on the government's part is utterly unacceptable.

That is why my colleague introduced this important motion because, unlike the Conservative Party, we want to take action to ensure that our children and teenagers are no longer victims of bullying.

This motion urges the government to study the prevalence and impact of various types of bullying and to evaluate the best ways to combat the problem by establishing a special committee to study bullying in Canada. It asks the government to study, by means of a special committee, the four types of bullying, which are physical bullying, verbal attacks, indirect attacks such as the spreading of rumours, and , and to determine their effects on our communities. It also asks the government to do a more effective job of disseminating best practices for combatting all forms of bullying and to support organizations that have the necessary expertise to combat the problem effectively.

There are a number of approaches to combatting the problem. Some have proven successful and others have failed. It is therefore important that all stakeholders from the various communities have access to this information and know the best approaches so that they are able to adopt the approach that can produce the best results depending on the situation.

I would therefore like to emphasize that anti-bullying strategies that focus on prevention rather than criminalization will indeed have a better chance of succeeding. That is why this motion emphasizes prevention programs instead of proposing a bill to amend the Criminal Code.

Studies in psychology define bullying as acts, repeated over time, that intentionally cause harm to others where there is a power imbalance. Bullying includes physical behaviour, such as punching, kicking and biting, and verbal behaviour, such as threatening, name-calling, insulting, denigrating or making racist or sexist remarks. Bullying can also include social exclusion, such as spreading rumours or gossip, or ignoring, rejecting or socially isolating a person.

Studies also show that boys are more likely to engage in bullying and to be bullied than girls. With boys, bullying takes many forms, especially physical aggression and the use of force, whereas girls seem to prefer indirect forms of bullying, including social isolation, spreading rumours and maligning others.

There is a whole range of signs indicating that a child is being bullied: sometimes children may invent illnesses so that they do not have to attend school; their money or belongings may be missing; they may have trouble sleeping; they may be irritable; they may have trouble concentrating; they may change their routine unexpectedly; or they may have problems from an academic standpoint. It is important for schools and parents to be aware of the symptoms of bullying so that they can identify them.

According to a study done in Toronto, teachers are aware of approximately 4% of all cases of bullying. However, 70% of teachers believe that they are aware of most cases of bullying and that they intervene in most incidents, whereas students estimate that teachers intervene in only 25% of cases. Only 60% of victims tell their parents when they are bullied.

As I mentioned, bullying has extremely serious consequences for victims. For example, boys who are bullied are five times more likely, and girls three times more likely, to experience depression than their classmates. Victims of bullying are more likely than their classmates to have suicidal tendencies, as is evident in several cases reported by the media.

Moreover, studies show that the consequences of bullying do not diminish over time. Bullying has long-term consequences. According to The Journal of the American Medical Association, 23-year-olds who were bullied during their childhood have high levels of depression and lack self-esteem, even though they were neither harassed nor socially excluded in adulthood.

Moreover, there is a very close correlation between bullying others during childhood and anti-social behaviour during adolescence and adulthood. Children who were bullies may become teenagers who sexually harass others, engage in criminal behaviour, get involved in gangs, and are violent toward their life partner. In adulthood, they harass their work colleagues or abuse their spouse, their children and sometimes even seniors. Preventing bullying, therefore, helps to reduce the likelihood of criminal behaviour later in life. It is a matter of public safety in both the short and the medium term.

Many countries have developed anti-bullying programs. Every country has a different approach, but they have all decided to take an active role in combatting this problem. For example, a program in Colorado tries to identify and change factors in the school environment that contribute to bullying, since to be effective, we must be able to target all of the risk factors. This program encourages elementary school children and high school students to take responsibility for safety at their school and to participate in developing and maintaining a school environment where everyone is safe. The program is more likely to be effective when children are more directly involved in all steps of the preventative approach.

Another program in Colorado managed to reduce the number of bullying and victimization incidents by 50% and considerably decrease incidents of anti-social behaviour, such as vandalism, fights, theft or students skipping school. They also noted a significant improvement in the social climate, order and discipline in class, and in social relations, as well as a much more positive attitude towards school and school work.

That was a brief overview of the situation. I think it is time to take action. We cannot stand by while our children are being bullied at school. The time for making speeches is over. We can no longer settle for talking about compassion. We must take concrete action to combat bullying and support this important motion. I think it is an excellent measure to adopt.

I urge all of my colleagues to do so.

[Georges St-Pierre, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday at the Bell Centre in Montreal, I had the great fortune and immense pleasure of witnessing the comeback of ultimate fighting champion Georges St-Pierre, or GSP, the pride of Saint-Isidore.

Before 17,000 electrified fans, GSP made a triumphant return to the octagon after an injury forced him out of competition for 18 months. Despite the long absence, all doubts were soon put to rest.

In exemplary physical and mental form, GSP delivered a magnificent performance as he defended his UFC world welterweight title for the seventh time. The “gentleman fighter”, in his typical kind, respectful and exemplary attitude, paid homage to his adversary before the most difficult fight he has faced so far. GSP is a wonderful ambassador for the sport and has brought a great deal of credibility to mixed martial arts.

Georges St-Pierre is definitely the most recognized and most popular Canadian in the world. He is a role model for the young people of his province, this country and the entire world when it comes to hard work, diligence and ethical standards.

It was quite a night and quite a fight. Our champion gave us some exciting moments to remember. Thank you, GSP.

[Firefighters, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in the House today to support Motion No. 388.

Our firefighters put their lives on the line every day, especially when they battle fires and go into burning buildings to save lives. We owe them a debt of gratitude for the risks they take in order to help people trapped in fires. Not only are they putting their lives at risk when they go into a building that could collapse on top of them, but they are also jeopardizing their health because of the toxic emissions given off by the building materials.

Every year, an average of 18 firefighters and seven police officers lose their lives in the line of duty. The 21 firefighters who died in 2011 all died of cancer. Furthermore, although this happens less commonly, some firefighters become disabled or even quadriplegic as a result of a work-related accident.

When something like that happens, the families are left to deal not only with the grief, but also with the lack of financial assistance that could help them get through those extremely difficult times. The families are left without any financial support.

The vast majority of fire departments unfortunately do not provide any compensation to the loved ones of firefighters who die in the line of duty. Considering the courage, dedication and determination of firefighters who regularly put their lives at risk for the benefit of the community, it is nothing short of shameful that this kind of benefit has not yet been created.

For seven years now, the NDP has been fighting for a national public safety officer compensation benefit to be paid to such officers if they are killed or become disabled.

In 2005, my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster moved a motion calling on the government to create such a compensation benefit. The Conservatives were in opposition at the time and supported the motion moved by my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. The Liberals, however, with a minority government, unfortunately did not support this excellent initiative.

An election was held in 2006, and when the Conservatives came to power, this motion had already died on the order paper.

Once again, the Conservatives are not making the lives and health of our public safety officers who risk their lives every day a priority. They made that clear during presentations by our Conservative colleagues who are in favour of this motion. They hid behind some rather questionable arguments whereby public safety is a provincial jurisdiction, when they know full well that it is a shared jurisdiction and that no province would object to the creation of a compensation benefit.

However, the NDP has not forgotten the importance of doing this for the families of the firefighters. Since the beginning of the 41st Parliament, we have moved 11 motions on this issue. Despite our repeated efforts since Motion No. 153 was moved in the House in 2005, unfortunately, this benefit still has not been created. We think it is high time that the Prime Minister made good on the promise he made to firefighters.

We know that every firefighter and public safety organization supports this motion. What more does the government need to get things done and keep its promise?

The motion currently under review essentially asks for three things. First, it asks for the creation of a national public safety officer compensation benefit payable to the families of a firefighter, a police officer or any other public safety officer who is killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. It also asks that firefighters be entitled to priority access to vaccines and other antiviral drugs for the duration of a pandemic. Lastly, it calls for the establishment of minimum standards in the National Building Code of Canada in order to better ensure the safety of firefighters and first responders in general.

In their role as first responders in emergency situations, firefighters and police officers may come in contact with infected individuals during a pandemic. Under the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the health sector, firefighters and police officers provide “an essential service that, if not sustained at a minimal level, would threaten public health, safety or security”.

Regardless, the Public Health Agency of Canada did not include firefighters in the first group to be vaccinated during the pandemic. The H1N1 outbreak showed that levels of protection vary from province to province and city to city, and thus the Public Health Agency of Canada must adopt a national protection protocol. Even our American neighbours, the Prime Minister's friends, included firefighters in the first group of people to be vaccinated. If the Prime Minister really sees himself as the champion of public safety, why has he done nothing about it since 2006? Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister merely makes glowing speeches, but has not taken any real action.

The motion also proposes introducing minimum standards in the National Building Code of Canada to enhance the safety of firefighters during a fire. In 2005, the government reviewed the National Building Code, but did not include firefighter safety as one of the standards in the code. What this means is that contractors are not required to consider the safety of firefighters when making decisions about structures and construction materials.

Try to imagine being firefighters who, at great personal risk, enter a building on fire, where the materials used are highly flammable and put their lives in danger. Furthermore, with the growing number of seniors, it will be more difficult and take more time to intervene because of the reduced mobility of these people. Introducing this standard would reduce the likelihood of firefighters being injured or killed in burning buildings.

I am expecting the Conservatives to reject this motion because they reject the principle of compensation for public safety officers, claiming that they want to avoid interfering in areas under provincial and municipal jurisdictions. We have already heard a few speeches to that effect. When the U.S. government introduced the public safety officer compensation benefit in 1976, it did not hide behind alleged jurisdictional issues. It introduced a benefit that quickly rose to $250,000.

I remind the government that public safety is a federal responsibility and that Veterans Affairs Canada compensates federal police officers as well as soldiers who are wounded or disabled in the line of duty. Firefighters are the only public safety officers who are not compensated with this type of benefit. I also remind the government that very few municipalities have set up compensation plans for their firefighters. Too many families struggle with financial uncertainty during a time of loss. In rare cases where compensation was provided, it was too little and came too late to relieve the pain and secure the future of the family in mourning.

How can we ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect us when their government is not prepared to compensate them in a worst-case scenario? How can we ask them to risk their lives, knowing that their families will not be taken care of? Obviously, firefighters do not think about this kind of thing before doing their job. We must be appreciative of this complete dedication.

Such a benefit would not represent an exorbitant public expense. The International Association of Fire Fighters estimates that it would cost $7.5 million a year to pay a benefit of about $300,000 to survivors or to a firefighter who becomes permanently disabled. In the current economic climate, that is not a lot of money for a family that is struggling with such a tragedy. Instead of compensation, we expect the Conservatives to offer private-sector solutions whereby benefits would be paid to the family through a private insurance plan. They want to make the families of firefighters take on the responsibility. Firefighters will have to pay for private insurance to protect their families when they are performing their duties. That is unacceptable.

The government is prepared to give federal funding to build a memorial dedicated to firefighters fallen in the line of duty, but does not want to pay for such a benefit. That is offensive.

[Veterans, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, not only are they trying to hide their irresponsible budget from Canadians, but they also want to hide how they treat our veterans. The Auditor General has been clear: veterans are having to deal with unacceptable wait times, complicated, poorly defined processes and inadequate benefits. What is even more shocking, however, is that in a rich country like Canada, this government does not even provide veterans in need with a decent funeral service.

Does the minister realize that $3,600 is clearly not enough to pay for a funeral, which actually costs more than twice that amount?

[Veterans Affairs, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to pull out all the stops when there is a photo op, but when the cameras disappear, they completely ignore our veterans.

In fact, 70% of the families of veterans who apply to the government for help with funeral expenses are turned down. Those who receive government assistance are only given $3,600, even though funeral expenses are often more than double that amount.

Why have the Conservatives abandoned these families in their hour of need?

[Veterans, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this being Remembrance Week, I would like to pay tribute to all veterans who have served our country with honour. Regardless of the mission they have participated in, the Canadian Forces have always been proud to answer the call.

I would also like to take the time to acknowledge the tremendous support shown by the families of our military personnel, who live in fear of losing a loved one. Many soldiers return with physical or psychological injuries that have a serious impact on their families. We must not abandon them.

Over the past year, the government has spent millions of dollars on propaganda about the War of 1812 instead of investing that money in improving the services provided to veterans. Every week I get phone calls from veterans who are having tremendous difficulty getting the services to which they are entitled. I think the way the Conservative government is treating veterans is unacceptable. It also makes me sad to see that those who fought on the front lines are now having to fight with their own government.