House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 48% of the vote.
Employment Insurance November 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the NDP is proud to oppose this reform, and it will continue to do so.
We are in a tough economic situation. There are fewer and fewer full-time permanent jobs and increasingly more temporary and unstable jobs. Tightening the EI eligibility criteria is unjustified. Statistics Canada recently announced that women and people aged 25 to 44 were the hardest hit.
Why is the minister attacking workers in such uncertain economic times?
Nuclear Terrorism Act November 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou raises a very interesting point, namely that we cannot tell what the future holds because of the rather unpredictable nature of the Conservative government.
Having said that, it is an excellent idea for us to always participate in the negotiation of all international conventions and in all discussions. But it is unfortunate that we are not more proactive. That is what is rather sad and disappointing about Bill S-9. It is an example of Canada's failure to be proactive. This follows on the heels of our failure to win a seat on the Security Council. Not being proactive has consequences for our international commitments and our reputation abroad.
Nuclear Terrorism Act November 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue is absolutely right.
The NDP's position is clear: we are in favour of having a better discussion and better integration with the international community, and we are in favour of combating every threat to international peace.
As stated in United Nations Security Council resolution 1570, the conventions are one aspect. The NDP would never have gotten in the way of passing this bill.
As my colleague said, it makes absolutely no sense that it took this long for this bill to be introduced.
Nuclear Terrorism Act November 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, who usually shares his thoughts and comments with me. This time, I will be the one sharing my time with him.
I am pleased to speak to Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which would amend the Criminal Code in order to make it consistent with the requirements stipulated in two international conventions that we signed in 2005: the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
I will begin by making a remark that some of my colleagues have already made. This bill was introduced by the Senate. According to Canada's parliamentary process, it should be introduced by elected parliamentarians and not by senators. The NDP would prefer that most bills follow the parliamentary process and be introduced by elected members, in other words by the House of Commons and not by the Senate.
I do not want to repeat what most of my colleagues have already said. I will simply say that everything to do with nuclear weapons and the spread of fissile materials on the planet is cause for great concern not just for Canadians, but for everyone else living on this planet. I may be stating the obvious, but it bears repeating from time to time.
As far as this bill in particular is concerned, it begs a legitimate question. The hon. member for Beaches—East York spoke about this a few minutes ago. These conventions emphasize that urgent action is needed when it comes to the protection of fissile materials and nuclear weapons; it is a constant in these conventions. Nonetheless, the global perception of Canada's position is that Canada wants to wait seven years, not five, to take action. Indeed, we signed these conventions in 2005 and it is now 2012. We will not be able to ratify these conventions before 2013. When the word “urgent” is used so many times in these conventions, why wait so long to introduce bills that should be given priority?
One of the consequences is that Canada is losing international credibility and giving the impression that it does not take these issues seriously, which is not the case. Every time we meet our constituents in our ridings or elsewhere, we can see that people are very concerned about global security in general and nuclear security in particular. The public is concerned about the fact that terrorists can get access to nuclear materials to create bombs.
The parliamentary secretary's main argument when she introduced Bill S-9 was that the government has a majority. It has been in power since February 2006, but it had a minority. As far as I know, and based on what we have been hearing since the bill has been before the House of Commons, there is a general consensus: we have no choice but to ratify these conventions.
If we do not, it would go against Canada's long-held policy and philosophy.
This argument has not convinced me. We have to wonder why the government waited so long to introduce a bill that is so important at the international level.
If we look at the list of countries that have already ratified, we can see that internationally, globally, we come across as a bad student in terms of promoting nuclear security, when that is not the case and that is not the perception among members of the public.
There is another thing. If Canada had been a good student, if it had been proactive and had ratified these two conventions within a reasonable time frame, and if it had amended the Criminal Code to be able to ratify these conventions, the other countries would have believed that Canada is an international leader and that these concerns are important to it.
Each time Canada has the opportunity to show the world that it wants to be proactive and that it takes these things seriously, I think it is important to speed up the process.
This delay in implementing the legislative changes reminds me that, in October 2010, Canada withdrew its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. While there may not be a direct link, one cannot help but regret that decision. Once again, this gives the impression that Canada is backing away from its international commitments. In reality, the ratification of these two conventions is not merely a possibility; it is our moral obligation towards our international partners.
I would like to come back to a very interesting speech on this matter given by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. This is not meant to denigrate other speeches, but given that the member for Toronto—Danforth knows international treaties so well, his perspective was a little different from that of others.
He talked about a number of issues, particularly the fact that, under the current process, there is a real risk of going further than just taking the measures needed for ratification, for two reasons: this could lead to amending the Criminal Code in a way that is too restrictive; and the government could anticipate future amendments to these conventions to prevent us from ending up in the situation we are in at present, which is having to wait five, six or seven years before ratifying treaties.
Under these circumstances, there is a risk in wanting to do more than the bare minimum. It is important to avoid speculating about what these conventions could become and to avoid adding any provisions that are not strictly necessary to the ratification of these two international conventions. That will be the committee's job.
Nuclear Terrorism Act November 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beaches—East York mentioned a number of important points. In one part of his speech, he focused on something puzzling. In fact, the term “urgent” is used several times in these conventions. Yet, we have been waiting since 2005 for a bill to be introduced that really deals with this problem and that amends the Criminal Code, so that Canada can ratify these conventions.
One of the arguments trotted out by the Parliamentary Secretary when the bill was first introduced was that, at the time, there was a minority government in power.
To my knowledge, all members of the House agree with the general principle of this bill. Therefore, I will ask my colleague to speculate about why the government, which has been in power since February 2006, did not move more quickly on this bill.
Fort Lennox National Historic Site October 24th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, on September 14, 2012, I attended a ceremony in Saint-Paul-de-l'Île-aux-Noix that was also attended by the Prime Minister, who came not only to commemorate the War of 1812, but also to honour all of the regiments that fought to protect the Richelieu valley.
I wish to commend the tremendous contribution made by the mayors of Saint-Paul-de-l'Île-aux-Noix and Lacolle, Gérard Dutil and Yves Duteau, who made the celebration a resounding success.
The great irony, however, is that this beautiful historic site has been the victim of cuts to Parks Canada staff, cuts that affect the people who run Fort Lennox every day. These unjustified cuts are further proof that the Conservative government believes that historic sites can be showcased by getting rid of staff.
If the Prime Minister was serious about the importance of Fort Lennox, how could he authorize these cuts at this Parks Canada heritage site?
I therefore wish to ask the government to reverse its decision and bring those jobs back to Fort Lennox.
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 23rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to respond to the parliamentary secretary, who focuses on the fact that 700,000 Canadian veterans will not be able to sit on the grievance board, which is an external committee. He has the wrong focus. The goal here is procedural fairness.
Does my colleague think the parliamentary secretary is focusing on the wrong thing by siding with those who should have the right to sit on the board instead of siding with those who should have the right to be judged by civilians, who will lend more objectivity to the decision-making process?
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 22nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, there is another very interesting aspect. Other Commonwealth countries have changed their summary trial legislation. That is the case for England, which was mentioned earlier, and for Ireland and a number of other Commonwealth countries.
The reason is that the Court of Justice of the European Union had ruled that the manner in which summary trials were conducted at present in the United Kingdom did not comply with rights legislation in Europe.
Given that Australia and New Zealand, which are not bound by European law, have changed their legislation to make it consistent with the demands of the Court of Justice of the European Union, then why is Canada not doing so?
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 22nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona spoke about the fact that we want a summary trial process that is fairer and more just.
We want the military process, which may lead to a criminal record in the civilian world, to be just and fair in the military world as well. That is not the case at present.
I would also like her to speak to another aspect: this process must be not only just and fair, but also comparable in the military justice system, because the military process has consequences when it comes to a civilian criminal record, for offences that would not themselves be offences in the civilian context.
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 22nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech.
He mentioned at one point that he was optimistic and believed that the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on National Defence were going to agree to the recommendations made by the opposition. At least, that is what he thinks.
I would like to know what prompts that optimism, given that at the committee in the previous Parliament, when Bill C-41 was examined, the main amendment that meant that 60% of members of the grievance committee would be civilians, and that was accepted by all of the opposition parties, was rejected by the Conservatives. They were the only ones who rejected it. And we can see exactly that, with that amendment having been deleted in the new Bill C-15.
What prompts my colleague to be so optimistic?