Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 062 (Official Version)

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga had the floor. There are six minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call on the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to finish sharing my views on Bill C-292

I rise today in opposition to Bill C-292, an act to implement the Kelowna accord.

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, I commend the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard for providing members with the opportunity to discuss this issue that is of great importance to all Canadians. It is a pleasure to see the member for LaSalle—Émard in the House today.

This issue is important for all Canadians. Although I welcome the occasion to speak to this pressing matter and listen to the contributions of other members, I cannot support the proposed legislation.

My opposition to Bill C-292 is rooted in two main objections. First, the bill is poorly conceived. It is not a precise, detailed policy blueprint but a series of broad political commitments. Furthermore, it purports to extend statutory recognition to a one-time political event and create a legal obligation to fulfill a series of wide-ranging commitments.

As I mentioned earlier, the short text of Bill C-292 provides members with absolutely no idea of what obligations it would impose on the government, nor whether these obligations would also apply to provinces and territories. This is an important issue for many of my colleagues in this chamber.

Until members are provided with clear details on the nature of these programs and the related accountability measures, and until a long term sustainable financial plan to fund these programs has been approved by Parliament, I cannot see how this House can approve or support Bill C-292. So it will come as no surprise to members of this House that I continue to speak today in opposition to this bill.

The health and prosperity of aboriginal and northern communities is critical to the health and prosperity of our entire nation. Thus, we must take concrete steps to address issues of aboriginal women, children and families, education, water, and housing.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 25, you yourself mentioned that Bill C-292, in clause 2, does state that the government shall “take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the accord”, but the bill does not provide specific details on these measures. You said, “The measures simply are not described”.

Bill C-292 fails to establish a clear plan of action to resolve these issues. It fails to assign responsibilities. It fails to detail financial arrangements. It fails to adequately define procedures to achieve its targets. In other words, the bill before us today is not a fully developed strategy and could not be legally enforced.

With $3.7 billion allocated for aboriginal and northern programs, the budget created by Canada's new government includes targeted investments in key areas. Those key areas include aboriginal housing, water, education, and economic development. The returns on these investments will deliver real improvements in the quality of life for aboriginal and northern peoples.

Those investments will fortify relationships with provinces, territories, aboriginal leaders and organizations and create a more promising future for all Canadians.

It is important to note that the government's $3.7 billion investment in aboriginal and northern peoples is in addition to increases to aboriginal health programs, as well as increases to the budget of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

This number, $3.7 billion, also excludes budget initiatives already aimed at both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal peoples deserve no less than the same opportunities we all seek for our families, for our communities and for our country. We are committed to securing these opportunities for aboriginal Canadians.

Three hundred million dollars will go directly to affordable housing programs in the territories, benefiting both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. Nunavut, where the problem is most pressing, will receive $200 million. Yukon and the Northwest Territories will receive $50 million each.

Another $300 million will be used to improve housing through the off-reserve aboriginal housing fund.

Furthermore, $450 million has been set aside to fund initiatives for water, housing, education, and women, children and families. Through education, aboriginal communities can successfully battle poverty, while initiatives to improve the quality of life for women will nurture healthy children and families.

(1105)

A settlement agreement that was signed on May 10 launched an advanced payment program for seniors who suffered abuse while in residential schools. Victims will share in a $2.2 billion fund to help them deal with the emotional and psychological trauma that many of them continue to experience to this day.

We do not believe that money and ad hoc remedies resolve the challenges facing aboriginal peoples. We must take on the hard work of renovating our laws and our institutions. This new Government of Canada is identifying and implementing effective and lasting solutions through collaboration and mutual respect.

I strongly advise my hon. colleagues to join me in voting against Bill C-292.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, introduced by the member for LaSalle—Émard. I will mention a few of the reasons why.

The Kelowna accord is not, was not and will not be a cure-all for the problems faced by aboriginal communities. What the Kelowna accord was and will be is merely a way to alleviate the major problems of these communities. On Monday, May 8, 2006, in support of the accord, I tabled a motion, on behalf of my party, to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development recommending the implementation of the Kelowna accord reached by representatives of Ottawa, Quebec, the provinces and national aboriginal leaders.

The tabling of this motion and Bill C-292, which we are debating today, remind us that, once again, the federal government has not respected its commitments and has not taken its responsibilities toward the aboriginal people. I would like to read the motion that I tabled and that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development adopted:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee recommends that government to implement the Kelowna agreement, entitled Strengthening Relationships and Closing the Gap, which was reached on November 25, 2005 between the First Ministers and the National Aboriginal Leaders.

That the Committee adopt these recommendations as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

We must not kid ourselves: the Kelowna accord is only a temporary measure that will not improve the living conditions of native people in the long run.

The accord would represent $5.1 billion over five years for education, health, housing and economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples. If we consider that those funds are to be divided among federal, Quebec, provincial and territorial governments before reaching first nations, Inuit and Métis, where the needs are critical, we realize that that is very little to really reduce the gap.

Quebec's first nations have tremendous needs, particularly in housing. Currently, they need over $700 million to provide the 7,000 housing units they lack—a figure that grows by hundreds of units every year. As we know, this housing deficit has extremely severe human and social consequences. Some health problems are linked directly to the housing shortage. We must quickly put a stop to increasing incidences of poisoning, infection, tuberculosis, and so on. The incidence of diabetes, fetal alcohol syndrome and suicide is also very worrisome.

Suicide is a serious problem. Even though rates vary considerably from one community to the next, they are too high overall. Suicide rates among first nations youth are 5 to 7 times higher than among non-aboriginal youth. The suicide rates of Inuit youth are among the highest in the world—11 times higher than the Canadian average. We must therefore invest time and resources without delay.

As far as education is concerned, if the government finally decided to tackle the problem, it would take 27 or 28 years to close the gap with other Quebeckers and Canadians, according to the 2004 Auditor General's report. That is very serious.

A number of reports from the Auditor General, as well as findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and, more recently, the latest report from the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the living conditions of the aboriginal people of Canada, are alarming.

(1110)

Many recommendations supported by aboriginals, Quebeckers and Canadians have been presented to Ottawa and have fallen on deaf ears.

On the eve of the conference of first ministers, the Bloc Québécois publicly supported the common position held by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and the Quebec Native Women's Association, who rejected the government's initiative.

The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and the Quebec Native Women's Association deplored the fact that the approach to narrowing the gap between the living conditions of first nations people and those of Quebeckers and Canadians did not address the real causes behind the first nations' situation, which are the lack of fair access to land and resources, and respect for their rights.

The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, and the Quebec Native Women's Association also deplored the fact that the objective of the Kelowna agreement, through its blanket treatment of all aboriginals and lack of consultation with the communities to identify the real challenges, would maintain the cycle of dependence of the first nations.

The Bloc Québécois feels that concrete solutions are needed that are adapted to the reality of the various aboriginal nations to correct at the foundation the inequalities that affect their communities. In addition, these measures must come out of discussions with the first nations, because money alone will not solve the problem. On the contrary, it perpetuates the paternalistic approach of the federal government toward aboriginals.

Now we know, here in this House, that the federal government has an obligation to meet the great needs of the aboriginal people, among other things those related to housing, infrastructure, education and health care.

The Bloc Québécois continues to make sure that Ottawa does not shirk its obligations as a trustee. The federal government should assume its responsibilities as long as all aboriginal nations do not have the tools for self-government. The first indications of this government's handling of the aboriginal issue are not very reassuring. For example, the initiative for a protocol for safe drinking water for first nations communities is commendable in and of itself. However, when the initiative sets aside communities with the greatest needs, those that still do not have a drinking water system and are still hauling their water in buckets, there is cause for concern.

I have just two minutes remaining, but I could talk about this for hours without putting this House to sleep. I will wrap up quickly.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-292. The commitments made by the federal government in Kelowna mark a first step toward bridging the gap between aboriginal nations and Quebeckers and Canadians. Let me be clear: this is a first step.

Aboriginal people must have all the tools to develop their own identity, namely the right to self-government and the recognition of their rights.

In closing I want to say that in a few days a socio-economic forum of the first nations will be held at Masteuiash in the Roberval area. It is an exceptional location for the current federal government to show a little more empathy toward the first nations and to announce, in Masteuiash, important decisions for those first nations. We must prevent the things we are currently seeing in the media. An article on October 7 said that aboriginal peoples are the most overrepresented group in Canada's prisons. This must stop. We believe that the Kelowna accord was a step in the right direction. We want to reiterate in this House that we will support this accord and this bill.

(1115)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of Bill C-292 and the New Democrats will be supporting this private member's bill. However, it is a sad statement that we need to bring forward a private member's bill to deal with some very serious and pressing issues in first nations communities from coast to coast to coast.

Lest we think that these conditions are new ones, the conditions that are currently in place in first nations communities are a result of decades of neglect and need to be laid, not only at the doorstep of the current Conservative government but also points to a failure of the previous Liberal government to deal with these issues.

I want to talk about some statistics that the Assembly of First Nations has put forward and the fact that it has launched a “Make Poverty History: The First Nations Plan for Creating Opportunity” campaign. The conditions it is talking about have not arisen since January 2006. These conditions have accumulated over decades. I will only talk about a few of these numbers because they are depressing and a shameful legacy for this country to be talking about the kinds of conditions that exist in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across the country.

Let us talk about children. We often talk about family values and how important children are to our country. We talk about needing to protect our children and yet in first nations communities one in four children live in poverty compared to one in six Canadian children. The rate of disabilities among first nations children is about one in eight and is almost double the rate among Canadian children, and over one-third of first nations households with children are overcrowded.

Let us talk about homes. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan many homes on first nations reserves are contaminated with mould and yet we seem to have very little action that addresses the crying need in these communities to have safe, clean, affordable housing. About one in three first nations people consider their main drinking water supply unsafe to drink and 12% of first nations communities have to boil their drinking water and mould contaminates almost half of all households.

In my own community there is a band called Penelakut on Kuper Island and its water source is below a decommissioned dump. The reserve has cases of rheumatic fever and the physicians in the area say that they have not seen rheumatic fever since they were in third world countries. Some of the band members talk about turning on their taps and having brown stuff come out.

I live on Vancouver Island where we have some of the cleanest water in Canada. The Cowichan Valley says that it has the cleanest water in Canada and yet the people of Penelakut cannot access clean water on a regular basis.

Let us talk about our communities and how we rank internationally. According to the AFN “Make Poverty History”, applying the United Nations human development index would rank first nations communities 68 among 174 nations. Canada has dropped from first to eighth due in part to the housing and health conditions in first nations communities. Most first nations, 80%, have personal incomes below $30,000 per year and half of all households have total incomes below that level. When people do not have the incomes to even attempt to improve their living conditions, how can we expect people to bring themselves up out of poverty?

Much has also been made about how much money is spent on first nations people. The section entitled “Fiscal Imbalance: The Truth About Spending on First Nations” states:

Per capita spending on First Nations is half the amount for average Canadians (between $7,000-$8,000 compared to $15,000-$16,000). Spending on First Nations through core federal programs is capped annually at rates lower than inflation and population growth.

A recent Auditor General's report talked about the fact that funding only increased at 1.6% per annum whereas population increased significantly more than that.

(1120)

Those were just a few statistics of the reality in first nations community and it is no different for the Inuit peoples in the north, the Métis people and the off reserve and urban aboriginals.

In any other country we would be pointing to these figures, facts, conditions and quality of life and saying that it was a shameful statement on that country. In our own country we continue to have those conditions and we ignore them daily.

The Conservatives have said that the Kelowna accord was signed on November 25 and that it was scratched out on a napkin somewhere. That is a total disrespect for the 18 months of work that went into the Kelowna agreement, 18 months of people from across the country coming together to lay out a framework and address the very serious and pressing needs in communities.

In my province of British Columbia, the premier and the then prime minister took it to heart. They saw the agreement as being something real and something that Canadians, including aboriginal peoples, wanted implemented. In fact, they signed a tripartite agreement. The first nations leadership from British Columbia, the prime minister and Premier Campbell, in good faith, signed the agreement called the transformative change accord and it was between the Government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada and the leadership council representing the first nations of British Columbia.

This agreement was done with a great deal of responsibility, fiscal, social, environmental and economic. People recognized that what happened in Kelowna was a framework that would allow people to move forward. It was a commitment on the part of the Liberal government of the day and the first nations peoples and they fully expected the future government to honour that commitment.

Recognizing that people wanted to see accountability and responsibility, the agreement laid out specific items. It laid out benchmarks for improving relationships by supporting a tripartite negotiation forum to address issues having to do with the reconciliation of aboriginal rights and titles. Numbers of treaties and increased awareness by public diversity were talked about. Benchmarks were laid out for closing the education gap and for improving housing.

Nothing in that agreement said that it was a fictional exercise in Kelowna. People expected some action but instead they got a Conservative government that rolled back the work that had been done.

The Conservatives have indicated their commitment by rolling back the Kelowna accord, by failing to invest in those key areas that first nations peoples said were critical and essential to their health and well-being and they have further demonstrated their lack of commitment by failing to look at the declaration on human rights for indigenous peoples.

I just want to go back to my own riding for one moment. The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group is a group of six nations that has been involved in treaties and it is currently looking at the dire circumstances in many communities. Under Canada's community well-being index used to examine the well-being of Canadian communities, the six Hul’qumi’num communities score between 448th and 482nd out of 486 communities surveyed in British Columbia. They could not get much farther down the list in terms of well-being. It is a shocking statement that this continues in this day and age.

The Kelowna accord was a good first step but it failed to address land claims, treaties and specific land claims. I would urge all members of the House to support the private member's bill but I also would encourage every member of the House to push for much more fair and equitable treatment in the country.

(1125)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reaffirm my support and that of my party for this private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

It is true that I too wish I did not have to stand here today in support of this bill, just as I am sure the member for LaSalle—Émard wishes he did not have to introduce the bill in the first place.

The new Conservative government was afforded an opportunity when it took power: an opportunity to provide for aboriginal peoples from coast to coast to coast. Blessed with a $13 billion surplus, due to the sound fiscal management of the previous Liberal government, and a ready made plan that only needed the confirmation of the new government, the Conservative government willingly and knowingly set back relations between Canada's aboriginal people and itself by not pledging its support for the Kelowna accord. It did this by abandoning it, trashing it and disrespecting it. The government abandoned aboriginal Canadians and, most important, it disrespected the processes aboriginal Canadians entered into in good faith.

We all know the accord is a landmark document. It signalled the start of a new era of cooperation and reconciliation in Canada, an era when our elected leaders from all parts of this great country said no. They said no to incidences of child mortality 20 times higher in aboriginal communities than in non-aboriginal communities. They said no to an unemployment rate for aboriginal Canadians that is 12% higher than that of non-aboriginal Canadians. They said no to deplorable overcrowded, mouldy housing conditions in which aboriginal Canadians, both on reserve and off reserve, find themselves. I invite members to come on a tour of some of the communities in my province to see the deplorable situations. They said no to a situation where aboriginal people are three times more susceptible to incidences of type II diabetes. They said no to third world poverty in a country such as ours. They said no to inadequate access to medical services and to third world diseases like tuberculosis.

The agreement was not between Liberals and aboriginal Canadians. It was not a partisan accord. It was an agreement between the Government of Canada, the leadership of all national aboriginal organizations in this country and the first ministers of all the provinces. This agreement spoke to the honour of the Crown. Everyone who was in Kelowna that weekend said that we had enough poverty and enough of a two tiered society.

From the outset, the Conservative government wasted no time in trashing and belittling this accord. The current immigration minister very quickly said that the accord was written on the back of a napkin. What an attitude. Unfortunately, this attitude has been borne out by subsequent events indicative of most of the views of members opposite.

The accord represented a new beginning in developing policies that affect aboriginal Canadians. It was a fully integrated and fully consultative process. It involved 18 months of talking with aboriginal Canadians, listening to aboriginal Canadians and working with aboriginal Canadians to formulate the policy and goals that are now part of the Kelowna accord. This process was a model for all departments of government for policy development. It included consultation, collaboration, stakeholder buy in, political commitment, respect for regional realities and differences, and the allocation of resources to begin the job that must be done.

To have this agreement described as being written on the back of a napkin is an insult to all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, who worked so hard and for so long to see the Kelowna accord come to fruition.

(1130)

Some members opposite have said that the money for the Kelowna accord was not booked by the previous government. I suggest that is another misrepresentation and another insult.

As has been confirmed by finance department officials, the money for the Kelowna accord was designated in the fiscal update presented by the former finance minister. The money was there. The funds were booked. To say otherwise is to perpetuate a myth. It is misleading the House.

The money was designated as a line item in the sources and uses table. The only ones who can remove a line item from a sources and uses table are the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

When members opposite muse as to the whereabouts of the money for the Kelowna accord, they can ask that question of the Prime Minister or the finance minister. They removed the money. They were the ones who abandoned the Kelowna accord. They were the ones who said yes to continue third world living conditions for aboriginal Canadians. They were the ones who indicated that the pressing needs of aboriginal peoples were not a priority for this government. They hold the brunt of the responsibility.

The government has now been in power for 10 long months. Its approach to dealing with aboriginal Canadians is becoming apparent. It is quite happy to revert to confrontational times that most Canadians believed were behind us. It seems to be prepared to dictate policy with only a gesture to consultation.

Along with Russia, the government does not want to champion the rights of indigenous people at the United Nations. It is prepared to create animosity where the Kelowna accord and the consultative process leading up to it achieved much in tearing down barriers between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

The era of the government handing down policy without consultation is behind us, or I should I say it was behind us until this government came to power. Aboriginal Canadians need to be at the table in determining policies. They do not need an overseer. They need to be a partner.

In my mind, any accord in which all of the ministers come to a consensus is a historical document. NDP premiers, Liberal premiers and Conservative premiers all said it was a historical document. They were all in support of it.

If I can quote NDP Premier Gary Doer of my province, the province of Manitoba, who said on the signing of the Kelowna accord:

This is the most significant contribution to aboriginals made by any Prime Minister in the last 30 years.

The Liberal premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, said upon its signing:

Our duty now is to ensure that when this room goes dark, the light that has been lit, the light of hope that has been lit over the last two days, lives on and burns brighter, month after month, year after year in our hearts and in Canada's corridors of power.

The Conservative Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, said:

We're committed to working hard on initiatives that will lead to significant improvement for aboriginal people in Canada over the next five or 10 years.

The only person who is not heeding the calls that it is time to help aboriginal Canadians is the individual who should be listening the hardest and most eager to help. That individual is the Prime Minister.

A true Prime Minister, a true leader, is the Prime Minister of all Canadians. The time for real leadership is now, leadership to alleviate the suffering of thousands of Canadians.

The Kelowna accord was an opportunity. It was an opportunity to end the shame in our country, an opportunity to allow aboriginal Canadians to be on the same level as non-aboriginal Canadians. It is the duty and responsibility of this government to see that this accord be implemented. It has failed. Not only did the Conservative government fail aboriginal Canadians but it failed all Canadians by abandoning this accord. It failed the premiers. It failed the aboriginal leadership.

As the opposition we had a choice to make. We could howl at the moon about the Prime Minister's shameful actions, or we could take action to overturn this meanspirited decision. We chose to take action, led by the efforts of the member for LaSalle—Émard and supported by the entire Liberal caucus. We are saying to Canada's aboriginal people, enough is enough.

(1135)

With that in mind, and in my heart, I am pleased to support the private member's bill. I urge all members of the House to support the bill, to indicate to aboriginal people, to the aboriginal leadership of the country, to the leadership of the provinces, and indeed to all Canadians that the House is truly committed to take action to ensure that all aboriginal people have the opportunity--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill C-292.

I commend the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard for providing us with another opportunity to discuss and consider the issues of importance to all Canadians and especially aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

Although I welcome this occasion to speak, I cannot support the proposed legislation for a very good reason. The previous Liberal government, after 13 years, clearly neglected aboriginal people all across Canada.

I am very proud to say that our new government and our new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is interested in doing the thing the previous government was unable to do and that is to look at the structural changes needed to actually bring benefits to the people in the communities, the people who have not seen benefits in the past, and are the ones who need it; We will not be growing the bureaucracy and not growing the system like the previous government would so love to do.

I would like to point out two other objections today. First, the bill is poorly conceived. It is not proposing a clear detailed policy and blueprint but rather a series of broad political commitments in a unilateral press release. Furthermore, it purports to extend statutory recognition to a one-time event and create a vague legal obligation to fulfill a series of wide-ranging commitments, a dubious proposition at best and certainly one which is unenforceable.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 25, you yourself mentioned that Bill C-292, in clause 2, does state that the government shall take all measures necessary to implement the terms of the accord, but it does not provide specific details on those measures. You said that the measures are simply not described.

In addition, Bill C-292 provides members with absolutely no idea of what obligations it would impose on government, nor whether those obligations would also apply to provinces and territories. That is an important issue for many of my colleagues in this chamber.

The second objection that I have is that Bill C-292 is redundant. Since taking office and in collaboration with our aboriginal, provincial and territorial partners, the new government has undertaken a new approach that will produce real solutions to the problems facing aboriginal people in Canada.

The approach focuses on moving aboriginal people from dependency to self-reliance through targeted efforts in four areas. The first is to empower individuals to take greater control and responsibility for their own lives through directing investments toward housing and education. Next, we are working to accelerate land claims. We are also promoting economic development, job training, skills and entrepreneurship. Finally, we are laying the ground work for responsible self-government by moving toward modern and accountable government structures.

We are already achieving results. Earlier this year, the government developed and launched an action plan to address drinking water concerns in first nation communities. This comprehensive plan consists of measures to identify communities at risk from unsafe water, ensure treatment facilities are managed by certifying operators, and implementing standards for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of treatment facilities.

Furthermore, there is a three member panel of experts who are conducting public hearings across the country to examine and provide options on the establishment of a regulatory framework to ensure safe drinking water in first nation communities.

We are also moving forward in collaboration with first nations people, the provinces and territories to reach workable legislative solutions to resolve the challenges presented by the current situation regarding matrimonial real property on reserves which affects a disproportionate number of women and children on reserves, particularly those experiencing family violence. Matrimonial real property on reserves is obviously a pressing equality issue and one we are committed to resolving.

Unfortunately, members from the party opposite, including the member for Winnipeg South Centre, have indicated that perhaps this is not something we should be proceeding with as soon as possible. I find that to be rather surprising coming from this member whom I thought was very concerned about this issue. To that end, this government has recently announced a national consultation process aimed at resolving the difficult issue of on reserve matrimonial real property.

(1140)

In this day and age, it is unacceptable that women and children, families and communities on reserve are still struggling with an issue that has been long neglected, and it is a shame. This situation is the result of a legislative void because provincial and territorial laws that deal with the matter elsewhere in the country do not apply on reserve. The federal Indian Act, which governs practically all aspects of life on reserve, is very silent on this issue.

As a result of this legislative gap, legal rights and remedies that are applicable off reserve are not available to individuals living in first nations communities. As a consequence, many women are subjected to discrimination and denied basic human rights that other Canadians all take for granted. It is essential that we deal with this issue as soon as possible because clearly, after 13 years, the previous government made no efforts in that area.

Education is yet another area in which our government is enabling real change for first nations people. In July we signed an agreement with the province of British Columbia and the British Columbia first nations education steering committee to enable first nations in B.C. to assume meaningful control on reserve elementary and secondary schools in areas such as curriculum, educational standards and teacher's certification. This means that first nations children in British Columbia will be able to obtain an education that meets provincial standards but that is also culturally relevant. That is essential.

As we know, first nations individuals all across Canada, in fact all aboriginal people, are just as capable of learning, but learning is something that requires a cultural sensitivity that we have not seen in the past. I am proud that our government is moving forward in this area.

Another issue which is very important, again left by the previous government at our feet, is a process that our minister has put forward to accelerate land claims. There is a huge backlog of claims which is completely unacceptable and indicates that the current system is clearly not up to the task.

Settlements are about justice, respect and reconciliation. More than coming to terms with the past though, settlements are also about building a better future for communities that are sometimes isolated and far from our current economic setters. Each settlement clears a path to strengthened governance and will also strengthen new economic and social opportunities. Settlements can also mean that valuable resources are spent on communities rather than courtrooms.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I are steadfast in our resolve to work with aboriginal partners on shared priorities to develop effective, sustainable approaches to overcome the pressing challenges in our aboriginal communities.

The government's approach to resolving aboriginal issues, including water, matrimonial real property, education, housing, women and children is all focused on tangible results and clear accountability. Bill C-292 proposes an approach characterized by vague promises and general objectives, something that the previous government was excellent at doing.

Accordingly, I will be voting against Bill C-292 and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

(1145)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak to Bill C-292, a very commendable private member's bill from the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am also very honoured to have been involved in the discussions and preparations that went into the Kelowna accord. There was over 13 months of work by the Inuit organization and other aboriginal organizations in Canada. For the party across the way to oversimplify that is very discouraging. For people to say that it was not an agreement or an accord, that it could be disregarded because there was no signed agreement and no budget for it really is oversimplifying the situation. It also adds insult to all the preparatory work that people did on the agreement.

I was in my riding last week speaking with different groups that are suffering badly from the recent cuts to the social programs. The various cuts announced by the Conservative government affect literacy programs, the museum assistance program, and women's groups. The cuts are really affecting the work that communities have been trying to do at the ground level. The Conservative government does not realize the impact these cuts are having on communities. This solidifies my belief that the Conservatives do not understand what reversing the Kelowna agreement has done to our people. I speak mainly for my riding of Nunavut because that is the region I understand the best, but I have spoken with people all across the country and they believed that the Kelowna accord would give them the tools for them to provide their own solutions. They believed that the government of the day recognized their ability to run their own affairs, to come up with their own solutions and to put into play ways of governance that had been there for them in the past.

The recent history of this country has made it very difficult for people in the communities to practise their own ways of governing, their own ways of reconciling differences, their own ways of educating their people, which really are not very different from those of the rest of the country. It is just that we have learned to look at things through a different lens. We all have the same end goals, but the way to achieve those end goals can differ from one part of the country to another, or from one cultural group to another. As I said, the end goals are the same, and they are to provide a good future for our children and to take advantage of this country's resources, which every Canadian should be able to access. How we reach those goals can be different.

We certainly have different ways of looking at things and understanding things as a native people, but at the end of the day we all want what is best for our children. We all want to achieve those goals in a way that works for us. It means understanding that we have to do things our own way and, yes, make our own mistakes. Since Nunavut has become a new territory, we have certainly experienced challenges and have made mistakes along the way, but at least they have been our mistakes.

The Kelowna accord gave us the tools, the mechanisms and the resources, because we do need investments in a different way than has worked for people in the south. Education is a very strong component. The Berger report indicated very strongly that we need to educate our people in a way that is different from that in the rest of the country. It is not to say that we are any less able to be educated but that we need to look at different ways of reaching the knowledge that people have.

(1150)

The Kelowna accord was certainly a step in the right direction for this country. I ask members in the House to support this private member's bill because it would put us back on the right track to where we were going before. We have been derailed but I certainly hope that we can get back on the right track with this accord.

I thank the members of other parties who have indicated they will support this private member's bill. Again, I urge all members to support this bill. I give credit to my colleague for bringing forward this private member's bill. I know he truly believes this is a way we can bring a group of people from our history back on a level playing field with the rest of the country. I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who have been very strong in their support. I certainly will be supporting this private member's bill.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard has five minutes for his reply at the end of the debate.

He therefore has the floor.

(1155)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.):

Why Kelowna, Mr. Speaker? Because, compared to other Canadians, the aboriginal people of Canada earn nearly 40% less and they have a life expectancy 10 years shorter. They are twice as likely to live in poverty and three times less likely to graduate from university.

[English]

Why Kelowna? Because Canada has the means to achieve its goals and the moral responsibility to do so.

Those who were in that room that day in Kelowna included the aboriginal leadership in this country and representatives of all of the political parties in this room and across the country. No one in that room had any doubt as to the significance of the agreement that we came to and the significance of what had been done. Every single person who was in that room, every single person who for close to 18 months through a series of round tables and detailed negotiation put everything they had into it and came to that agreement on that historic day, it demeans them for the government to say that this was not worth the paper it was written on, to say that it had no content.

The Kelowna accord was reached by the aboriginal leadership of our country, by every single one of the provinces and territories without exception, and by the federal government. It set out funding for five years of $5.1 billion, funding that was provided for by the then minister of finance. The Kelowna accord consisted of longer term objectives to be achieved and then measured over a series of shorter term markers to be developed by all of the parties.

That is important because what was incorporated in the Kelowna accord was working with the aboriginal leadership and provinces, all governments coming together. This was not an imposition. This was indeed a significant agreement as Canadians from coast to coast to coast said that no longer were they going to allow to continue the unacceptable conditions in which aboriginals live.

The government has said that it agrees with the principles of the Kelowna accord. I ask it to act on those principles.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

It being 12:01 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(1200)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, 2006, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Criminal Code

The House resumed from October 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments). The government has already presented important measures in the House that aim at providing better protection for Canadians against crime.

Bill C-23 responds to the government's multifaceted goal of tackling crime by strengthening sentencing measures, enhancing the efficiency of certain procedures and improving access to justice by clarifying court related language rights provisions in criminal proceedings. Most of these amendments are the result of changes that the provinces, territories and other stakeholders have been instrumental in helping our government identify.

Hon. members will appreciate that Bill C-23 is not about fundamental law reform. Rather, it is about fine tuning. While the amendments contained in Bill C-23 are generally of a technical nature, they are nonetheless important. These amendments can be divided into three major groups. I propose to first highlight some of the criminal procedure amendments. I will then say a few words with respect to the amendments proposed to the language rights provisions of the Criminal Code. Finally, I will detail some of the sentencing amendments.

First, let me deal with criminal procedure.

Criminal procedure amendments would, among other things, improve procedural efficiencies and rectify certain shortcomings in criminal proceedings. Other amendments would confirm the intent behind some criminal procedure provisions and clarify their application. For instance, a corrective amendment is needed to rectify the situation by which the appeal route of a Superior Court judge's order is to return seized property to another judge of the same court. This is obviously problematic. In order to make this appeal route consistent with other similar appeal route processes and to avoid the unusual situation whereby a judge is called upon to review the decision of a fellow judge from the same level of court, the amendment would provide that the appeal of a superior court in relation to the forfeiture of things seized would lie with the Court of Appeal rather than with the Superior Court.

Another amendment would bring more clarity to section 481.2 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the ability to charge and try an accused in any territorial division for an act or omission committed outside of Canada. This amendment would clarify that the intent would not be to make any criminal act or omission committed outside of Canada an offence in Canada. Usually offences are prosecuted in the territorial division where they are committed. This, however, poses a difficulty with respect to those offences that, while having been committed outside of Canada, can be prosecuted in our country in accordance with a federal statute. War crimes are examples of such offences.

Unfortunately, the current wording of section 481.2 leaves room for interpretation whereby any offence committed outside of Canada could be prosecuted here, and that is clearly not the case. The amendment would now make it clear that this provision would deal strictly with court jurisdiction and would act as a residual clause where proper court jurisdiction with respect to territorial division would not otherwise be provided for in another federal statute.

Another criminal procedure amendment is proposed with respect to the right of an accused to be tried before a judge, sitting without a jury, where an indictment has been preferred; that is, where the Crown files the indictment directly before the Superior Court. Currently, when this is the case, the accused may not, without the written consent of the Crown prosecutor, choose to be tried before a court sitting without a jury. The amendment would allow the accused to elect to be tried before a Superior Court judge, sitting without a jury, subject to certain conditions. This amendment would introduce more flexibility and would assist in avoiding unnecessary jury trials where the accused would prefer to be tried by a judge alone.

(1205)

Another proposed amendment will streamline the process for executing search warrants in a jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction where the search warrant has been issued. Currently, before a search warrant can be executed in another province, it must be presented to a judge or a justice in the other jurisdiction for endorsement in its original paper form. Obviously, this can be time consuming, complicated and inefficient. This process is resource intensive and very time consuming. The proposed amendment will allow the search warrant to be sent by facsimile or by another means of telecommunication, thereby permitting a copy of the search warrant to be endorsed by a judge or a justice in that other jurisdiction.

By taking advantage of technologies that are both reliable and expedient, we are making better use of the time and resources of law enforcement agencies.

Bill C-23 also contains two amendments in relation to jury selection. When selecting jurors, the Crown and the defence are each afforded a certain number of peremptory challenges; that is the ability to unilaterally reject a potential juror without having to invoke any specific ground. One proposed amendment will fill a gap in the current scheme by clarifying that peremptory challenges will also be available where a sworn juror is excused before the evidence is heard and where a replacement juror must be selected.

The other proposed amendment will assist in preserving the impartiality of prospective jury members, as well as sworn jurors, by providing the court with the power to order the exclusion of jurors from the courtroom where a potential juror is being questioned in the course of a challenge for cause and may potentially through his or her answers inadvertently jeopardize the jurors impartiality.

These technical yet practical changes to the various processes that operate in the criminal justice system will contribute to the improvement and greater efficiency of criminal procedure.

I will speak a bit about language rights. The amendments in Bill C-23 with respect to language rights deal with an accused person during a criminal proceeding. The right of all accused to a trial in either official language is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the language provisions enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867, and in section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Since 1978, the Criminal Code has sought to ensure access to services of equal quality for members of both official language communities. This is an important objective because, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted, “Rights regarding the English and French languages are basic to the continued viability of the nation”.

From time to time it becomes necessary for Parliament to intervene to provide the means by which such rights can be enjoyed.

Canadians have told us there are still obstacles to full and equal access to the criminal justice system in one's own official language. Court decisions, as well as reports by the Commissioner of Official Languages, confirm that barriers continue to stand in the way of the exercise of these fundamental rights. The proposed amendments will bring the Criminal Code provisions in line with judicial interpretation, thereby avoiding misunderstandings, legal debates and costly delays. One example of such difficulties involves the application of the language provisions of the Criminal Code to bilingual trials. In R. v. Beaulac, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that all the rights that are provided to an accused person in the context of a trial in one official language also apply to bilingual trials. Yet the lower courts are still struggling with these issues as well as with the practical manner in which bilingual trials are to be held.

The proposed amendments clarify such matters and specify that the right of an accused person to be tried by a judge, who speaks the official language of the accused, as well as the duty of the Crown prosecutor to speak that language, indeed do apply to bilingual trials. The amendments also provide the presiding judge with the necessary tools to manage bilingual trials in a fair and efficient manner. In doing so, the amendments implement recommendations made by the commissioner of official languages in 1995 that certain amendments be made to section 530 of the Criminal Code.

The commissioner's study also identified another vexing problem. The study noted that difficulties had arisen in a situation where there were co-accused who did not speak the same official language and that, in the absence of clear indications in the Criminal Code, the matter was being raised more and more frequently.

(1210)

Some courts have ordered that each co-accused be tried separately in his or her official language. Such decisions have significant repercussions on court resources, as they involve a duplication of trials. They also offend the general principle that persons who are jointly accused should normally be tried together. On the other hand, some courts have ruled that the right of each accused can be reconciled by ordering a bilingual trial.

The proposed amendment brings clarity to the issue by stipulating that the situation of a joint trial involving co-accused, who do not share the same official language, warrants an order for a trial before a judge or judge and jury who speak both official languages. Such an amendment not only brings greater clarity to the code, but also ensures that a proper balance is struck between the rights of the accused person and the efficient administration of justice.

When taken as a whole, the proposed amendments are balanced and fair. They will resolve a number of problems that have been identified with the existing provisions, bringing greater efficiency and putting an end to some persistent legal debates, while also removing some of the hurdles on the road to a greater access to justice in both official languages in our country.

I now turn to the issue of sentencing and I will highlight some of the amendments that are proposed to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-23 contains a number of proposed amendments, some of which will clarify how certain sanctions are intended to apply. Others will improve existing processes or update the law in this area. For instance, one amendment will allow a sentencing court to refer an offender, under the supervision of the court and in appropriate circumstances, to a provincially or territorially approved treatment program before sentence is imposed. In the right circumstances and where appropriate, addiction treatment programs and domestic violence counselling programs can contribute to public protection from crimes where the underlying causes are addiction or where there has been family violence.

Early court supervised access by offenders to these treatment programs can serve as a strong incentive for behavioural change and successful rehabilitation. Specialized drug treatment courts, such as the ones in place in Toronto and Vancouver, are based on the U.S. model that works to adjourn sentencing proceedings, following a finding of guilt, to allow the offender to enter and to complete a court mandated program. By delaying sentencing until the completion of the program, the offender is given a strong incentive to succeed.

Domestic violence courts or court processes have also been implemented in a number of jurisdictions across Canada. These specialized courts include education, counselling or treatment programs for offenders aimed at reducing the offending behaviour.

Allowing sentencing courts to refer offenders in appropriate circumstances to such programs before sentence is imposed will promote early access to rehabilitation and reduce recidivism, thereby contributing to the protection of the public by attacking the source of the problem at an earlier stage.

Another proposed amendment to the sentencing proceedings will provide appeal courts with the power to suspend a conditional sentence order until the appeal is determined. Currently what can sometimes happen is that the conditional sentence is served before the appeal from sentence or conviction is heard. This amendment will ensure consistency with similar appeal court powers, such as in the case of a probation order where a suspension of the sentence, until the appeal is determined, is already provided.

A related amendment, applicable to both conditional sentence orders and probation orders, would allow the court that imposed one of these two sentences the power to bind the person until the appeal would be determined with conditions similar to those imposed on an accused person who is released on bail.

One amendment is also proposed to update the provision with respect to forfeiture of computer systems and other things used in the commission of certain child pornography offences by adding to the existing list of offences the offence of luring a child by means of a computer, so a court may also order the forfeiture and disposal of computers where the offender is convicted of luring a child.

With respect to clarifying current penalties, one Criminal Code proposed amendment will expressly state that where no maximum jail term is provided in a federal statute for an offender who is in default of a monetary penalty imposed for an indictable offence, the maximum term of imprisonment will be five years.

(1215)

Penalties for impaired driving offences where there is a death or injury are also clarified by an amendment so that there is no uncertainty: minimum fines and jail terms that must be imposed for a first, second or subsequent driving offence, such as failure or refusal to provide a breath sample, must also be imposed when the impaired driving offender is convicted of the more serious offences of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.

This amendment will mean that conditional sentence orders cannot be imposed for impaired driving offences causing injury or death, as the Criminal Code does not authorize the imposition of such orders for an offence where a minimum penalty is provided.

Other impaired driving offences will tighten and clarify application of driving prohibition orders, including the application of ignition interlock device programs, with a possibility of early return to driving where the program is in place.

Bill C-23 will also increase the current $2,000 maximum fine that can be imposed for a summary conviction. This amount has remained untouched since 1985, while the monetary values for other offences have increased. It is time to update the law in this area by raising the maximum monetary penalty to $10,000. The increase will provide more flexibility for crown prosecutors to proceed by way of summary conviction, in particular where the sanction sought is a higher amount than $2,000.

Before I conclude, there is one final sentencing amendment that I feel should be highlighted, that is, the amendment with respect to victims of unwanted communications.

Such orders can already be imposed on an accused person in remand or released on bail as well as on an offender who is on probation. Current disciplinary measures in correctional institutions with respect to unwanted communications vary among jurisdictions, with most cases being addressed on a case by case basis.

This amendment will provide sentencing courts with an added means to protect victims from unwanted communications by providing the sentencing court with the power to order a convicted person not to communicate with identified persons such as victims and witnesses while the person is incarcerated.

In addition, it will be an offence to breach an order not to communicate with an identified person.

In conclusion, I wish to state that in contemplating criminal law reform we must not lose sight of the system in which these substantive provisions of the Criminal Code operate. It is important that we take the time to respond to calls for changes such as the ones highlighted today, so that our criminal justice system can most effectively contribute to the protection of society. That, I trust, is the goal of all parliamentarians in this place.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some time to comment on the work of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. I believe that most the provisions of this bill came from the law conference's work. There are 46 clauses affecting different areas in the Criminal Code and in procedure.

I would like an acknowledgement by the parliamentary secretary that the bulk of the work for the bill was done by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. In my speech, I will be talking about what it does for us in this country.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work on the justice committee and on these issues and the many bills we are putting forward as a government.

As I stated, these provisions draw on input that we received from across Canada. These provisions and the streamlining are measures that provinces have called for.

I used as an example the issue of using a fax machine. That brings us into the modern era. Rather than having someone such as a police officer, who could be out on the street protecting citizens, doing the mundane task of getting an original signature, under Bill C-23 we would be able to use a fax machine.

On raising the $2,000 fine for a conditional sentence, that maximum was last revisited in 1985. As we know, the price of almost everything has gone up. This will give prosecutors the means to proceed by way of summary conviction, which will do more to unclog the court system when a fine of more than $2,000 is sought. They will still be able to achieve that greater fine by going by way of summary conviction.

I will say to the hon. member that the bill does draw on the input from a broad section of input from across Canada. Certainly this is being called for by those who work in the criminal justice system. They want us to make our criminal justice system more streamlined and more effective so that our police can be out enforcing the laws rather than going through greater bureaucracies.

(1220)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns clause 6 of the bill, amending subsection 204(2) of the Criminal Code.

I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to tell the House how far the proposed amendment is intended to go, because it is not entirely clear to me. Perhaps the committee will have to look at that if this bill is passed at second reading stage.

With respect to gaming and betting, that clause would allow the Criminal Code to keep up with the new telecommunication technologies, and Internet in particular.

Could the hon. parliamentary secretary tell us a bit more about the proposed amendment to subsection 204(2) of the Criminal Code?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore:

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 makes note of “by any means of telecommunication”. The hon. member made note of that in his question.

Bill C-23 in many ways recognizes that there has been a great change in our society and in technology since many of these provisions were put in place. For example, 20 years ago people would not have contemplated that someone would use a computer and something called the Internet to lure a child and potentially commit a further criminal offence. That is why this bill seeks to attack the issue of Internet luring. It has become very serious. We have heard testimony about it over the last couple of years. We have heard disturbing reports of people using computers and the Internet to lure children, even from outside Canada.

Our Criminal Code has to evolve with evolving technology. The hon. member points out a provision in the bill that does this. As I mentioned on the subject of Internet luring, for example, this bill provides that the mode used to commit the offence, the computer, can be forfeited to the Crown. Under current law, that is not the case.

We want to put a little more teeth into our laws to allow our justice system to better protect all Canadians, but as the hon. member pointed out, we also have to recognize that society and technology are advancing and the Criminal Code has to adapt. For example, it is being brought up to date so that a fax machine can be used for some of these orders, and even fax machines are getting to be behind the times. This is an effort to keep the Criminal Code in some way up to date with the times.

As well, the maximum fine for a summary conviction is $2,000, which in 2006 is not what it was 20 years ago. Criminals recognize that. The profit margins that can be gained by criminal organizations and offenders may far outweigh the fines, so we need to bring this more into step with today's current realities.

(1225)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes:

Mr. Speaker, whether I get the answer to my question now or at a later stage, I want to flag one thing in this bill, which is that two unsworn jurors will determine whether the cause of a challenge is true in a criminal procedure. I was wondering what the rationale would be for having unsworn jurors as opposed to sworn jurors.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore:

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to exploring in committee all areas of the bill and this question and all questions the hon. member may have, which can be put to our witnesses there. Some of the provisions dealing with jurors have dealt with not wanting to taint the sworn jurors when there are questions being put to potential jurors by crown attorneys and by defence lawyers. This is one area relating to jurors which we have to address to ensure that people get a fair trial.

Most of what is contained in Bill C-23 is there to streamline our judicial process, to make it more effective and to take out some of the ancient modes used in the past. Bill C-23 recognizes that we are living in a new era where we have to use a more streamlined system. It recognizes that technology has moved on, so we as a government have to move on in order to better protect society.

That is the main thrust of the bill. It is not to make major substantive changes. We have other bills, such as Bills C-9 and C-10, that make some very substantive changes to the Criminal Code. Bill C-23 is going to make our entire system more streamlined without making major changes to the code itself.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is comprised of numerous unrelated amendments in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing, and some other matters.

From time to time this type of legislation is required to do a general cleanup of sections that need changes for either a practical reason, a legal reason or an administrative reason, and sometimes even for substantive modernization of sections of the Criminal Code.

This is a bill that should go to the committee for fine tuning and due consideration of each section. Amendments, where and if required, could be made at the committee.

This bill was read for the first time on June 22, 2006. I must say that in the past, briefings on new bills were provided to the opposition critics either shortly after the bill was introduced or upon request. It was always up to an opposition critic whether he or she wished to accept a departmental briefing. I certainly encourage the government to provide departmental briefings. As justice critic I had asked for a briefing on this bill back in June and again over the summer months. None was provided until the first week the House resumed sitting in mid-September.

I remind the government that it is a minority government supposedly wishing to pass legislation through this House.

When the government finally allowed access to the appropriate individuals who worked on this bill and were knowledgeable, they had been instructed that no paper briefing was required. Remember that there are 46 disparate parts to the bill.

The Minister of Justice in his first meeting at committee agreed that briefings are useful and we would be receiving them.

Briefings that are given to critics months after the request, or without some written information, are not as useful as they could be. I do not wish to leave any impression that those who provided the oral briefing from the Department of Justice were in any way unhelpful; they were not; it was more the timing and the documentation. This issue is more a political decision, certainly not a bureaucratic decision.

Since I have raised this more than once and I have tried to raise it privately, I am now raising it publicly because I believe it should be fixed for future bills. Most of us, and I would hope all of us actually, came here to do good policy work. There is no need to allow a political agenda to override working in the best interests of all Canadians, which does include full and timely briefings on procedures and for the bills that are laid before this House. I trust that this situation will now be corrected and will be rectified for future bills.

Today I pushed to have a briefing on a bill that is on the order paper for later this week and I was advised that it was done.

My point is that as a critic on government bills I should not have to be pushing to have a briefing from the government on a bill. The bureaucracy, the officials, the best known people working on that bill over a long period of time should not have to beg for this type of information. That information should be shared, especially if we are trying to move forward together on some of this implementation.

This bill, as I said before, includes 46 clauses. Not all are substantive amendments to the Criminal Code. For instance, the bill establishes the general rule that in criminal matters the service of any document and proof of service may be made in accordance with provincial law. This seems incredibly straightforward. I do not see problems with this. To reflect this rule, a number of the provisions of the code have been repealed.

Many of the provisions in Bill C-23 are as a result of consultation with the provinces and territories within the context of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. Because many people in our system would not realize who provides input into these types of amendments, I thought I would put forward some of the information that I gleaned about this organization from its website and other places.

The Uniform Law Conference of Canada operates in two sections, one being the criminal section and the other being the civil section.

The criminal section unites prosecutors for federal, provincial and territorial governments with defence counsel and judges to consider proposals to amend criminal laws which are mainly under the federal authority of Canada through the Criminal Code of Canada. Since the administration of criminal justice is undertaken by the territories and provinces, they are the administrators of the systems.

(1230)

The meetings of the criminal section give the provinces and the territories a chance to ask questions of the federal government and suggest ways to make the system better and reflect the challenges they come across in their day to day operations in performing that administration service. Often they suggest changes based on identified deficiencies or detect gaps in existing law, or it could be problems created by judicial interpretation of existing law. The annual meetings of this conference are not public ones but they are attended by persons designated by their respective governments at the federal, provincial and territorial levels.

The Uniform Law Conference is a volunteer organization. Its work over the years has been extremely useful to the justice system in the land, but it has been relatively unheralded. Like many volunteer organizations in Canada, it is important to recognize and acknowledge its valuable work.

I want to pass now to some of the examples of substantive changes contained in Bill C-23. The first one I will talk about is the default maximum fine for a summary conviction which is being increased from $2,000 to $10,000. Also, we have the realm of having bilingual trials warranted where they involve co-accused who understand different official languages. I also think that this is a good advance.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to my colleague, I would like to be able to follow her speech, but there is no French interpretation right now. There has not been any interpretation for about five minutes. I hope that the interpreter is not dead or incapacitated. I am worried.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I wish to inform the House, including the honourable member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that we realize that the simultaneous interpretation system has not been working for about five minutes. It is being worked on and will be fixed shortly.

(1235)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes:

Mr. Speaker, do you wish me to continue without the translation?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I said that the problem would be solved any minute and, as we can see, it has now been corrected.

The hon. member for London West.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes:

Translation is very important in this House.

[English]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleague from the Bloc, I will repeat that having a bilingual trial is warranted where it involves co-accused who understand different official languages. That is a very important part of the bill.

Orders of prohibition from driving are being made consecutive. I will talk about that a bit later.

Another area that is substantive is allowing a sentencing delay to enable the offender to receive some treatment. This is a positive development in the bill.

Another change in the bill is proposing that two unsworn jurors decide whether the cause of challenge is true. I asked the parliamentary secretary to provide information but I did not get a clear answer in the House. When the bill gets to committee, I suppose we will get the real information as to why they are unsworn. I heard a partial answer, but this still needs clarifying.

Clauses 23 and 24 of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) are concerned with changes to direct indictments. I believe we would want to hear more about these changes from criminal defence lawyers at committee. I would also like to hear some expert evidence on the area of the peremptory challenges which are affected by clauses 25 and 26 of the bill. Again, these are not matters that we have to debate at this stage, but I am flagging them so the government will be prepared to make sure these areas are contained.

With respect to subclause 8(3) of the bill which addresses consecutive periods of prohibition for driving, this may allow for extremely long prohibition times. This in turn could upset the balance in sentencing principles in section 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code. The court has an obligation to avoid unduly harsh or long consecutive sentences. We will have to take a look at this area.

I understand clause 37 of Bill C-23 has been proposed to address issues raised by some of the case law in the land. This clause adds a requirement for the court to explain to the offender the mandatory and optional conditions that the offender must meet as part of his probation. Does this mean that the judge should do this personally in court, or will delegation to court officials suffice? I had briefings in this area, but further explanation will be required. This would appear to revert to a former practice in the courtrooms in many years past.

Clause 9 of the bill changes the offence of possession of break-in instruments from an indictable offence to a dual procedure offence. That will obviously allow the prosecutor to make the choice to go with a summary conviction where it is deemed appropriate.

There are many more sections of Bill C-23 which I have not highlighted. The Library of Parliament has put out a very good summary for my colleagues to look at if they are interested in any of the specific sections of the bill. I think it is fair to say that the bill has been out since the summer time and I do not think it has attracted wide attention. I have consulted with some of the people who will have to use these sections in the courtrooms.

The bill quite rightly should go to committee. I encourage those most affected by the operations of these individual clauses to come to the committee as witnesses. We will have to deal with any piece of information or slight adjustment that may be required at that time.

In due course, if the House forwards the bill to the committee, which I believe it will do, we will have the opportunity to work further on sections of the bill. Unlike some of the other justice bills we are faced with in the House, this bill has less of an ideological bent. This is something that has been worked on over time by the provinces, territories and the federal government.

(1240)

Many of these provisions take years to work through the system. Every once in a while this type of omnibus legislation is required where technical amendments are being made. Criminal law is a living statute. It benefits from being modernized by using our new technologies as has been suggested by some of the other speakers.

At this point, I see no real areas of ideological controversy or any other type of controversy. In due course, I could be corrected by experts who might come forward at committee stage and point out some serious flaws which at this stage of the game we have not seen.

I will be encouraging my caucus to move this bill forward to the committee stage. Each and every stage of a bill is important, but this is the preliminary stage and these changes could serve the justice system well in that administration.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I am in complete agreement: Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) needs some fine tuning.

I trust that my colleague believes, as I do, that this is probably one of the most interesting pieces of legislation tabled by this government in the past few months. However, I would have this to say. Unlike Bills C-9 and C-10, Bill C-23seems very interesting at first glance. I believe that we, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, should spend some time on it as it really strikes me as very important.

This is the question for my colleague: does she know whether or not the Law Commission of Canada—which our current government has just cut or would like to abolish—helped draft Bill C-23 and made any recommendations? In addition, are these the recommendations found in Bill C-23? If yes, which ones are they?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes:

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Law Commission of Canada is a separate entity from the Uniform Law Conference.

The Law Commission of Canada that was just gutted in its financing is a different entity. It was a very valuable entity to helping modernize Canadian law in all fields and not just the criminal law field. The Law Commission of Canada has done superb work.

Actually, there is a matter of privilege before the Speaker because the Law Commission of Canada was established by statute of Parliament. What we just received with the Law Commission of Canada was the cutting of funding for this organization when in fact the Minister of Justice has to respond to the reports of the Law Commission of Canada. The Law Commission of Canada has a statutory authority to report to Parliament. Its reports are tabled in the House and the Minister of Justice has a statutory obligation to respond to those reports.

Over the years, the Law Commission of Canada has done amazing work on everything from immigration issues, to equality issues, and to issues pertaining to all of the workers of the land. If we look at its annual reports, we can see the breadth and knowledge of work being provided to the House.

In fact, I have tabled a motion in the justice committee that deals not only with the current minority government's decision to remove the financing from the Law Commission of Canada but also the court challenges program. These are two incredibly important and short-sighted decisions of the current government.

When the member asked me about the Canadian bar or anyone else, it raises the concept of consultation on government bills. I have no idea who was consulted on this bill. I think the provinces and the territories were consulted because we know of the input of the Uniform Law Conference. Therefore, there would have been wide consultations.

When we have wide consultations of the appropriate players, we generally get a bill that can be dealt with efficiently in the parliamentary process because a lot of the kinks have been worked out. A lot of the obvious problems have been worked through, people have come together to discuss solutions and so the legislation that is properly consulted and not merely ideologically driven comes to us in a better form for us to deal with.

Here we have an example of legislation. Even though it contains 46 different issues, we have an example of where we have had the broad consultation that was necessary. When that is done, our job as parliamentarians is much easier. We are not doing the same initial level of research, looking for the constitutional or other deficiencies that could easily show up in a piece of legislation, whether it is intended or unintended.

I am concerned when we get the other type of legislation which is the ideologically driven legislation and sometimes we get unintended consequences. That is especially true if we are trying to amend pieces of legislation that have deficiencies in them. In past years, we have sent some of the controversial bills before second reading to committee. This allowed the committee to do a better job at looking at the bill in total and making amendments to legislation that work for the betterment of the bill. When we do it the other way after second reading, it makes it much more difficult.

(1245)

It really does set us up for all or nothing approaches, which is not helpful and not what is intended when parliamentarians from all parties come to this House to work for good policy or good administration, especially in the areas of justice.

This is a bill that has gone through sufficient consultation, the nature of it, but would it have been from the Law Commission of Canada? I am not sure at this point.

I do respond to my colleague, who currently also serves and works hard on the justice committee, by saying that I hope, and it is my wish, that we have good consultation on all bills that come to committee. Otherwise, what we have is just a deceptive practice of stacking numbers of bills high on the order paper with no intention of ever getting them through, doing it for a political agenda instead of a real work agenda. We on this side of the House are concentrating on the real work agenda for Parliament.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I would like to advise the hon. member for York South--Weston that my glasses are foggy when he is not in his own seat.

I can now see and recognize the hon. member for York South--Weston.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I have changed seats so many times that I had actually forgotten where I was supposed to be sitting.

I wonder if I could ask the member a question. Whenever we are dealing with provisions dealing with summary conviction, in my experience summary conviction legislation is to expedite court proceedings and allow the judge a little more flexibility with respect to a delineation of offences where summary conviction proceedings can apply.

Does the member have any problems in terms of prejudicing a co-accused? It has been the experience in the court that where charges are laid, those charges are dealt with, with the co-accused where there are two or more that have been accused of a particular crime.

I understand from this legislation that under summary convictions, where the co-accused does not appear, the judge has the flexibility to allow the proceedings to continue. I wonder if that is an element of the legislation that could be investigated at committee. I am given to understand that there may be some problems with respect to the nature of justice that would apply in those cases where that provision would be implemented.

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The hon. member for London West will want to know that there is less than a minute to respond.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes:

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will compliment you on your discretion on having foggy glasses to allow my colleague to put his concern on the table, and say that in committee we will have noted his concern in this area and will talk about it because there are some provisions about the co-accused in this document.

I also want to clarify the point that summary conviction, where it is a lesser offence, is two years less a day. When there is a dual procedure offence, it could be the same charge, but the more serious would be proceeded with by way of indictment. The sanctions in sentencing would be two years or more.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recommend that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) be referred to a committee for review.

A number of members have already expressed their support for this bill, which seeks to meet current needs, to propose legislative amendments to address procedural anomalies, to make corrections and to clarify current ambiguities in some Criminal Code provisions. It also modernizes other provisions by introducing the use of communication technologies.

This bill is the result of proposals made in cooperation with the provinces, the territories, interest groups—such as the Uniform Law Conference of Canada—representing linguistic minorities and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The changes to Bill C-23 affect three main areas, namely criminal procedure, language of the accused and sentencing. I am going to review some of the changes proposed in this legislation, beginning with those affecting criminal procedure.

The purpose of one of the proposed amendments is to reclassify the offence of possession of break-in instruments into a dual procedure offence, that is an offence for which the prosecutor may proceed by way of indictable offence, or by way of summary conviction. Currently, under the Criminal Code, the indictable offence route is the only option for possession of break and enter instruments. However, experience has shown that this offence often results in a penalty similar to that imposed in the case of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Under the circumstances, it is important not to impose on the prosecutor the more onerous indictable offence route, when the outcome of the whole process is similar to that for an offence punishable on summary conviction.

As well, we note that the offence of possession of break-in instruments is often committed in conjunction with a second offence, breaking and entering a dwelling-house. The Criminal Code already provides that this is a hybrid offence, and so the prosecutor has the flexibility of choosing the most appropriate procedure having regard to the facts of the case. When the two offences are committed in the course of the same criminal operation, the present scheme in the Criminal Code means that even if it were more appropriate to prosecute the two offences by way of summary conviction, given that the facts are not extremely serious, the prosecutor may opt to proceed by way of indictment, the more onerous procedure, to avoid holding two separate trials. The proposed amendment in Bill C-23 therefore offers prosecutors greater flexibility, while promoting more judicious use of the resources of the judicial system.

Another amendment is designed to clarify an ambiguity in the present wording of the section dealing with where in Canada an offence that was committed outside our borders may, in certain cases, be tried. The present wording of section 481.2 of the Criminal Code could be interpreted as meaning that any offence committed outside Canada could be charged in Canada. The disastrous repercussions that this kind of interpretation could have on the resources of our courts can easily be imagined, not to mention the enormous challenges that this would present for prosecutors.

However, our law does provide for some exceptions under which it is possible to charge certain offences in Canada that were committed abroad. Examples are sexual offences involving children and terrorism. The proposed amendment will clarify the wording of section 481.2 to specify that those few exceptional offences, and only those offences, may be charged in any territorial division of Canada.

Another amendment clarifies the role of the Attorney General in private prosecutions, that is, prosecutions that are not initiated by the state, where a private information is laid with the court.

(1255)

The Criminal Code provides that a justice will hold a hearing to determine whether there is justification for issuing a summons or a warrant for the arrest of an accused. The Criminal Code also provides that the Attorney General may participate in that proceeding, including by calling witnesses and presenting relevant evidence. However, the Criminal Code does not specify which Attorney General, provincial or federal, may do this.

The amendment clarifies that the term Attorney General means the Attorney General of Canada, where the offence in issue falls within his jurisdiction and the proceedings could have been commenced at his instance. Another change relates to the jury selection process. That amendment will remedy a flaw in the procedures for replacing a juror before any evidence has been introduced.

The Criminal Code provides that during jury selection, the prosecution and the defence are entitled to an equal number of peremptory challenges, that is, opportunities to reject a potential juror without having to state a reason. However, the Criminal Code is silent as to whether such challenges may be made when a new selection process is necessary to replace a juror who has been discharged before evidence was introduced. The proposed amendment provides that the prosecutor and the accused will each be entitled to one peremptory challenge for each juror to be replaced.

Another proposed amendment concerns jury selection and is designed to ensure the impartiality of jury members. Under certain circumstances, the jury selection process currently allows a prospective juror to be questioned in connection with his or her capacity to be impartial where the prosecutor and the accused are concerned. For example, questions may be asked regarding media coverage on the basis of which an individual might form an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Under the existing process, this questioning takes place in the presence of those already selected as jury members.

There is a risk that answers provided by a prospective juror could bring to the notice of jury members information that is likely to affect their impartiality. The amendment would therefore enable the judge to order that jury members be removed from the courtroom for the duration of the questioning.

Another amendment would allow a judge of the court of appeal to dismiss an appeal summarily without calling on any person to attend the hearing when it appears that the appeal should have been filed with another court. Here again, this will streamline a process which is otherwise unnecessarily tedious.

With respect to linguistic rights, I would now like to address the proposed legislative amendments designed to improve and clarify the linguistic rights of the accused in a criminal trial.

As hon. members know, the right of the accused to a trial before a judge, or judge and jury, who speak the official language that is the language of the accused has been recognized for years now. This guarantee is the product of successive stages that have brought about gradual but definite changes over the past 30 years.

However, studies carried out by the Commissioner of Official Languages and by the Department of Justice have confirmed that there are still obstacles to the exercise of those rights and to the achievement of their ultimate objective, which is equal access to justice in both of Canada’s official languages.

At the same time, our courts continue to interpret, sometimes with contradictory results, the exact meaning of the rights set out in the Criminal Code. This causes delays, sometimes results in unequal application of the provisions from one region of Canada to another and causes uncertainty for judges, lawyers and the accused.

These rights represent an important element of the Canadian identity. As the Supreme Court has stated, language rights “are basic to the continued viability of the nation”. For that reason, the federal government has a duty to take positive measures to ensure the enforcement of those rights.

It is for the purpose of advancing the language rights of accused persons, to reduce obstacles to the exercise of those rights and to put an end once and for all to problems of interpretation that we are proposing legislative amendments.

To improve the efficiency of proceedings, it is essential that the accused person’s choice of the official language for legal proceedings be established as early as possible at the start of proceedings. However, the current provisions of the Criminal Code only require a judge before whom the accused appears to inform the accused of the right to a trial in either official language if the accused is not represented by a lawyer.

As the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages confirms, the lawyer for the accused is not always aware of the language rights applicable to criminal proceedings and does not inform his client of them in all cases.

The commissioner has therefore recommended that all the accused be informed of their right to a trial in either English or French. That is exactly what we are seeking to do with the amendments proposed today.

The Commissioner of Official Languages has also pointed out in her study that it would seem somewhat illogical to grant the accused person the right to a trial in the official language of his or her choice but to refuse access in that same language to the documents by virtue of which the accused has been brought before the courts.

The amendments we propose in the bill would correct that shortcoming and would enable an accused person to ask for a translation into his or her official language of the criminal charge or indictment.

The application of the current provisions of the Criminal Code to so-called “bilingual” trials has given rise to countless debates in the courts. It appears those debates are due to the vague wording of section 530.1. The Supreme Court of Canada however has stated that the enumeration of language rights set out in section 530.1 of the Code which, on the face of it, applies to a trial “in the language of the accused” must necessarily be interpreted as applying equally to a trial taking place in both official languages.

Still, some lower courts continue to adjudge that none of the rights listed applies to an accused who takes part in a bilingual trial. The proposed amendments would put an end to such equivocations.

When we examine all the amendments proposed, we can see that they are adjustments to existing rights and not drastic changes to the justice system but will be of great importance for the accused.

(1300)

Furthermore, the proposals put an end to the interpretation difficulties identified in both jurisprudence and various government studies that currently prevent the legislator’s aims from being met and trials from being managed efficiently.

In short the proposals will ensure better access to justice in both of Canada’s official languages.

I would now like to discuss the amendments proposed in this bill with respect to sentencing. Without reviewing all the changes, I propose to examine a few of them.

Some of the amendments respecting sentencing are fairly substantive. I would like to mention them briefly and then go on to some other more technical changes provided for in this bill.

At present, the maximum fine for a summary conviction is $2,000, when no other maximum fine is provided for in a federal statute for a summary conviction.

This amount has been the same since 1985, although other specific monetary limits have been adjusted over the years.

Bill C-23 proposes that the maximum fine that a judge may impose for a summary conviction offence be raised to $10,000.

This change will allow the prosecution to proceed by way of summary conviction in a larger number of cases, where justified by circumstances, even though it may recommend the imposition of a higher fine.

For some, this new maximum fine may seem high. We must bear in mind, however, that this amount is the maximum a court may impose on an offender at its discretion.

Also, the Criminal Code provides that, before imposing a fine, the court cannot impose the fine unless it is convinced that the offender is able to pay it or to settle it in whole or in part by using other assets or through work performed under a provincial program, where such programs exist.

Another significant amendment aims to allow The sentencing judge to issue an order prohibiting the offender from communicating with any victim, witness or other person identified in the order during the custodial period of the sentence.

The Criminal Code currently provides for this type of order at various stages in the judicial process. For example, a judge may impose such an order when an accused is released on bail, held on remand or under a probation order.

However, the Criminal Code does not currently allow for such an order to apply during the period of incarceration of an individual convicted and sentenced to prison.

The existing measures at correctional institutions regarding undesirable communication from inmates are generally effective, however, and such situations are addressed on a case-by-case basis, following the procedures and policies in place.

The proposed amendment offers an additional protective measure by granting sentencing judges the power to prohibit an offender from communicating with a victim, witness or other individual identified in the order, for the duration of the period of incarceration.

The amendment also creates the offence of violating that order, punishable by a maximum of two year's incarceration.

I would now like to move on to the technical amendments regarding sentencing.

First, an amendment to section 720 of the Criminal Code is proposed. This amendment aims to allow the court to delay sentencing, when deemed appropriate, to enable the offender to attend a treatment program approved by the province or territory under the supervision of the court, such as an addiction treatment program or a domestic violence counselling program.

Indeed, Canada has tribunals that specialize in treating problems of domestic violence and substance abuse. In certain appropriate cases, referral to such programs can allow offenders struggling with these problems to demonstrate to the court that they are willing to take concrete action towards their social reintegration.

A certain number of technical amendments also aim to make clarifications regarding sentences imposed for impaired driving offences.

(1305)

In view of the different judicial decisions regarding the application of minimum penalties for impaired driving offences causing bodily harm or death, some clarifications are being made to clarify the real intent behind these sentences. To this end, a provision is added to specify that the minimum penalties for simple impaired driving offences—such as refusal or failure to provide a breath sample—can be imposed on persons found guilty of a more serious impaired driving offence causing bodily harm or death.

This amendment will also help to clarify the fact that conditional sentences cannot be handed down in the more serious cases of repeated impaired driving since the Criminal Code does not permit this when a minimum prison sentence is provided.

A second amendment to clarify the application of impaired driving penalties pertains to offenders who participate in a provincial alcohol ignition interlock device program. A number of provinces have these programs, which enable offenders who have been prohibited by the courts from driving for a specified period to operate a vehicle if it is equipped with an alcohol ignition interlock device and after the expiry of the minimum prohibition period provided under the Criminal Code.

In order to tighten up this provision, the amendment clarifies the fact that offenders are only authorized to drive during their prohibition period if they are registered in an alcohol ignition interlock device program and comply with the terms and conditions of the program.

Other more technical amendments allow courts of appeal to suspend a conditional sentence order until the appeal has been heard and disposed of. This makes it possible to avoid cases in which conditional sentence orders expire before the appeal is heard.

Another amendment would also enable courts of appeal that have suspended a conditional sentence or probation order to require the offender to enter into an undertaking or recognizance that includes conditions similar to those found in cases of accused persons on interim release awaiting appeal.

(1310)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC, I will put my first question to the hon. member who just spoke. It will probably also concern the minister, who is sponsoring this bill.

It is surprising that we have to wait a few weeks, or even a few more months, before debating in committee this legislation, which was introduced in June, because it is an important measure. I do not understand why the government waited like this. Considering that this bill does not reflect a right wing ideology, it should take precedence over Bills C-9 and C-10. However, there is one issue of concern to me, because I practised criminal law for 25 years and this is an interesting piece of legislation as regards criminal proceedings: how will the government ensure that the accused is informed of his right to be tried in one of the two official languages? That is the first question.

Secondly, how can the accused be sure to obtain a translation of all relevant documents, including those relating to the indictment and the preliminary inquiry?

Of course, this is not a problem in Quebec, but I am thinking of my clients in Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg, or in other places in Canada where English is the official language. As we know, in those regions documents are only translated in French when there is time to do so.

Before introducing this legislation, did we make sure that the constitutional right to be heard by a justice would be respected? This means the right to appear before a judge who can speak and understand French fluently—not someone who just took language courses on the weekend—and who can explain the principles that underlie this bill.

(1315)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Harvey:

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, he is a lawyer. He knows perfectly well that once a right is integrated into legislation and institutionalized, failure to respect that right is a procedural error. Therefore, because it is part of the legislation, it cannot be ignored, and there is no choice but to respect it.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the progress the bill is making in the House but some comments were made with respect to the Law Commission having some influence in respect to the drafting of the bill. I have checked with justice department lawyers and they have indicated that the Law Commission neither had any hand in drafting it nor influenced the bill in any way. I wanted to put that forward as a matter of correction on the record.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of support for this bill because few questions and comments have been raised. At first glance, this is an interesting bill to which members of this House and litigants should pay close attention. This bill would have a direct impact on litigants like me.

I have been practising law for 25 years. For the past 10 or 15 years, I have focused on criminal law. Bill C-23 is therefore of great interest to me. It will probably also be of interest to my colleagues in the legal profession who specialize in criminal law or who have been practising it more and more over the years and have become very knowledgeable about it.

Bill C-23 is interesting. With all due respect to the Minister of Justice, I would have liked this bill—which is neither right-wing nor repressive ideologically—to have been introduced before bills C-9 and C-10. We are currently debating these bills in committee, and they seem to be based on repressive right-wing ideology. In contrast, Bill C-23 is interesting in many respects.

As I was saying, for 25 years I was a lawyer and argued all sorts of criminal cases. It is not unusual to have clients or cases where it is a matter of possession of break and enter instruments, as this bill addresses. Time and time again attorneys general in the various provinces—the Attorney General of Quebec who administers criminal law in Quebec as well as the Attorney General of Canada—have been told that this does not make sense. Our client was automatically accused of breaking and entering and possession of break and enter instruments. He was accused of a criminal offence because that act was automatically considered as such. This seems utterly unusual and unacceptable to us.

It seems that Bill C-23 will at least amend that—without removing it, of course—and will allow a person accused of breaking and entering and of possession of break and enter instruments to be tried by summary conviction.

In the Criminal Code there are two types of offences and that is what I want to talk about now. There are offences that can be tried by indictment; they are indictable offences. Murder, homicide and all sorts of offences are examples. There are a number of such offences in the Criminal Code. Other offences are called dual procedure offences. The Crown prosecutor filing the complaint can decide to try by indictment or by summary conviction. In summary conviction cases, if the person is found guilty or pleads guilty, he or she will receive a maximum fine of $2,000 or a six month prison sentence or both the fine and sentence.

This new bill, and I think this is important to point out, proposes a number of amendments. It is a large bill that deserves our time and attention and careful consideration as to how it will be debated in committee.

Criminal procedure sets out how to proceed in criminal cases. Let us take for example an accused who is to receive documents. If this bill is passed, it will provide for a means of telecommunications to be used to forward warrants for the purpose of endorsement and execution in a jurisdiction other than the one in which the search warrant was obtained.

(1320)

In French, that means that if someone was arrested in Rouyn-Noranda and they wanted to search the person’s residence in New Liskeard, Ontario, the original document was required. They sent it by car, from one police officer to the next, until it got to Ontario, and that could take hours. If this bill were passed, it would be possible to send it by fax, for example, with the original document to follow by mail.

On reading the bill, I think that it would be possible to send it by Internet, by e-mail, so that it could be executed as soon as possible. That is a good thing.

Changes are made to the procedure for challenging jurors, among other things, to help to preserve their impartiality. This is also a very good thing, which the bill will bring in if it passes. In the jury selection process, particularly in terms of challenges, this means that we will be able to preserve and protect the impartiality of jurors, which is the very foundation of a jury trial.

There are also a host of other details, such as summary dismissal by a judge of the court of appeal where the appeal has been brought in error. Before, a motion had to be made, saying that it had been filed in the wrong place and asking the judge to dismiss it. Now this will be handled expeditiously.

Where it starts to get interesting is in an appeal to a court of appeal from an order of a superior court relating to objects that have been seized. For example, in the past, you could not move forward as long as the court of appeal had not ruled. You had to wait, but now you will be able to proceed.

Turning now to trials by way of summary conviction for a co-accused where the co-accused fails to appear. This avoids a lot of delay. Before, the accused appeared, but the co-accused was not present, for one reason or another. The judge then adjourned the appearance until the co-accused was located. Now, if this bill is passed, the accused could be tried much more expeditiously than before.

There are all sorts of things like this, and useful things. I mentioned earlier the reclassification of the offence of possession of break-in instruments to make it a dual procedure offence. That may be useful.

Certain things are even more useful, but would almost run counter to Bill C-9. We know that that bill would eliminate the possibility of suspended sentences for a host of offences.

We all hope that this bill will not come before this House again, as introduced by the hon. Minister of Justice. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and probably many of my colleagues on both sides of this House, I would add that Bill C-9 does not really accomplish what justice demands: that judges have the opportunity to hand down individualized sentences.

Bill C-23 contains some interesting amendments. The bill provides for the power to order an offender in custody not to communicate with identified persons and creates an offence for failing to comply with the order, which increases protection for victims. We had long been calling for this. Defence lawyers had been calling for this. Often, our client in detention would receive telephone calls from victims who wanted to talk to him, and he would call them back. In future, offenders will be prohibited from doing so. If they do not comply with this order, they will be charged with a separate offence of failing to comply with a court order.

The clarifications with respect to the application of impaired driving penalties had long been called for.

(1325)

Among other things, the possibility of using an alcohol ignition interlock device was raised. This device makes it possible for an individual found guilty of impaired driving to drive a car. The offender has the right to use this device after three months.

We can now provide clarification. Previously, the matter was very complicated, and it still is. For example, a taxi driver who also owned his own car would have to have two alcohol ignition interlock devices. If this bill is adopted, it seems that things will be less complicated. We might come to a consensus about placing the device only in the principal vehicle. It is starting to look interesting.

Probably two of the most important aspects of this bill are the suspension of a conditional sentence order or a probation order during an appeal.

Today, October 16, if an accused is found guilty by a judge, he is subject to a probation order or conditional sentence order and if the accused decides to appeal, the orders remain in force. Thus, even today we still have serious problems. I hope we will be able to change this quickly.

As criminal lawyers we tell our clients that we will appeal their sentence, but that the probation order is in force. The probation order may be for a term of two years and it might be one year before the appeal is heard. The individual would have been subject to a probation order for one year for nothing.

Henceforth, we can at least apply to the court of appeal and ask the judge, upon filing of the notice of appeal, if it would be possible to suspend the sentence. Even today, this can be requested. However, criminal lawyers who live, as I do, in a region such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue are ofter forced to go to Quebec City to do so. This results in additional expenses for the accused. Thus, we believe that this is a very useful amendment. I hope it will be adopted quickly.

One of the interesting comments and one of the even more interesting amendments, is the power to delay the sentencing proceedings so that an offender can participate in a provincially approved treatment program.

This is important and here is what it means. When judges hand down a decision and find an accused guilty, after a fair trial, they will very often delay sentencing, by asking, say, for a pre-sentence report. This is a report that establishes the circumstances of the charge, the circumstances of the offence and who the accused is. Generally a pre-sentence report is prepared at the request of the accused and most often in very important cases.

The accused may in fact have a long criminal record. For instance, he may be charged with manslaughter or found guilty of criminal negligence. These are often very serious cases. The following example comes to mind. An accused found guilty of, or who pleads guilty to, impaired driving causing bodily harm, or causing death, is automatically subject to a prison sentence. The court will generally hand down its decision.

However, under the proposed amendment, the court could delay sentencing until the accused completes his addiction treatment or another appropriate treatment program.

Take, for example, an accused who is sentenced for domestic abuse. He decides to attend a treatment program or violence counselling. The judge hands down his decision, stipulating that the accused must continue his therapy. The accused continues his therapy, but the judge does not know anything about it. Is the accused still dangerous?

(1330)

So there were some cases—and we defended many—in which the judge, in a case of manslaughter or impaired driving causing bodily harm, handed down his sentence without knowing what the effects were on the accused and the victims.

If this amendment is passed, sentencing could be delayed. Sometimes it takes from three to six months before we get all the reports. Nowadays we do so by consent, but it is illegal.

So the proposed amendment could make it very interesting for the courts in their decisions.

Moreover I would like to urge the House to look very seriously at Bill C-23 with regard to anything to do with both official languages. I was able to take a quick look at the proposed amendments proposed to section 730.

It is proposed that section 720 respecting probation orders and treatment orders be amended. As far as probation orders are concerned, the accused is entitled to have the documents. So someone who has been found guilty must receive the documents and they must be explained in the official language of his choice. Let us take the example of a francophone accused who works in Calgary or Fort MacMurray. These are areas in which English predominates but someone who asks for his trial to be in French can get it.

I draw your attention to subsection 5 of section 732.1, where it is stated that a copy of the documents explaining the conditions must be given to the offender in order to ensure that the terms of presentation and so forth are respected. The following would be added to that subsection, “For greater certainty, a failure to comply with subsection (5) does not affect the validity of the probation order.” This subsection deals with the fact that when a court issues a probation order it gives a copy of the documents to the offender.

This casts some doubt on what the parliamentary secretary told us earlier when I asked him the question. We will have to pay extremely close attention when the amendments set out in Bill C-23 are being examined. It is fine to talk about bilingualism, but bilingualism has to be applied. To achieve that, it is necessary that a person not only receive all the information in his or her official language, but that he or she should understand the information and that someone should take the time to explain it.

On the whole, this is a very interesting bill. The amendments proposed in the bill could clarify the provisions of the Criminal Code and simplify some judicial proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling that I have only one minute remaining. I will proceed directly to my conclusions. The Bloc Québécois is especially pleased to see amendments that contribute to improving the work of judges by giving them greater discretion. These measures will give judges better tools to do their job, which is to determine the most appropriate sentence. And this will contribute to the objectives of deterrence and reparation, as well as an objective that is too often forgotten by our friends opposite in the government, which is that of rehabilitation.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of this bill and we hope that it can receive the support of this House as quickly as possible, in the interests of improving justice.

(1335)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills where there is not very much in the way of partisan attitude. It comes across almost like a catalogue, and many members have spoken to the it. Running through its various sections, most of them seem fairly technical.

My remarks will be directed to what I think is the underlying purpose of the bill, and from where it came.

While most of the amendments look fairly technical, they have been generated through a great deal of consultation and meetings held across the country, not by the parties but by professionals in the various ministries. I am speaking of Crown prosecutors and in some cases consultations with police and defence attorneys. All of this has been focused on meetings of federal, provincial and territorial officials, then with the federal, provincial and territorial ministers, including the Minister of Justice. Each of these apparently small amendments is intended to improve the efficiency, fairness and efficacy under the Criminal Code operations.

I have noticed an underlying theme of the thinking and creativity on the part of law enforcement, Crown prosecutors and other counsel, in using the provisions of the code, as it has been updated every few years, to better address the problems of macro-organized crime such as gangs and organized crime groups. It is usually in the large cities where these things show up and in order to deal with big city problems, we have to get big city professionals together.

The Criminal Code has quite a number of useful provisions in it, which can be used if we can get the various parties to work together. Keep in mind that it is not one level of government that makes the justice system work. Both the federal and provincial governments have split the corrections piece, or the execution of sentences at the end of a conviction. The front end is where the federal government enacts the Criminal Code and puts in place basic criminal procedures, but the provinces handle the prosecutions and convictions in the courts. Therefore, provincial crown prosecutors carry most of that load. It is also a huge responsibility for our municipal police forces that do most of the work in responding to crime, investigating and laying charges and providing evidence.

The bill is an example of a collaborative amendment of our laws, but I could not help but note recently how authorities have come together to provide much better use of the bail provisions of the Criminal Code when it comes to gang activity. It takes a lot of work but in the end the product is a whole lot better.

I will speak of the Toronto experience. Police has been very successful in gathering intelligence, making arrests and prosecuting street gangs. We used to find that arrests would be made and gang members would be arraigned, but they would be released pending a trial. It takes three, six and sometimes nine months to get a complex trial organized in our large cities now, which means gang members are back out on the street on bail.

(1340)

For the petty criminal that may work, he or she may stay close to home, show up for trial and justice will be done. However, police noted for many years that as soon gang members were back on the street, they would be right back into what they had been doing. Over time it became apparent that it was possible to use bail conditions as the mechanism for controlling the activities of these not yet convicted gang members, or alleged gang members, and the police and the prosecutors became very good at it.

In my neck of the woods, it all came down to what the police called bed checks. The arrest of gang members might involve five, 10, 15 or 20 members. In one case, it was over 20 members. The bail conditions imposed on the interim release were very strict. In many cases the individual had to be back in a specific home by seven, seven-thirty or eight o'clock at night.

It is one thing to set out the rule and the bail condition, but it was another to enforce it. Therefore, there was a need to craft the appropriate bail condition for the alleged offender, or the accused. Then there had to be the expenditure of police resources to go to a home every day or every second day to ensure that the accused person was complying with those conditions. Where the person was not compliant, that involved a subsequent charge and a tightening of the bail conditions. This took a lot of police work and expenditure of public funds, but it worked incredibly well. The bail conditions either worked, with the person off the street at night, or the bail conditions self-tightened, as there was a non-compliance, which ended up, in some cases, with the accused person being required to be in custody until trial.

The creative use of bail conditions began to work as a crime-fighting tool. I will not go into all the reasons why it was a crime-fighting tool, but from my perspective it was a good use of the judicial and police interface. While it was expensive, in terms of policing hours, it really worked. That type of police-prosecutorial collaboration is continuing, at least in the community I represent. I hope it is working similarly in other parts of Canada.

The bill is a reflection of efforts by the criminal justice community to produce legislation that is more efficacious in achieving these types of goals. Sometimes it is a cost efficiency, or a safety efficiency or a procedural efficiency.

The first one I notice sets out the power to make an order that an offender not communicate with identified persons while in custody. This does not involve a bail scenario, but it involve while a person is in custody. Frankly, it affects the circumstances where gang members issue threats or instructions while in custody. This is a new provision. It would allow the imposition of a restriction, which might under our charter, be seen as a restriction on free speech. However, it is clearly a restriction on people who are in custody from communicating with other specified persons. If they do so, it is a breach of the condition and a Criminal Code offence. This is a good thing if properly used by police authorities. I presume there is always room for abuse, but I am not even suggesting that would happen. The committee will have a chance to look at the intended operation of this provision. From this point of view, I like the look of it.

There are four other sections I wanted to make note of, in the same vein, and that is improving efficiency.

One is the increase in the summary conviction offence filing from $2,000 to $10,000. That is the maximum fine. Because the Criminal Code does not have an inflation escalator, that $2,000 fine looks awfully small for some offences now. Therefore, this is a good change.

(1345)

The second item is the suspension of a conditional sentence order or a probation order during an appeal. There was a lack of clarity when a person appealed a conditional sentence or a probation order. There was a lack of clarity on both the part of the convicted person who was appealing and the part of police as to whether components of the order were in place while the appeal was under way. This simply clarifies that and it is a good idea.

The third item is an excellent addition to the code. After a person is convicted, this provision would allow a delay in the imposition of a sentence so the offender can participate in a provincially approved treatment program. What has happened up to now is that the judge, prosecutor or defence attorney would sometimes find a way under the rules to postpone sentencing until the offender could engage in some form of treatment to deal with an alcohol or drug dependency or other medical disability.

Now the code, if this passes, will allow the delaying of sentencing so that the accused or convicted person has an opportunity to participate in a recognized treatment program that would allow a judge to select the most appropriate sentencing following the treatment provisions. I do not know how much time would be involved but we will certainly scrutinize that in committee.

The last item I want to mention is the ability of the court to order the seizure of a computer that had been used in child luring on the Internet scenario. That makes good sense. We seize other private property where proceeds of crime situations are involved.

What I want to note for future reference, and the committee will certainly look at this, is that the seizure of computer hardware is one thing but computers now contain information on the hard disk. What is not clear is what happens to the data on the hard disk of a computer that is seized. Is it the intention that the data be rendered inaccessible or is it possible that the data can be accessed and used by the authority seizing the computer? Will the police have the ability to review that data without a warrant, make use of it and turn it into evidence or will it not be evidence? What about other personal and business data?

I do not think we have an answer to that and that should be clarified. What appears to be a simple seizure of a computer may actually be the seizure of a sizeable amount of information, some of which, in a child luring scenario, could be an indicator of further criminal activity by the person from whom the computer was seized. What should happen to that information? Should it be usable as evidence or should it not?

(1350)

I applaud the many professionals in law enforcement, in the provincial ministries and in the federal ministry who would have collaborated on and assembled quite a good number of technical and administrative procedural changes in the code, which will make the code more efficient, more effective, just as fair and just as charter compliant but a better tool for use in tackling the criminal law problems that we have in many places across the country.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his explanation of Bill C-23 I was most interested in his remarks toward the end of his speech when he dealt with evidence, the rules of evidence and the possibility that some evidence may be deemed inadmissible if it were I believe it is called fruit from the poisoned tree. If the source of which came into question it may preclude the possibility of that valuable evidence being used in some subsequent court hearing.

I would like him to answer a question but I would ask him to dumb it down as much as he can and speak in plain language for those of us who are not lawyers. The issue was raised recently in the House of reverse onus in two different contexts. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is being chipped away at and eroded. In one context that I can point to there was a private member's bill which did not succeed but a version of which did succeed in the province of Manitoba. In the event of the proceeds of crime being seized the onus is on the criminal to show that these are not in fact proceeds of crime. In fact, a Hell's Angel speed boat could be seized if that Hell's Angel could not actually show that he or she bought it with legitimately earned dollars.

I think where the member was going with his reservations about this bill is that if that evidence gleaned, which may be tainted and unusable, that we are getting toward a reverse onus situation and the party would have to demonstrate that it was in fact gleaned in a legitimate way.

Is that the connection that he is making reference to and does he have a comment on the proceeds of crime reverse onus situation?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Derek Lee:

Mr. Speaker, yes, that is generally the envelope I was referring to in terms of the seizure of a computer that contained data. Even though the computer and the data is seized under an order, it is not clear that the judicial order contemplates the use of the information on the hard disk as possible future evidence and I think we should be careful about that.

Most people would say that if the guy has done something really wrong and his computer shows it, yes, it should be evidence. However, in our justice system we usually do not make inferences about people's guilt. Our system is based on a person being presumed innocent unless the state or the courts find the person guilty.

I am very reluctant, as a legislator, to alter that balance. The member properly makes reference to the increasing use of reverse onus situations which lowers the burden on the state to produce evidence to get to a certain type of proof.

I am surprised at the scenario that the member has mentioned. It sounds like it may be provincial legislation but normally we do not impose reverse onus situations. I know there are two or three of them in the code and in other pieces of legislation but we do so only reluctantly when there is a need that we could describe as, to use the words of the charter, demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

I think the courts would frown upon increasing the use of reverse onus situations simply because while most people in Canada would be in a position, in normal language, to rebut one of these inferences made by statute, there have to be many Canadians who could not on their own rebut the inference without the use of a lawyer or without someone else speaking for them. We must remember that there are Canadians with various levels of education and various levels of literacy. We must be careful that when we pass a law we have each of those persons in mind when it comes to making them bear the burden of a particular procedure in a statute.

(1355)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the helpful remarks because they did flush out the reservations I had.

If an organized crime figure, who we knew full well had no visible means of support for the last 20 years but owned a mansion, a speedboat, a bunch of luxury cars and had all kinds of holdings, what would be so wrong if we had the power to simply say that unless that person could demonstrate that those were not the proceeds of crime, that we would seize them and use those assets to give our police officers more resources to bust more criminals? Does he not think that would be a justifiable way to use the reverse onus concept that most Canadians would support?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Derek Lee:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has offered a scenario that prejudges most of the facts. In other words, we have an organized crime scenario. We have the classic accumulation of wealth by the individual, conspicuous wealth, and not many other facts to go with it. In that fact scenario it seems awfully easy to say that the person has $25 million worth of assets and no other visible means of support that can be shown, we will take the person's assets, sell them and turn the money over to the police.

It sounds all right except that if we take that rule and apply it to every other Canadian in every other fact scenario, it may produce some unfairness. It is at the wording of the procedure that I would want to look closely. If the member has some wording, we should talk about it and do something that is good for the public.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

It being 2 o'clock, the time for statements by members has now arrived. Two minutes remain in the question and comment period following the speech by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

(1400)

[English]

Town Crier Champion

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as well as being proud of people like Fergie Jenkins, the baseball hall of famer who visited us two weeks ago, the people of Chatham-Kent—Essex are proud of citizens like George Sims, the award-winning town crier of the Municipality of Chatham--Kent.

George Sims, a long-time educator, has been retired from education since 1995. George has been an active volunteer in many community activities in Chatham-Kent—Essex and was selected as citizen of year in 1996. He received the Centennial Medal in 1967 and was also awarded the Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee Medal in 2002.

He was the North American town crier champion in 1998 and placed second many other times. Currently George is the Ontario town crier champion and placed second in the North American town crier championship of 2006.

I extend congratulations to George Sims on expressing his community involvement as an ambassador for the riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex and I welcome George to Ottawa.

* * *

HMCS Sackville

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on October 25, HMCS Sackville, Canada's naval memorial, will be brought to Dartmouth to coincide with Eastern Front Theatre's production of Corvette Crossing, a play written by Michael Melski and directed by Hans Böggild, to run from October 25 to November 12. The play tells the story of five young officers who serve on a corvette while escorting merchant ships supplying the allied war effort during the Battle of the Atlantic.

HMCS Sackville is the lone surviving corvette and is a tangible reminder of the challenging life young Canadians from coast to coast endured in the cold North Atlantic. While the Sackville is in Dartmouth, she will be hosting a number of events, from a prayer breakfast for world peace to a number of receptions. I look forward to hosting my colleagues from the House of Commons finance committee before she crosses the harbour.

HMCS Sackville continues to be a symbol of the valiant efforts of our Canadian service people and reminds us of our debt to those who served, some of whom never returned.

I want to thank all those who worked so hard to preserve the Sackville and her legacy. We look forward to having her in Dartmouth and to Corvette Crossing.

* * *

[Translation]

Anna Politkovskaya

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was killed. On October 10, one last tribute was paid to the well-known journalist for her critical coverage of the war in Chechnya. She gave up her life fighting for freedom of the press and human rights.

One of the few journalists to cover the second war in Chechnya, she agreed to act as a negotiator during the Moscow theatre hostage takings by pro-Chechnyan forces in October 2002.

Her tragic death emphasizes just how fragile freedom of the press and democracy are in Russia. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based NGO, Russia is the third most dangerous country for journalists after Iraq and Algeria.

The Bloc Québécois would like to convey its sincere condolences to Ms. Politkovskaya's family and friends and hopes that Russia will find the way—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

* * *

[English]

Mark Andrew Wilson

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, sadly today one of Canada's dedicated soldiers was laid to rest in London, Ontario. On October 7, trooper Mark Andrew Wilson was killed near Kandahar in Afghanistan when a roadside bomb struck his armoured vehicle. He was 39 years old. He left behind a devoted family, a wife and two sons.

A member of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, Trooper Wilson was an outdoor enthusiast who joined the Canadian Forces later than most, at age 35. He was described by his family as a rock, a caregiver and the type of person everyone loved. He was always smiling.

Trooper Wilson was a dedicated, knowledgeable and energetic soldier who was always looking to increase his skills and abilities. He was viewed as trustworthy and was well respected by his fellow soldiers and supervisors alike.

Trooper Wilson was a courageous and honourable man who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. He will be greatly missed.

I wish to extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends. My thoughts are with them today.

* * *

Health

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to recognize that October 16 to October 20 is Self-Care Week.

This week is about the value of self-care to our health care system and the well-being of Canadians who benefit from the promotion of self-care and the need to support the advancement of self-care policies in Canada.

On October 17, 2006, NDMAC, advancing Canadian self-care, will be hosting the first self-care fall forum to bring greater attention to the significant contribution that self-care can make to the sustainability of the health care system and the health of all Canadians.

NDMAC's self-care fall forum comes at a time when Canada's new government is working hard to control the escalating costs of health care while providing excellent health care to all of our citizens.

I call on members of the House to attend these events and support the future of self-care initiatives.

* * *

(1405)

Citizenship and Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to visit a family in my riding that is living under very difficult circumstances. The Raza family has sought sanctuary in Crescent Fort Rouge United Church to escape persecution if returned to Pakistan by the immigration department.

The family has lived in Canada for four years and its members have been model citizens. Four of the six children have never been to Pakistan. Two are Canadian citizens.

I have been unsuccessful in my request to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asking that he allow the family to return to living in the community while the application is processed so the children can attend school.

I have now written the minister asking him to grant landed immigrant status to the family and base his decision on the best interests of the children. The Immigration Act allows the minister to act in a humanitarian and compassionate manner.

Along with many thousands of other Winnipeggers, I urge him to do so and grant the Raza family refuge in Canada.

* * *

[Translation]

National Science and Technology Week

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Paradis (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to encourage my colleagues and all Canadians to celebrate National Science and Technology Week from October 13 to 22, 2006. Natural Resources Canada and other departments involved in the sciences and health have planned a variety of activities and events across the country.

National Science and Technology Week is future-oriented. The new Canadian government wants to show young people how exciting the sciences can be and to encourage them to consider the adventure of a career in science and technology.

My colleagues will no doubt agree that science and technology are very important to our standard of living. For example, Canadian health science researchers have made significant progress that has improved our quality of life and strengthened our communities. They have also made discoveries that help Canadian businesses stay competitive and are making Canada a world leader in technology development.

I would invite all members of this House to join me in celebrating National Science and Technology Week.

* * *

Robert Redeker

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Robert Redeker, a philosophy professor in Toulouse, has become famous, unintentionally. Mr. Redeker published an article on Islam and the Koran in the well-known French newspaper Le Figaro. To publish an article, state one's opinion, open the door to discussion—such is the beauty of a democratic society.

The professor, who lives in France, has received death threats from fundamentalists, like those that forced the writer, Salman Rushdie, a resident of England, into hiding for several years. Many writers, artists, intellectuals, politicians and ordinary citizens are calling upon Quebec City and Ottawa to strongly condemn this matter, which is without question very similar to that of Mr. Rushdie.

Regardless of what was written in the article, the death threats received by Mr. Redeker go against the very basis of public life in a democratic state.

The Bloc Québécois is calling upon federal authorities to denounce this type of behaviour by fundamentalists and to send a clear message: these threats will not be tolerated in a democratic country.

* * *

[English]

Citizenship Week

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, every year during Canada's Citizenship Week we take time to celebrate the values, rights and responsibilities attached to Canadian citizenship.

Today, October 16, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration officially launched Canada's Citizenship Week in Ottawa, a splendid occasion that I had the personal opportunity to attend.

From October 16 to 22, hundreds of newcomers will take the oath of citizenship at ceremonies across Canada. Thousands of Canadians will also reaffirm their commitment to Canada by reciting the same oath.

Around the world, Canadian citizenship is highly valued. Our society is based on the principles of justice, freedom, equality and respect. Newcomers choose Canada for different reasons, but all come to our country because they see a better life for themselves and their families.

On average, Canadian citizenship is granted to close to 200,000 people every year. Canada is proud to welcome them, with all their talents, dreams and aspirations. New Canadians make a significant social, economic and cultural contribution to the country and they play a crucial role in building a better Canada.

Canada's Citizenship Week is an opportunity for all of us to remember the importance of celebrating and preserving Canadian citizenship.

* * *

(1410)

Bone Marrow Research

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 10th anniversary of the Canadian Cure Campaign, which saw a then teenaged Christine Ichim rollerblade across Canada to raise funds for leukemia research.

This week she celebrates with a Hope for Leukemia Awareness Day and is teaming up with the Aplastic Anemia and Myelodysplasia Association of Canada during the association's annual awareness week.

It is estimated that there are more than 1,500 new cases of these bone marrow failure diseases each year alone in Canada. This week is an opportunity to increase awareness and give hope to families faced with these diseases.

I believe I speak for all parliamentarians when I extend our support of these efforts to bring attention to serious bone marrow diseases.

* * *

Korean-Canadian Scholarship Foundation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday evening I had the opportunity to attend the Vancouver Korean-Canadian Scholarship Foundation awards dinner. During the evening, more than 50 post-secondary students of Korean ancestry were presented with financial awards to help them achieve their academic and career goals.

For me, it was great to spend the evening in the company of such amazing young people. It was also great to see the tremendous contribution that the Korean-Canadian Scholarship Foundation is making to its community and to Canada.

Earlier last week, the Prime Minister also had the opportunity to meet with many of these scholarship recipients while he was in Vancouver. The Prime Minister's visit was warmly received and many students were delighted that he took the time to meet with them and extend his congratulations.

I want to make special mention of Eunice Oh, chair of the scholarship foundation and main organizer of this annual dinner. I was told that without Mrs. Oh this event would not have become the great success that it is today.

I know that Korean Canadians have made great contributions to Canada in the past, but based on what I saw Saturday evening, I would say that the best is yet to come.

* * *

Poverty

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday millions of people around the world, including thousands across Canada, stood up to make poverty history in support of the UN millennium development goals.

Today, right now, NDP members stand up to make poverty history. We urge all members of the House to rise with us in saying that Canada must meet its international commitment of 0.7% for development aid.

In 1989 Ed Broadbent got all-party support to end child poverty. In 2005 Parliament unanimously supported an NDP motion to meet Canada's commitment. And we forced the Liberals to include an additional $500 million in the budget for aid. So why do we have budget cuts that hurt the most vulnerable in our society? Why does Canada break its promises?

We stand today for hope, that when political will exists, these goals become real. We stand today because the world's poor are tired and dying of waiting. We stand today for concrete action to make poverty history.

* * *

Co-op Week

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there are more than 400 co-operatives and credit unions operating in Nova Scotia.

The co-operative movement was started in Cape Breton by a fellow islander, Dr. Moses Coady. It came about mostly because of the struggles that farmers and fishermen were facing in rural areas during the depression.

In 2006 the Cape Breton Co-op stores won the CEO award from Co-op Atlantic in recognition of the best overall improvement in sales, expense controls and overall savings for their membership. Housing cooperatives in my riding of Sydney--Victoria provided good quality, affordable rental housing for almost 50 families.

I had the great experience of being a member of four different co-ops. During my time, I saw at first hand how the co-op not only benefits communities but also brings a sense of unity to the community.

I ask all members of Parliament to join me in recognizing this week as Co-op Week and celebrate the co-ops' accomplishments with them.

* * *

[Translation]

Forest Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that the government do everything in its power to save the forest industry from this catastrophe.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, only five mills remain out of the 19 that were operating only a short time ago. More than 2,500 people have lost their jobs. My riding has been battered by this crisis.

We waited four years to see this conflict resolved. Now we have an agreement signed and look where it has left forest workers. It has been a long time; very long, too long. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 14 out of 19 are now closed or about to close.

For many municipalities, these mills provided the main, if not the only, economic activity. This is shameful. The government must stop finding excuses for its inaction and immediately get to work for the citizens of Quebec's remote regions.

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Leading Hands of Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with JoAnne Durham and Ron McBride, two individuals involved in Leading Hands of Canada, an organization designed to break down barriers between employers and employees with hearing loss.

In Ontario alone there are at least 85,000 persons with hearing loss. The need to provide training and support programs for such individuals as well as their employers is enormous. Often employers will look the other way from a potential employee with hearing loss because of various misapprehensions about the suitability of persons with hearing loss to maintain gainful employment, a lack of tax incentives for employers, and other factors.

With $17.7 million recently axed from literacy programs, there is a pressing need for the government to take a leadership role in providing educational and training opportunities for those who are without the tools to function at home, in the community and in the workplace.

The right to be treated equally has been sacrificed at the altar of those who can only think in terms of money, those who know the cost and price of everything, but the value of nothing.

I call on the government to reinstate funding for literacy programs--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Langley.

* * *

Lung Disease

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Lung Association is meeting with MPs to raise awareness of the burden of lung disease in Canada.

The Canadian Lung Association supports this government's efforts to reduce the levels of air pollution and I believe it is looking forward to the introduction of the clean air act.

Like this government, the Lung Association recognizes the importance of reducing air pollution for the sake of our health. Smog and poor air quality continue to cause thousands of deaths each year and hundreds of thousands of severe episodes of asthma and bronchitis, particularly among children and the elderly. It is estimated that six million Canadians suffer from serious lung diseases and unfortunately, these disease rates continue to rise.

This government's approach was developed with the long term health benefits of Canadians in mind. Our approach is achievable and beneficial to our environment. Canada's new government is committed to improving the health of Canadians by cleaning up the air we breathe.

My thanks to the Canadian Lung Association.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

Literacy

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, during the parliamentary break week, Liberals were out listening to Canadians. As I met with Canadians in small communities in northern Manitoba, Nunavut and rural Quebec, they told me they did not understand why the Conservative government had it in for our fellow citizens who were most in need.

Over and over again we heard about the Conservative government's cuts to literacy funding, a cruel blow to those adult Canadians who cannot read or write but want to better their lives.

Why is the government picking on those Canadians? Why is the Prime Minister giving the back of his hand to the most vulnerable in our country?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if all these Liberal MPs were out working so hard, we would think they would have come back to the House to tell us exactly what they heard.

The House will know that the government will spend over $80 million on literacy in the next two years. We want to ensure those dollars are spent as effectively as possible.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister would go to Nunavut. There the literacy programs have been decimated; Literacy Partners of Manitoba was cut to pieces; and forget about the Quebeckers who are telling us that they cannot read instruction manuals for their kids' report cards.

Canadians understand that in the 21st century literacy means economic survival. Why is the government destroying hope for those Canadian adults who have serious literacy challenges? How can the government be both so meanspirited and so economically irresponsible?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I think the most effective way of dealing with that kind of exaggeration is, once again, simply with the facts. The government will be spending over $80 million a year in the next two years. The government has announced new funding for immigration settlement which will also contribute to literacy programs.

The fact of the matter is that under the previous government, for 13 years, adult illiteracy went up. We are going to ensure we spend effectively so that it goes down.

* * *

[Translation]

Softwood Lumber

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, are workers affected by mill closings in Quebec exaggerating when they say jobs are being cut?

The Prime Minister gave in to the Americans. This has led to job losses in Quebec. Now, his Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is making things worse by blaming the job losses on the environmental programs of the Quebec government. This is irresponsible ignorance.

When will the Prime Minister and his Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec do their job and help workers living in regions experiencing difficulties?

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government realizes that the forestry industry is facing major challenges. That is why the budget adopted by this Parliament includes funds for the forestry industry and for older workers.

A softwood lumber agreement is needed to bring stability to the industry. That is why our agreement is supported by the Quebec government, unions and corporations. The Liberal Party should support this agreement.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, more than 1,600 forestry jobs have been lost in Quebec and Ontario in the past week.

The so-called agreement with the Americans on softwood lumber has accomplished nothing. The promised stability is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Does the Prime Minister concur with the erroneous and simplistic explanation given by his Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, who blames the Coulombe report, the Government of Quebec and environmentalists for the crisis in the forest industry?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my Liberal colleague seems to think, it is important to say that this government has accomplished in six months what the previous Liberal government was unable to accomplish in four years.

We have settled the softwood lumber dispute, and we have put more than $5 billion Canadian back into industry pockets. That is why we are asking Parliament to support us, to support older workers and to support the softwood lumber industry by voting in favour of the agreement.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, jobs are being lost throughout Quebec: in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, in Abitibi, in northern Quebec and on the North Shore.

It is a catastrophe when half the workers in small cities and towns are losing their jobs because of the forestry crisis.

The Conservative minority government has denied that this problem even exists until now. It has dragged its feet for nine months.

What does the Prime Minister intend to do to help these towns, to help these families and to help these workers? Why has he done nothing up to now?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear my colleague talk about foot dragging on this issue.

Thirteen long years of corrupt Liberal government meant that the softwood lumber problem remained unresolved. In just six months, we have resolved it. We are bringing back the money, we are bringing back stability and a profitable future for the people in the softwood lumber industry.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the forestry industry has been weakened by the softwood lumber dispute and it is going through an unprecedented crisis. Since April 2005, some 9,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec and it is only now that the Prime Minister is acknowledging that the Canada-United States agreement is inadequate when it comes to helping the forestry workers and companies. Unfortunately, he still refuses to say what form any supplementary help will take or when it will come.

When will the Prime Minister finally take action? The Bloc Québécois proposed a concrete plan. Will he use it as a model for immediately helping the entire forestry industry?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again, the softwood lumber agreement is necessary for the future of this industry. It is not sufficient and that is why, in our budget, we have funding for the older workers and for the forestry industry. We intend to announce our plans in these areas very soon.

Nonetheless, this agreement is essential. The leader of the Bloc Québécois should tell that to the leader of the Parti Québécois.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc proposed an assistance plan for older workers. A vote will be held on this issue this evening for every worker in every sector from every region in Quebec. This is what the unions and the Fédération de l'Âge d'Or du Québec are calling for, not a plan limited to a few regions and one or two sectors for just a year.

Will the Prime Minister understand that people older than 55 with 30 years of seniority cannot leave the softwood lumber industry to be retrained in computer science? Can he realize that? We are not talking about a bunch of old, worn-out rakes. These people need assistance immediately in order to live a decent life. Could the Prime Minister respond?

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is important and we understand the demands the forestry industry is making and we are taking action.

Allow me to remind the leader of the Bloc Québécois that in our last budget we took action. We made a promise to have an older workers assistance program. It is a promise of the new government and we will keep it, just like the other promises. We will take action. That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois cannot do. The Bloc Québécois cannot take action because it is perpetually in opposition.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what his two colleagues just said, the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said that the government could not do anything to help the forest industry.

Can the minister really not think of a single thing the government could do? The Bloc Québécois introduced no fewer than 10 measures: fiscal measures and new market development measures, as well as older worker assistance measures and a program to go along with them. All of these measures are appropriate. How can he say that the government's hands are tied when these solutions exist? All it lacks is the will to do something.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have resolved the softwood lumber dispute, which the Liberals failed to do in their 13 years of corrupt government and which the members of the Bloc Québécois will never be able to do. Members of the Bloc Québécois are in opposition and will always be in opposition. We are aware of workers' needs and will act to meet those needs. That is why we are asking for the opposition parties' support so we can act to help these workers as quickly as possible.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, that is not all the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said. Referring to Richard Desjardins, who sings about forestry issues, he wondered when a singer would stand up to defend the unemployed.

The question is not when will a singer sing about the unemployed, but when will we have a government that cares enough to do something for the unemployed?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, I had another opportunity to go to Abitibi last week. Fifteen of the nineteen sawmills in the region are closed. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, nearly 1,400 jobs have been lost in the sector, including—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please.

It is impossible to hear the minister, who has the floor. He was given the floor to answer the question. We have to be able to hear his response.

The Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When environmental standards are negotiated, it is important to ensure that the industry will be able to absorb the changes being introduced. Doing this jointly prevents companies from closing.

* * *

[English]

Canada-U.S. Border

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, recently Mayor Bradley of Sarnia added his name to the chorus of Canadians who are concerned about the U.S. coast guard firing live ammunition into the Great Lakes. This is on top of the fact that the vessels of the coast guard have very powerful machine guns on them now.

Will the Prime Minister tell us how firing live ammunition into the Great Lakes where Canadians live, work and play is making them any safer?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it was actually in 2003 that the previous government affirmed a treaty that had been in place since 1817 and permitted this type of exercise. It is currently under review. There has been a suspension of all activities of live fire exercises until November. There will be a public consultation. Canada has made its views known to the United States. Clearly, we will follow these consultations in the United States to make those views further known on the environmental side and the security side to see that we get a proper resolution.

(1430)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, a proper resolution is to make sure that the shooting in the Great Lakes is stopped.

We all know that the Liberals sold us out when they allowed a treaty concocted two centuries ago to keep the Great Lakes demilitarized to be violated.

The question is whether the Conservative government is going to put on the table a Canadian position that says there will be no firing of live ammunition in the Great Lakes because of the environmental, safety, tourism, economic and sovereignty consequences.

Will the Prime Minister stand in this place and say that he is going to tell the Americans to shut down the firing in the Great Lakes?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, obviously the leader of the NDP was not listening and he has taken the usual approach of ready, fire, aim.

I have said that the exercises are not taking place while the consultation is under way. In fact, there will be three public consultations, one taking place in Minneapolis and the others in Detroit and Buffalo. They are currently under way.

In April 2003 both countries agreed to an interpretation of an age-old contract, the Rush Bagot contract. We are pursuing this with the Americans. We have made our views known. We will continue to monitor the situation.

* * *

[Translation]

Softwood Lumber

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of all the “innocent quotes of the week”, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec absolutely had to get in on the action. After hearing his colleague from the industry department tell us recently that the increase in oil prices was due to environmentalists, the Minister of Labour really lays it on now by saying that sawmills are closing and thousands of workers are losing their jobs and that too is all their fault.

Instead of insulting and blaming environmentalists and singers like Richard Desjardins, who believes like us in sustainable development, now that we know that the Prime Minister says the softwood lumber agreement is inadequate, what is the minister going to do? Will he retract what he said? Will he apologize to Quebeckers for comments more reminiscent of the 1950s?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa is never lacking for inflammatory words, always cut and dried and always rude.

We have the reality of the forestry crisis. When environmental standards are implemented hastily and not in consultation with the private sector, companies close. Now it is the unemployed who are paying the price for these decisions. If the Bloc Québécois had done its job when it was time and persuaded the Parti Québécois to negotiate with the companies in order to introduce measures, we would not be—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Bourassa has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, our minister piles it on and claims without flinching that the sawmill closures show that we are going in the right direction. He also attributes this state of affairs to the Conservative government’s approach to improving air quality.

Are we to understand that the labour minister is telling us now, in his wisdom, that it is the fault of environmentalists if the sawmills are closing, that ultimately it is good for the environment and this is the approach he prefers?

We are witnessing something unprecedented in the annals of Parliament. We now have two twins in cabinet: the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and the Minister of Labour and of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, “Loose Cannon”.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa just carries on with his insults in the House of Commons. He is incapable of more modulated speech and better behaviour in the House.

That being said, I remind the House of how important it is for parliamentarians to sit down with industry and ensure that when new environmental measures are implemented in the interests of all Canadians, these measures are possible and feasible for the companies so that they can stay afloat and people keep their jobs. Then we have a win-win situation.

I hope that the House will vote this evening in favour of the agreement to settle—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Beauséjour has the floor.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, since this minority Conservative government sold out the Canadian softwood lumber industry to the Americans, all we have been hearing about is sawmill closures. Thousands of softwood related jobs were lost last week alone. In response, the Minister of Labour blames environmentalists for job losses in the lumber industry.

Does the trade minister also think environmentalists close sawmills, or will he admit that his inaction and the flawed softwood lumber deal are hurting workers and communities who now urgently need federal government help?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member perhaps is trying to suggest that the U.S. housing market has taken a severe downturn because of the softwood lumber agreement, which he knows is patent nonsense.

What he really is saying is he wants to go back to litigation. He wants to go back to spending millions of dollars on lawyers. He wants to go back to higher duties payable to the U.S. treasury. He wants the uncertainty, the job loss and the destruction to companies and communities from continuing the fight on softwood lumber.

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the minister probably was on the wrong question.

We have an industry minister who blames environmentalists for high gas prices. We have a labour minister who blames environmentalists for job losses in softwood. We have an environment minister who will also get around to blaming environmentalists for her inaction on climate change.

Instead of passing the buck, will the Minister of International Trade pass the support package that he himself announced last November which will immediately aid softwood communities and workers?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have some excellent ministers in cabinet and I am very proud of them.

If the hon. member wants a support package for the softwood lumber industry, for the forestry industry, he should pass the softwood lumber agreement and get that $5 billion into the hands of the companies so they can build their business.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement is not enough, as the Prime Minister is finally admitting. From the very beginning of the softwood lumber crisis, the Bloc Québécois has suggested that the government take a series of steps to support the industries and forestry workers, but this government, which has been in place for nearly a year, has done nothing.

How can the Minister of Industry deny the necessity of putting in place assistance measures, as the Bloc Québécois is proposing and everyone in Quebec is calling for, when the crisis has reached unprecedented levels? How can the minister justify his refusal to act? The ideas are there. All that is missing is his will.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that in the budget we tabled, which the Bloc Québécois and our Liberal colleagues voted for unanimously, we clearly demonstrated that we intend to have an assistance program for older workers.

We are going to act, unlike the Bloc Québécois members who, after months of dithering, finally decided to support the softwood lumber agreement after Henri Massé pleaded with them to support it for the workers in Quebec.

We have acted in six months, something that the Bloc Québécois, after 13 years, cannot do here. It will never be able to act for Quebeckers.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government had included a feasibility study in the budget. What is needed today is not feasibility studies, but action.

The Minister of Industry is an advocate of the laissez-faire approach to the economy, and this approach is causing serious harm to the forest industry.

How can the Prime Minister remain passive in the face of the inaction of his industry minister, who is still claiming that refunding duties to the forestry companies is enough and that the government does not have to take any further action? Will the Prime Minister be consistent and ask his minister to act?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have here an article by Yves Boisvert, from the September 8 edition of La Presse, in which the author talks about taking action.

This is what he says about the leader of the Bloc Québécois:

“When you are a party leader in Ottawa, in these troubled times, if you do not have a clear position on one of the most serious issues of the day, [such as the softwood lumber agreement, on which we ask him to take a clear position and to continue to vote in our favour], you are insignificant. And if you have a clear position and do not dare state it, you are a coward.”

I did not say that, it was Yves Boisvert in the September 8 edition of La Presse.

* * *

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, far from becoming clearer, the government's position on the environment is increasingly confused. The minister's latest scheme is to allow the oil industry to simply lower its greenhouse gas emissions intensity, while specific reduction target might be set for the other industries.

How can the government not only reject the Kyoto objectives but also set out to give tax breaks to its big oil friends without providing anything similar for the other industries? How can it explain such a double standard?

(1440)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the hon. member to wait for our plan to be released. This government obviously will be treating all sectors equally. We have assured that to industry sectors and Canadians across this country. I would ask him to work with us because the environment is an issue that matters to all Canadians and matters to every party in this House. We have for the first time an opportunity in this chamber to debate and discuss a piece of legislation of this calibre. I would ask him to wait for the legislation and support it.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's nearsighted environmental strategy is to launch another round of consultations with Quebec, the provinces and the industry.

How can the Prime Minister explain that, while glaciers are melting, this government is conducting consultations instead of taking action?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we spent the summer consulting with every province and territory and over 63 industry associations. We will continue to work with all of our stakeholders and environmental groups.

As I said, I would ask the hon. member to wait for the plan to be released and work with us on it.

* * *

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, for 60 years the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has helped countless Canadians become homeowners. This valuable organization, which helps Canadians achieve their dreams of owning their own homes, will soon be on the government's chopping block. There are reports that the minority Conservative government is planning to privatize CMHC, continuing the fend for yourself approach which hurts vulnerable Canadians.

Why is the meanspirited Prime Minister so determined to cut programs that help millions of Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest with the House that it never occurred to us to privatize CMHC. Reports to the contrary are simply untrue, false, erroneous, inaccurate and downright wrong.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that before, so I do not take that as an answer.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. We have to be able to hear the question. How is the minister going to be able to answer if we cannot hear the question? The member for York West has the floor. We will have a little more order in the House, please.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro:

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the government is even considering such a travesty, regardless of what it says, shows how little it cares about Canadians and building our great country. Even Conservative MPs admit that affordable housing is at a critical stage in their ridings. CMHC helps Canadians enter the housing market and privatization would change an organization that currently benefits so many into one that would benefit a select few.

Home ownership is a dream for many Canadians. Why does the government want to turn it into a nightmare?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I said, reports about any privatization of CMHC are unfounded, baseless, and do not even merit discussion because they are not on the agenda.

CMHC will continue to provide over $2 billion in affordable housing assistance that will help 630,000 families right across this country.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, if what the minister said is right, perhaps she should advise the president of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who believes that the government is planning to privatize or otherwise dispose of the CMHC.

While still squirrelling away surpluses inherited from the previous Liberal government, why does this government want to turn a government agency accessible to all into a private enterprise that will only benefit its shareholders?

Is this government telling everyone who benefits from the CMHC—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are not planning any privatization of CMHC. I repeat, we are not planning any privatization of CMHC.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[English]

The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member appreciates all the encouragement, but we have to be able to hear the question. It is question period, not shouting time. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the government says that it is not planning any privatization of the CMHC. That is great.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1445)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Let us not waste time. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings:

Is the government totally prepared to make sure that all profits generated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation continue to be earmarked for affordable housing for Canadians?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I guess all I can say is that if after a week of scouring the country listening to Canadians the best those members can come up with are four questions on a rumour that is utterly false, this government must be doing a pretty good job.

* * *

Health

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the theme of good government, our government understands the important role that health research has within the medical community and the benefits that it provides to all Canadians.

Could the Minister of Health please inform the House on what Canada's new government is doing to support health research throughout our country?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer that question. Indeed, last week I announced $348 million extra in funding for health research projects, including in the area of wait times, pandemics and cardiac health. In the 2006 budget we increased the budgets for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research by $17 million, an initial $21.5 million over five years for pandemic preparedness.

The government is acting for health research, better health outcomes for Canadians. After 13 years of inaction, this government is acting.

* * *

Housing

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but Canadians are very skeptical about the housing strategy from the new government. The Liberals starved housing in our country and now, according to the reports, the Conservatives are prepared to kill it.

We need more affordable housing, not less. There is a national crisis out there. I want to hear absolutely, not only that the minister is committed to funding affordable housing and will not be privatizing our national housing corporation. I want to hear her say that they will stop the privatizing--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to stop something that was never started or even contemplated. We will not have any plans to privatize CMHC. Any reports to the contrary are unfounded, baseless, without any reason and without any factual background whatsoever.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I heard the same words from the minister when she talked about supporting SCPI. In my riding six out of ten projects have been cut, six out of ten projects for the most vulnerable people in our country.

I want to hear once again that the government is prepared to bring forward a national housing program to make sure that people in our country are properly housed and to tell me, absolutely, that there will be no privatization.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we recognize how important it is to take care of those less fortunate in our society. That is why we are spending over $2 billion a year, through CMHC, on affordable housing. That will help over 630,000 families across the country.

That is why we also renewed all of the programming for SCPI and for homelessness. In fact, we confirmed that $37 million for that program, which went unspent by the previous government, was available this year.

* * *

Canadian Wheat Board

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that minority government, in its attempt to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, did the unconscionable in a democratic society. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, through an order in council, shattered freedom of speech for farmer elected directors. The order stated in part, “It shall not advocate the retention of its powers”. This directive goes against every principle in a free society for citizens elected to represent their electors.

Will the minister rescind this order now?

(1450)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly wait for his next question when he asks to put potatoes under the Canadian Wheat Board.

Here is what the Canadian Wheat Board's own Code of Conduct says:

--directors must remain impartial and retain the perception of impartiality in relation to their duties and responsibilities. Directors must not use corporate facilities, equipment, or resources in support of these activities.

That is what the Wheat Board's own code of conduct says. Our order in council simply reaffirms that.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely nothing but a gag order. This is for the Prime Minister. This gag order is on an independent elected board of directors of a marketing institution.

The list of infractions of that minority government continues to grow, from fake letters, manipulation of the media, stacked government task forces, circumventing Canadian laws and now a gag order violating freedom of speech.

Is this the Prime Minister's definition of ethics and accountability?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the order in council that prevents individual directors from speaking out. They are perfectly free to speak out on any issue they want. Neither the pro marketing choice nor the monopoly people are prohibited from speaking out. Everyone is welcome to get right at it.

What we will not do is encourage the Wheat Board to spend its time on partisan activities. We want it to get on with the job of selling wheat for farmers, and it is about time it got on with that job.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there is obviously one rule for the government and one rule for the board.

The government of Saskatchewan says that destroying the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing system would slash grain incomes in Saskatchewan by at least $300 million a year. The law enacted by Parliament gives western farmers the legal guarantee that before any marketing change, prairie farmers must be given the opportunity to vote on that specific change in a fair and democratic plebiscite.

Will the minister commit himself today to fully respect the farmers' democratic right to vote on this specific issue?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, while that member was the minister of agriculture, farmers went to jail for trying to market their own product, and we do not want to see that happen any more. We think farmers should have the choice to market their grain in a way that best benefits their farms and their individual corporate choices.

There was testimony before the agriculture committee last week that the Canadian Wheat Board actually cost farmers money.

Most important, we want to give marketing choice to farmers. This is something we campaigned on. We like to keep our campaign promises, something that is a foreign concept to the party opposite.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, then let the farmers vote. It is unbelievable that the minority Conservative government would plan to kill the Wheat Board and kill the farmers' right to vote all at the same time. Gone would be the single desk marketing system and producer cars and short line rail systems and the port of Churchill and anyone to stand up to the anti-farmer market power, the grain companies and the railways. So much for transparency and accountability.

Why does the minister fail to respect the farmers' legal right to vote? What is he afraid of?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, he forgot to add to that list getting rid of the Crow rate. Wait a minute, he did that. I forgot that.

In addition, we are involving the farmers in this process. We have appointed a task force to give options to what we campaigned on openly. We look forward to the day when Canadian farmers have the choice on how they market their grain. We look forward to a strong Canadian Wheat Board in a multi-choice world.

* * *

[Translation]

Government Programs

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government severely cut spending in literacy programs, thus seriously jeopardizing initiatives to reach users, including a number of workers hurt by the softwood lumber crisis.

Why is the government stubbornly cutting funds for literacy programs, which help workers laid off in the softwood lumber, textile and clothing industries? Why go after these people?

(1455)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canadians need to know how to read, write and do their numbers. That is quite simple. That is why we are investing over $80 million in literacy.

We are going to invest it in programs that deliver real results to Canadians. We are not going to invest that money in advocates and lobbyists who do not get any literacy results on the ground.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government also drastically reduced the budget for Status of Women Canada.

What can possibly lead this government to slash by 30% the budgets to promote equality for women, considering that these budgets have already been significantly reduced and are totally inadequate?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government has not cut any program spending on women, none. We have cut administration because that does not help women on the ground. Our programming is going to continue.

The government is delivering real service for women. Where the previous government talked about protecting women, we are doing it. That is the difference.

* * *

Infrastructure

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last week the Treasury Board president improperly inserted himself into a municipal election by withholding $200 million in previously committed funding for Ottawa's light rail project. The minister could have taken action on the file, but instead he waited weeks after the contract was signed to announce, through the media, that the government was withholding funds.

Did the Prime Minister approve of the minister's decision to withhold the funding? Does the Prime Minister believe that all current infrastructure agreements with municipalities should be put on hold until after all municipal elections?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have been reading a significant amount on this. I can tell the member opposite that we strongly support public transit. It is important for our environment. It is important for our public servants to get to work. It is also very important to reduce congestion.

I read the Ottawa Sun editorial on October 4 entitled, “Feds on right track”. It said:

Too often in the past we have seen governments, at various levels, toss around tax money without taking adequate care that it's well spent.

There was an Ottawa Citizen editorial that said:

--the unprecedented scope of the investment...makes a final, ratifying endorsement entirely appropriate.

* * *

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, headlines read, “Crimes and lives,” “Shatters families” and “Frightens communities”. With gun, gang and drug crime on the rise, Canadians are demanding action. One of the main platform commitments of the government made during the last election was to get tough on crime and work toward making our communities safer.

Could the justice minister update the House on the status of the new government's crime agenda?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his continued work on this issue.

Since assuming office, Canada's new government has moved swiftly to tackle crime and protect Canadians. Our bills will keep dangerous criminals off the street. We have moved to protect children from sexual predators and to crack down on street racing. Tomorrow I will be introducing legislation dealing with dangerous offenders.

However, for the House to make this happen, the opposition parties must support these bills. They must come on board and help protect Canadians' safety.

* * *

[Translation]

Softwood Lumber

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, even the Parti Québécois has finally realized that the minister is incompetent. André Boisclair is condemning the softwood lumber agreement.

So then, where is the Bloc Québécois?

Mr. Boisclair figured it out, as did others in the Abitibi, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and North Shore regions, when they lost their jobs following this agreement.

[English]

The meltdown of jobs by the softwood sellout is total. In Quebec, northern Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia nearly 3,000 jobs have been lost in a week.

Will the minister stop his bungling and stop imposing this bad deal?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is always entertaining for me to listen to the new ways that the member can spew his partisan ideology and venom in the House.

It is about time the hon. member told this House and Canadians what he is really proposing. He is proposing a continuation of lumber trade wars, a continuation of litigation, a continuation of hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.S. treasury and the destruction of the softwood industry in our country.

(1500)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

Last Friday, as the minister knows, the Court of International Trade ruled that Canadians would get every single penny back that was illegally paid, not give away a billion dollars.

This billion dollar botched sellout by the minister is the only thing stopping Canadians from justice.

We see administrative chaos at the border, double taxation and pages of new text in the sellout that have not been made public. What a mess. What other aspects of this brutal bungling is the minister trying to cover up?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):