Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 034 (Official Version)

Mr. Speaker, in the ongoing, relentless efforts of our government to continue the movement of matters through this House, I have the honour to table, on behalf of my colleagues, part III of the estimates, consisting of 93 reports on plans and priorities.

These documents will be distributed to members of the standing committees to assist in their consideration of the spending authorities and sought in part II of the estimates.

* * *

Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House the government's “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector”.

Pursuant to commitments made in the government's response in the 38th Parliament to the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I have the honour to lay upon the table, in both official languages, on behalf of the Minister of International Trade, the government's corporate social responsibility strategy entitled, “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector”.

* * *

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) of the House of Commons, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled, “Convention Between Canada and the Republic of Colombia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital”.

An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) of the House of Commons, I also have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, treaties entitled, “The Free Trade Agreement Between Canada and the Republic of Colombia”, an “Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia”, and an “Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia”.

An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.

* * *

Government Response to Petitions

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to four petitions.

* * *

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill (for the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill (for the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Tobacco Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-348, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act (cigarillos, cigars and pipe tobacco).

She said: Mr. Speaker, the bill is about the health and well-being of Canada's youth.

Parliaments of Canada have worked hard over the years to reduce smoking addiction and to curb marketing of cigarettes but big tobacco keeps finding loopholes to the Tobacco Act, trying to lure our children and youth into a lifelong addiction to cigarettes.

The latest is flavoured cigarillos sold individually or in kiddie packs in colourful and hip packages, priced at just a buck or two. The results are devastating. Cigarillo sales have skyrocketed and smoking rates among youth are going up.

The bill would change all of that. It would ban flavoured tobacco products, require cigarillos to be sold in packages of 20 instead of individually and demands tough warning labels.

Colleagues on all sides of the House support the bill. When I introduced this bill in the last Parliament, the Prime Minister made an election promise to do just that. I would say to the Conservatives that they should take this bill and make it their own.

I want to thank the Action on Tobacco Coalition and all the young people who have worked on this bill, including the Manitoba Youth for Clean Air, the Sister Teens against Nicotine and Drugs, the Northwestern Youth Action Alliance and the Eastern Ontario Youth Coalition. The bill is for them. Together we can make a difference.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

(1010)

Criminal Code

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (body armour).

She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code in relation to body armour.

The bill would make it an additional offence to use body armour during the commission or attempted commission of an indictable offence. It would also ban those convicted of violent crimes from possessing body armour.

The recent spate of gang violence in the Lower Mainland of B.C., with at least 31 shootings and 15 deaths in the past two months alone, has revealed chilling examples of notorious criminals decked out in body armour, wielding guns and ready to do battle. These are not petty thugs. They are armed and dangerous gangsters who have no regard for their own lives, the lives of police or of innocent bystanders.

I have two sons who are police officers and they have told me of the disturbing situation in which beat cops are put, facing gangsters equipped with body armour that makes them almost invulnerable to patrol officers and with armour piercing weapons that can penetrate regular issue police armour.

The bill is modest in scope and only addresses one but one important small component of the problem. Our communities are crying out for a comprehensive, anti-gang strategy. The government has promised a comprehensive strategy but so far it has failed to deliver.

I call on everyone in the House to support the bill to protect the lives of police officers and the lives of innocent bystanders.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Committees of the House

Citizenship and Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented on Wednesday, February 25, be concurred in.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I was in my riding last night and there was an emergency meeting where supporters of a war resistors movement gathered in solidarity for Kimberly Rivera. These important meetings happen regularly, but last night's emergency meeting was particularly important because Kimberly, a 26-year-old mother of three and a former soldier in the United States army, was scheduled to be deported back to the United States this morning where she faces harsh punishment.

Kimberly is a veteran of the Iraq invasion. She escaped to Canada after witnessing the horrors there as a soldier. Her time spent in Iraq sobered her to the realities of life for the people of Iraq and the immorality of the whole operation. Life for her and her family here has been very difficult because her status has been in constant limbo. She is basically living out of a box. Recently, she received a deportation order and faces the prospect of being separated from her four-month-old baby and the rest of her family, including her husband, Mario, and two other children.

She faces being thrown into a military prison in the United States simply for conscientiously objecting to an illegal and immoral invasion of a sovereign country. As I mentioned before, her deportation was scheduled for this morning but at the 11th hour yesterday she received an emergency stay as the federal court re-evaluates her condition for deportation. The small victory was bittersweet as the stay only allows her to stay for a few weeks. The deportation could be reordered, at which point she will face the trauma of being separated from her family and being thrown in prison.

This kind of insecurity takes its toll on an individual and even more on a family that is simply trying to live a very peaceful life in Canada. However, even taking into account the stress and insecurity, Kimberly, for the time being, is one of the luckier ones.

Similar to Kimberly, there are many war resistors who sought refuge in Canada. Canada is known for its history of welcoming those who seek a peaceful life. Some are still fighting to stay but one has been deported by the Conservative government even though the majority of Parliament expressed its real view that war resistors stay on June 3 of last year by adopting the motion that I am reintroducing today.

Last June, the Conservative government refused the will of Parliament but it cannot continue to ignore the lives being destroyed by deporting those like Kimberly to face harsh prosecution due to their peaceful convictions.

Robin Long was not as lucky as Kimberly. He was deported last year, a month after Parliament approved a motion to not deport war resisters. He is now sitting in prison because he refused to fight in an illegal war. Last weekend I had the experience of visiting Robin in the military prison. Robin has a one-year-old son who is in Canada and e desperately misses his son.

I thought I would read into the record of the House some of the notes that he has made and explain why he decided to come into this country. Before I read his notes, I want to say that there are other war resisters in Canada, including Chuck, who has been in Canada for a few years. He was in the army for 18 years, fought in many wars and was a decorated soldier. However, when he went to Iraq, he said that he could not continue to fight there.

(1015)

As I mentioned earlier, Kimberly was in Iraq but she saw how homes were being destroyed and, as a good Christian, she said that she could not do to her neighbours what she would not do to herself. She said she would not want to see her family's home being destroyed, and that morally she could not continue to fight in Iraq. She also saw children and families separated and their lives being put in harm's way. She would not want to do that to her children. She faced a moral dilemma. At the end of it, because she had a two-month break, she said she decided to keep driving north, and she came to Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Respectfully, the concurrence motion is on the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which ostensibly deals with the issue of war resisters. Perhaps the hon. member could clarify this. It would appear that the hon. member is carrying on a discussion of a specific case totally unrelated to the subject matter of the second report. On the basis of relevance, I raise this concern.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I will allow the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina to continue and ask that she be mindful of the motion before the House for the rest of her remarks.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the lives of young men and women such as Kimberly Rivera, Jeremy Hinzman, Patrick Hart, Joshua Key, all brave young soldiers. Patrick Hart, for example, had been in the army for eight years. He was in the first Iraq war and then he went back. We are talking about their lives and I cannot help but talk about their lives because what we do here and what the government chooses to do makes a big difference to their lives. They could either go to jail for months or years, or they could live peacefully in this country.

The reason why I choose to talk about their lives is because often in this House we debate points, we debate theories, we very seldom talk about what we do that has a direct impact on the lives of people who are in Canada. I have to talk about their lives, especially the life of Robin Long, who is now in jail even though he has a Canadian born son.

I have to talk about Patrick Hart because he lives in my riding. He has been in Iraq. He described in graphic detail what was happening in Iraq. He has a son who attends a school in my riding whose friends and classmates are my constituents' children. Patrick volunteered to fundraise for the Epilepsy Association of Canada and his wife works in the Lula Lounge which is a very famous Queen Street pub in my area where a lot of my constituents go.

Their lives are very much connected to the lives of ordinary Canadians. A poll showed at least 65% of ordinary Canadians said that we must let the war resisters stay, they are our neighbours. If we then asked other Canadians, some of them will tell us that they came to Canada during the Vietnam War and made Canada their home.

Last night I was at another meeting talking about waterfront revitalization. One middle-aged man, very well dressed and doing very well, probably a lawyer from the way he was talking at the meeting, came to me privately afterwards and thanked me for the work that I was doing for the war resisters. He came to Canada from the U.S. when he was asked to go to Vietnam and he did not go to that war. He told me he was so happy that he is a Canadian and he has been in Canada since the early seventies.

Yes, I am talking about the lives of quite a few of these war resisters. I have to because what we do here has an impact on their lives.

Kimberly Rivera and her four month-old daughter came to Parliament Hill. She drove five hours each way, so 10 hours yesterday, to tell us what kind of life she is having in Canada, how she loves this country. I was very pleased to see that my colleagues from both the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois were with us at the press conference yesterday morning. Imagine a young baby, four months old, being torn away from her mother and not being able to continue living with her mother because her mother is cruelly thrown in jail and can no longer continue to breastfeed her baby. Make no mistake about it, once a mother is in jail she cannot take care of her children and Kimberly Rivera has three children.

(1020)

Many war resisters work in Canada. Corey Glass, for example, has a very good job in Canada. If we were to have a program that allowed them to stay, it would have a dramatic impact on their lives.

I want to remind members of Parliament that in the early 1970s, after a great debate that lasted for over a year, the government, finally made the wise decision to allow at least 50,000 Americans to stay in Canada. They were the ones who would not fight in Vietnam.

It is an identical parallel situation right now because what is happening in Iraq is very similar. Canada chose not to fight the war in Iraq. It chose not to fight the war in Vietnam. We really should allow war resisters to remain in Canada.

Also, I want to remind members that this was debated in the immigration committee in the last Parliament. It was debated again during this session and the discussions were very similar. We need to remember that it is not a very difficult decision, even on humanitarian grounds, to allow war resisters to stay.

I want to put the words of Robin Long on the record in the few minutes I have left. He stated:

In 2004, when Jeremy Hinzman applied for refugee status in Canada, the federal government stepped in at his refugee hearing and said that evidence challenging the legality of the war in Iraq cannot be used in his case.

The U.N. Handbook for Refugees and the Nuremburg Principals say: “a soldier of an army that is involved in an illegal war of aggression has a higher international duty to refuse service. They also have the right to seek refugee protection in any country that is signatory to the Geneva Convention”.

By refusing to allow him, and by precedent all other claimants, the right to use the argument that the war was illegal, the decision closed the door on that legal avenue for refugee protection.

The invasion of Iraq was clearly an illegal act of aggression. The U.S. was not under attack or the imminent threat of attack from the nation of Iraq. The action was also not approved by the U.N. Security Council.

By taking this stance, the Conservative government is condoning the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq.

Is this what Canadians want? A majority of Americans want it to end and have also realized it to be a mistake. Canadians have long known it to be wrong. Why is the minority Conservative government still holding onto the idea and still deporting war resisters?

Why are they separating families and being complicit in the incarceration of morally strong young men and women? What message is this sending?

Parliament voted to let war resisters remain. In June of 2008 Canada’s Parliament voted on a non-binding resolution to allow war resisters and their families permanent resident status. The vote passed. In agreement with the vote, a poll of Canadian opinion showed overwhelming support for the resolution.

But in defiance of Parliament and the will of the people, the Conservative minority government led by [the] Prime Minister and Immigration Minister ignored the bill. The government stated that all refugee claimants are give a fair chance to plead their case at the Refugee Board, and special treatment to these Iraq resisters wasn’t fair to the other claimants. The government has also stated in the past that we are not legitimate claimants because we are from the U.S. which they say has a fair and transparent justice system and we wouldn’t be singled out for being political.

(1025)

That is not the case. Robin Long went on to state:

On July 14th, 2008 in my final attempt to stay in Canada, where my son and community are, [the] Federal Judge...stated that I didn't prove I would be treated harshly by the U.S. military for being a political outspoken opponent to the war in Iraq and the Bush administration policy.

Robin Long continued to tell us, even in jail, that the trial he received was not fair in his mind. He said that the only evidence used against him was the newspaper clippings and a CBC tape in Canada where he talked about his experience and why he would not go to Iraq. In these newspaper clippings he talked about his inability or his colleagues' inability to find any weapons of mass destruction. That was the only evidence that was used against Robin Long in his trial.

He also said that he was given 15 months, which is much harsher than a lot of the other soldiers. He gave the example of a person called Belmor Ramos who was sentenced to only seven months after being convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the case of four Iraqi men. In 2007 he stood guard while others blindfolded and shot in the head four unidentified Iraqi men and afterwards dumped the bodies in a Baghdad canal. During his court martial Belmor Ramos admitted his guilt, stating, “I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification to do this”. That man got seven months, whereas Mr. Robin Long, who refused to participate in the killing, got 15 months. Where is the justice? The system is just not fair and impartial. Robin Long asked, “Can it really be transparent when you don't know why you are being sentenced for speaking out?”

What we have are some very brave young men and women who want to make Canada their home. Parliament has debated this issue several times. I hope for the lives of people like Joshua Key, Jeremy Hintzman and Kimberly Rivera that we allow these war resisters to stay in Canada. We are not talking of a great number. There are some who have been in Canada for four to five years. Even on humanitarian grounds there is no reason to deport them. Many have Canadian born children. I hope that the government will open its heart for a change and listen to the stories of these young men and women and allow them to stay in Canada. I believe they make excellent Canadian citizens.

(1030)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Vietnam and Iraq are identical. They are not identical at all. In Vietnam it was a conscripted army and in Iraq it is a volunteer army.

The member talked about Iraq. She should maybe look at what Iraq is like today. Iraq is actually in pretty good shape.

What is really outrageous is that we are taking three hours away from discussing the criminal justice agenda, justice issues that would make life safer for Canadians. The NDP is taking three hours out of that to talk about criminals from another country.

First of all, we are very pleased to welcome to Canada those who seek a peaceful life, but not criminals avoiding a lawful process in another country; another country, by the way, that shares the same values as Canada, shares the same sense of responsibility to people around the world. Why is the member presupposing judgment in the United States for these criminals if they were to return to the United States?

The member has put a lot of faith in President Obama. The NDP members seem to be enthused about the arrival of President Obama on the scene. Why is she not putting faith in President Obama to deal with these people in a humane and reasonable manner?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a statement. The hon. member said that during the Vietnam war the people who came to Canada were all conscripted. That is not true. Some of them were, but there is a good number who fought in Vietnam voluntarily and then refused to continue fighting. Some volunteered and then decided, after seeing what other soldiers were going through, not to go at all. Of the 50,000 people who came to Canada, a good percentage of them were in fact not conscripted.

Also, we cannot presuppose that these young men and women are criminals. I talked about Sergeant Patrick Hart, who has been in the army for eight years. He is a decorated solider. To say that these people are criminals is presupposing that they have committed a crime. Can we say to a person who has refused to kill another human being that he or she has committed a crime? I do not consider that to be a crime, especially in a war that is not sanctioned by the United Nations and a war in which Canada refused to participate. I am quite proud that Canada did not send soldiers to Iraq, and as such, they did not have to go through the kind of experiences that many of these war resisters have had to experience.

We need to listen to their words. Joshua Key, for example, said that he saw a young girl being shot in the back of the head. After that experience, even though he had been there for over a year, he could not continue that kind of tour of duty and he left.

I hope that my colleague takes the time to read the account of these soldiers who are in the Iraq war and understand that some of them have been subject to a stop-loss extension, which means that they had to go back for a second, third or fourth tour of duty and they did not want to do so. There is nothing voluntary about that. They are conscripted to go back many times against their will. That is why they are here.

(1035)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which is important for the House to consider. More important, when matters such as this one come before the House and we have the conclusion and the recommendation of the committee but none of the substantive argument, it makes it very difficult for the House to understand the compelling reasons that a particular position ought to be taken.

I would ask the member, rather than her interpretation, to give the House an indication of the substantive arguments that were made by witnesses before the committee as to why we ought not to move forward as recommended by the committee.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, the committee heard from Phil McDowell, who is a soldier. The committee also heard from lawyers and people who have been involved in assisting the war resisters. We heard that their refugee claims were turned down because the refugee board refused to hear the case of whether the invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal. Subsequently, the Federal Court overturned the refugee board's decision in the case of Joshua Key. His case was sent back to the refugee board. The refugee board has yet to re-examine his case.

In these cases, one refugee board member has said that they do not qualify. They are now in front of the Federal Court. In some of these cases, the Federal Court has said they should be re-examined. In other cases, the Federal Court has said the board might have made the right decision. It has gone on back and forth.

If we look back historically, former minister Allan MacEachen said that we should consider establishing a program that would allow all war resisters or draft dodgers from Vietnam to stay in Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked what I thought was a very good question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence asked a very specific question about President Obama and whether or not the member for Trinity—Spadina actually agreed that President Obama has the ability to have those who have deserted their country treated fairly in a court of law and treated fairly as citizens of the United States.

I want to give the member for Trinity—Spadina a chance to respond to that question specifically because she chose not to respond to that question. Her party continues to mention how important the new administration is in the United States. If she does not have faith in that administration, let her say it today here in the House of Commons.

(1040)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, the new Obama administration has a different point of view on the war in Iraq and will be pulling the soldiers out in a few years' time.

The soldiers who are in Canada came to Canada when there was a different administration in the United States. They are here. What has occurred is that what they said in Canada is now being used against them. It is now being entered as evidence. Because the army had already ruled in that way prior to President Obama taking office, most likely many of these young men and women will be put in jail.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some suggestion that the American war resisters who are in Canada are somehow unpatriotic Americans. That could not be further from the truth. They are patriotic Americans who chose to serve their country because they believed that their country was under threat from the Iraqi regime. In fact, like us, they were lied to. The American administration told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that threatened the United States and the rest of the world.

These people volunteered to do their patriotic duty and then they discovered the lie of the administration, the lie that took them into the armed forces.

I wonder if the member for Trinity—Spadina could comment on how she has understood these people to be patriotic Americans, and how they have tried to exercise their conscience as patriotic Americans and that is indeed exactly what brought them here to Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, Chuck Wiley has been a soldier in the U.S. army for 18 years, and he has risen up in the ranks. One could not find a more patriotic American than Chuck Wiley. Phil McDowell finished college and then he heard that his country, America, was under attack after 9/11. He said, “I need to defend my country,” and he immediately volunteered. Then when he got to Iraq he could not find any weapons of mass destruction. That is why he said he could not continue.

They volunteered. They did not find what they were sent to—

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things I want to talk about this morning with respect to the motion for concurrence.

First, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina and her party have spoken for months about President Obama and the new administration. While the election was happening, they spoke about the change the man would bring to the country, how much his administration would mean to a change leadership in the United States and how important it was for him to be elected. Once he was elected, on a daily basis, the NDP quoted, spoke and referred to him. Yet the hon. member had two opportunities to respond to a question from me and from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

Today we have heard that the NDP and the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina have no faith whatsoever in the justice system of the United States, in the administration of the new President and the President himself. It is unacceptable that the NDP would use that. In fact, the hon. member did not say anything to support him. That needs to be put on the record.

I speak passionately about this for a number of reasons. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina mentioned Patrick Hart and what he had faced when he saw a young girl get shot in Iraq.

I want to read from a story about a young girl in Toronto on Boxing Day, who was also shot and killed:

The Boxing Day shooting took place December 26, 2005 on Toronto's Yonge Street when a shootout between two youth gangs resulted in the death of a 15-year-old student. Six other bystanders—four men and two women—were wounded. The incident took place on one of Toronto's most crowded streets on the very busy shopping day, just a few blocks north of the Toronto Eaton Centre.

The story generated coverage across not only our country, but around the world. The story goes on:

Jane Creba...a student in Grade 10 at Riverdale Collegiate Institute, was killed in the incident. While shopping with her sister, she crossed the road to go to find a public washroom on the west side of the street, when the gunfight erupted. One bullet passed through her upper torso, lodging in her clothing; it was later recovered in hospital. She was rushed to hospital and died during emergency surgery.

What does that have to do with the hon. member's comments this morning? I can tell the House exactly what it has to do with them. Prior to this motion for concurrence, the Minister of Justice introduced two specific pieces of legislation that would deal with issues of gun and gang violence. These would specifically deal with a young girl who was murdered on the streets of downtown Toronto.

I know the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina has a compassionate commitment and an ideological perspective on American war deserters, but I and the Conservative Party disagree with it fundamentally. However, that is her perspective and she has a right to hold that view.

At the same time, why does she take away from the very justice legislation that would deal with issues she and her party believe are important and very close to her riding in downtown Toronto?

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh sits on the justice committee and is the justice critic for the NDP. He stated clearly that he believed, on behalf of his party, that we should fast track the legislation that would be before the House today.

At the very same time, we are now delaying what I believe is some of the most important legislation we will deal with in the 40th Parliament. If passed by Parliament, the proposed act to amend the Criminal Code will automatically impose a first degree murder charge on murders connected to organized crime activity. First degree murder is subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

The proposed bill will also create a new offence to address drive-by and other reckless shootings. This offence will carry a mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment with a maximum of fourteen years. The minimum sentence will increase if the offence is committed for a criminal organization and with a prohibited or restricted firearm such as a hand gun. It will also create two new offences of aggravated assault against a peace or public officer and assault with a weapon on a peace or public officer. This will be punishable by maximum penalties of 14 and 10 years respectively.

(1045)

The Minister of Justice is passionate about these issues. He cares about them as does this government. In fact, we have an opposition party that believes in this, and while we may criticize at times its belief in the need for stronger justice legislation, it is committed to this legislation.

Apparently the NDP is committed to moving this legislation forward, but if it is 100% committed to this, why do we stand here today to deal with an issue that has been dealt with already and has been voted on in the House? We have a democratically elected new President in the United States who, according to the very party that she represents, will treat those who are sent back to their country in a fair and democratic way under its justice system, which we all agree is a fair justice system.

We can continue this debate on another day, there is no question. Right now two important justice bills are before the House, which aim to deal with gang violence.

Therefore, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

(1050)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

* * *

(1130)

[Translation]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 42)

YEAS

Members

Abbott
Ablonczy
Aglukkaq
Albrecht
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Ashfield
Benoit
Bernier
Bezan
Blackburn
Block
Boucher
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Cadman
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Carrie
Casey
Casson
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cummins
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fast
Finley
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Glover
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hiebert
Hill
Hoeppner
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lemieux
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
O'Connor
O'Neill-Gordon
Obhrai
Payne
Petit
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Richards
Richardson
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Sweet
Thompson
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Uppal
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich

Total: -- 125

NAYS

Members

Allen (Welland)
André
Andrews
Ashton
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Beaudin
Bélanger
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Bevington
Bigras
Black
Bonsant
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brunelle
Byrne
Cannis
Cardin
Carrier
Charlton
Chow
Coderre
Comartin
Cotler
Crombie
Cullen
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Desnoyers
Dewar
Dhalla
Dion
Dorion
Duceppe
Dufour
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Easter
Eyking
Faille
Folco
Foote
Gagnon
Garneau
Gaudet
Godin
Goodale
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord)
Hall Findlay
Harris (St. John's East)
Holland
Hyer
Jennings
Julian
Kania
Kennedy
Laforest
Laframboise
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Leslie
Malhi
Malo
Marston
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
Mathyssen
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Mendes
Minna
Mulcair
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Oliphant
Ouellet
Pacetti
Paillé
Paquette
Patry
Pearson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proulx
Rae
Rafferty
Regan
Rodriguez
Roy
Russell
Savoie
Scarpaleggia
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simms
Simson
St-Cyr
Stoffer
Szabo
Tonks
Trudeau
Valeriote
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wrzesnewskyj
Zarac

Total: -- 128

PAIRED

Nil

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I declare the motion lost.

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Justice on a point of order.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, maybe there was a little bit of confusion in the minds of the opposition. We are supposed to be debating Bill C-14, which is the government's anti-crime and anti-gang bill. That was supposed to be on the order paper today. All these people here purport to be supporting the government's anti-crime agenda. When they had the opportunity today, they got together and went back to their old habits. They all got together—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I do not think the minister is really raising a point of order. It sounds like a matter of debate. He may want to participate in the debate that is before the House now, because we are about to resume debate on a motion to concur in a committee report.

There is no point of order. There was a motion to adjourn the debate. The motion was defeated, so we resume the debate.

I cannot imagine how there could be a point of order. We had a vote and the vote result has been announced. We have not heard one so far, and I can see that other members are getting up to argue about something that in my view is not a point of order.

Is there a different point of order from the House Leader of the Official Opposition?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice may not have been aware of discussions among House leaders. Pursuant to those discussions among House leaders earlier this week, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent in the House that we would agree that by the end of the day today we will send Bill C-14 to committee.

(1135)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Godin:

Mr. Speaker, could you put the question again, please?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Is there unanimous consent that Bill C-14 be referred to committee after second reading at the end of today's sitting?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order. When the House voted on the motion, the time for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had expired, so we will now move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the hon. member and I have a couple of questions.

As the member knows, the House has just been presented with a concurrence motion on the second report, which only gives the conclusion. I had asked the mover of the motion earlier and I would ask the parliamentary secretary now to confirm that it is the committee's view that the persons referenced in the cases in the United States would be charged with the criminal offence of desertion, notwithstanding that they volunteered for the original service but the complication or grey area has to do with being asked to or ordered to serve a second tour or more.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he could clarify for the House the concerns that were raised on their status and whether there are any other substantive reasons the House may not be aware of that argue in favour of or opposed to the motion.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra:

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly our position that, as a general rule, military deserters from the United States are not genuine refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term. This position has been upheld, as the member may know, by three independent tribunals: the IRB, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal.

As the member knows, the committee is certainly of its own volition in terms of the position it may take. I also know the member is fully aware of the fact that a majority of the members who sit on that committee are in opposition. I can inform the member that the report certainly was reviewed and delivered to the House. It was also delivered with a minority report from the government, which opposed the recommendations held by the committee.

I think he is fairly aware of the government's position on this issue. The committee is of its own will, but that does not necessarily make the votes of the opposition within that committee the correct interpretation of this government.

(1140)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Canada decided not to take part in the war in Iraq because it considered that war illegal and unjust. At least that is the opinion of most Quebeckers, Canadians and members of this House.

We know that the Prime Minister and the current Leader of the Opposition were in favour of the war in Iraq at the time, but that no longer seems to be the case.

Does the parliamentary secretary believe this war is just or unjust? Does he, like most Canadians, believe it is an illegal war because it is not sanctioned by the UN?

Does he feel it is right that Kimberly Rivera is facing several months in prison and is separated from her family and her children, including a four-month-old who was born in Canada and is therefore a Canadian citizen?

Does he feel it is fair that this person faces a prison term because she refuses to take part in a war that everyone in Canada considers illegal?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra:

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that whenever situations of this nature arise there are going to be impacts, not just on the individual, but impacts that may go a bit further than that with respect to family.

I appreciate the question. I think it is a fair one in terms of understanding the issue and the situation we face. I would say to the hon. member that people's decision to desert, to go against their commitment to both their country and their colleagues in war, is one that they have to make on their own. They are certainly free to do that, but they have to understand also that the consequences of that decision will have an impact on them individually and will have an impact on their family or their potential family. That is a decision they make. It is not one that we make for them; it is one that they have made on their own.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the question of delay of crime bills. I want to ask him if he feels that the Prime Minister was delaying crime bills, since there has not been a government bill in front of the justice committee for over a year now. The reason has been that, first, the Conservative chair of that committee at the time refused to let the committee function. Then we had the election call by the Prime Minister, who then prorogued Parliament, and we are still waiting.

As recently as Monday, Bill C-14, the gang bill, could have been before the House.

I am wondering if he feels that, on each of those occasions, his party and the representatives of his party were delaying the advance of crime bills in this legislature.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra:

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had another 20 minutes to respond to that question, because it brings up a whole host of issues that I certainly would like to respond to.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh and I both sat on the justice committee during the 39th Parliament, and I certainly understand why we had delays at that committee. It was not because this side of the House did not believe in its crime agenda and did not want to move motions forward. All we had were frivolous motions brought forward by the opposition to deal with issues that were completely unrelated to the job and requirements at hand at the committee to bring back legislation to the House so that it could be voted on third reading.

The member knows full well what those motions were and why they occurred. We had an election because this Parliament, based somewhat on the issues that were faced at the justice committee, could not move justice legislation forward. We had an election for those reasons. That is exactly why.

We are now back in the House, and today is a perfect example of how we could have moved justice legislation forward. Not one person on this side of the House wants to delay justice, wants to delay legislation, wants to delay what the people of this country have said they wanted.

Every person on that side of the House did that this morning, and hopefully we can get back to doing what is right in this country and putting justice legislation forward that means something in the House, that means something for the people in Toronto, that means something for the people in this province and for this country.

(1145)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly comment on the comment made by the parliamentary secretary, with whom I worked on the citizenship and immigration committee, in reference to the justice issue.

Members probably saw just a few minutes ago in this House the leadership of the member of Parliament for Wascana, who actually proposed that the bill now go straight to committee. I think that shows that on the issue of justice, we as a party understand its importance, understand that the issue needs to be studied, and we also understand that action is required on that file.

I also agree with the previous speaker from Windsor who said that in fact there has been a delay. We can now focus on the justice issue and move forward, and provide the best justice legislation we can as Canadians to a population that deserves better justice legislation.

Today we are of course debating the issue of the concurrence motion which recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors, and their immediate family members, partners and dependants, who have left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations, and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent residence status and remain in Canada, and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions it may have already commenced against such individuals.

I come to this issue as an individual who sat around the cabinet table during the decision not to enter the Iraq war. Back then, the former prime minister said in an address to the House of Commons that the decision on whether or not to send troops into battle must always be a decision of principle, not a decision of economics, not even a decision of friendship alone. That is what Mr. Chrétien said.

As I said, I was a member of that cabinet that decided not to participate in the Iraq war. We took a stand against military intervention in Iraq. The decision not to engage was the right decision, a decision that Canadians strongly supported. In many ways, that decision was a defining moment in Canadian history.

I believe that the decision made by members of my caucus and other members of the opposition to support war resisters is the right decision as well. It is a decision that is based on the sound values of fairness, justice, understanding, and compassion for these individuals who are in fact engaged in the Iraq war.

There is a bit of an issue here. I have paid attention of course to the debate, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have to understand that we cannot be looking at the Iraq situation now as being the same as the past. These are different conditions.

We have a new administration in the United States of America, and of course I note that Secretary Gates has signalled a change to that provision for the future, but that is for the future. We need to look at present conditions. We need to look at individuals such as Kimberly Rivera and her Canadian-born infant who are faced with different conditions. To be revisionist as it comes to the issue of time does not really be apply to this issue.

We also feel, on this side of the House, that the whole issue of compulsion of a stop loss provision in the United States is simply not consistent with values that we as Canadians hold, in the sense of fairness and justice for individuals.

For the benefit of the House and for Canadians who perhaps did not watch the press conference that was held yesterday in support of Kimberly Rivera, I want to read into the record of the House of Commons what I said, because what I said at that press conference embodies how I truly feel about this issue, this individual, and the actions that we have to take as a Parliament.

(1150)

I said, after Kimberly Rivera spoke and as I listened to her speak and tell her story, that I was really struck by her sincerity and her honesty and integrity, as well as I think her principled position on the Iraq war. It is a position that I share. It is a position that a vast majority of Canadians share. It is a position that the ramifications of that war have been very serious on a number of fronts.

I said that I was a member of the cabinet that decided not to participate in the Iraq war. We took a stand against military intervention in Iraq. The decision not to engage was the right decision, a decision Canadians strongly support. It was a defining moment in Canadian history. A decision taken by the Liberal Party and other members of the opposition to support Kimberly Rivera is the right decision as well, a decision based on sound principles of fairness, understanding, compassion and justice. The element of compulsion and the stop loss provisions in the U.S. are not consistent with these values. We note that Secretary of State Gates has signalled change to this provision for the future. This is a critical point of distinction.

Canadians understand fairness and Canadians understand justice. What Canadians fail to understand is a Conservative government that essentially, with its action, wants to separate this mother from her Canadian born infant child and potentially send her to a military prison for having made the decision to follow her conscience. That is essentially what it is, following her conscience under the circumstances that existed at that time.

Canadians do not understand that. They do not understand why we would put Ms. Rivera through all this because she opposed the war that the Prime Minister has finally admitted was absolutely an error, and I am quoting him.

I want the government to immediately intervene and let Kimberly and her family stay in Canada, a place where she feels at home. I hope that the Prime Minister and his government will understand that deporting Kimberly Rivera, for holding views that the vast majority of Canadians believe in, is wrong.

The Prime Minister needs to understand that the critical point is the element of compulsion and the stop loss provisions in the U.S. I ask him to intervene, to act with justice and fairness, and let Kimberly stay in Canada and her Canadian born child and family. It is the right thing to do.

I felt it was important for me to put that on the record because as members of the opposition when we were holding the press conference, we could see the humanity of this issue.

Parliament and public life is not necessarily sort of a neat package where everything fits in perfectly. There are times when we as individuals need to look at ways to help people by using a different perspective to address the plight that these people face in their reality.

There have been a number, and time does not permit me to go through all the issues related to this particular matter, but I know that other members who are sharing the time with me, like the member of Parliament for Etobicoke Centre, will address some of the other issues. I just want raise a couple of points.

Some people question that when these individuals go back everything in their lives will be just fine. When we look at Robin Long, who was deported by Canada in July 2008, he received a lengthy prison sentence of 15 months in military prison and received a dishonourable discharge.

James Burmeister, who voluntarily returned to the U.S. from Canada, was sentenced to nine months in military prison and given a bad conduct discharge equivalent to a felony conviction.

(1155)

So, this notion that they go back and everything is fine and that they go on with their lives is actually inaccurate. We as individuals here in the Parliament of Canada need to factor all these things in as we contemplate a fair response to the challenges that these individuals face.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and his comments both on the issue of our justice legislation that has now been held up because of this concurrence motion and on the issue of American war deserters.

I would like to ask him a two-part question.

First, I asked the member for Trinity—Spadina whether or not she had faith in the new President Obama administration that justice would be served and fairness would be served on how deserters would be treated, in terms of not only a court of law but also in terms of fairness. I would ask him to respond as to whether he thinks that will not be the case.

I would also like to ask him, in issues that surround personal difficult decisions like these, are not the individuals who make the decision to desert not responsible for the actions that they take, and I know that this can, and has, become a very emotional issue. Despite that, when we deal directly with the impact of the decision that they have made on their own, in consultation with their family, or not, is it not incumbent upon those individuals to clearly understand, before they make that decision, the impact that decision would potentially have?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua:

Mr. Speaker, I think we in this House, as elected officials, understand the responsibility of our actions and the consequences of our actions. In the same way, I think that we need to understand the consequences of our actions as parliamentarians when we are dealing with this particular issue. This is an issue that requires reflection and action at the same time.

In reference to the new American administration and my faith in it, I thought I was very clear during the press conference that it was important to note that Secretary Gates has signalled a change to the stop loss provisions, as well as compulsion. I brought it to light at the press conference because I thought it was the right thing to do, to tell Canadians and the reporters present that in fact there is this change afoot in the United States. What we will need to do, and this is to the parliamentary secretary, is to look at the changes--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like my Liberal colleague to clarify part of his speech, even though obviously we also wholeheartedly support the motion before us today.

He talked about how things have changed now that Mr. Obama is President of the United States. But it seems to me that regardless of the administration in place, Canadians still consider this war unjust, and American deserters are still very much at risk if they have to face the U.S. justice system. In my opinion, this issue has not really changed.

For example, the Prime Minister and the leader of the member's party have changed their positions on this issue. We know that the Liberal leader was in favour of the war in Iraq. Regardless, that war was and still is unjust.

(1200)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua:

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that I had the opportunity in the then cabinet of Mr. Jean Chrétien to address this particular issue. I think the member is aware of the decision not to participate in the war. It is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is about as clear as we can get. I remember that in those days there were individuals, including the present Prime Minister, who said that was the wrong way to go and who wanted to enter into the war in Iraq.

The reason I signalled the change in administration was to bring to light to Parliament and the Canadian people that Secretary Gates has signalled that on these particular issues change is on its way—

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I am going to have to stop the hon. member there. I know he would like to continue, but unfortunately we are out of time for that slot.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a history, one could call it a legacy, of providing sanctuary to those in the United States who, for reasons of principle, make that difficult decision to leave their homeland and come up north to Canada. We could go back to the era of the Loyalists, or the Underground Railroad which funnelled slaves to freedom in Canada.

In the modern era we have the example of the Vietnam war. Some 50,000 Vietnam war draft dodgers came up to Canada, found sanctuary and began new lives. We welcomed them. At the same time, approximately 5,000 active duty soldiers, many of them volunteers, after having done a tour of duty in Vietnam and having seen the reality of that war, also made the decision to come up to Canada. They did not come up as draft dodgers. They were active duty soldiers and Vietnam war resisters.

Currently there are approximately 200 Iraq war resisters in our country. On June 3, 2008, Parliament reaffirmed the Canadian legacy of providing sanctuary. We reaffirmed it by a majority vote. The motion reads in part:

[T]he government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada--

Throughout Canada's history, there has always been a minority within the country who do not agree with providing sanctuary. There was a minority who did not agree with allowing the Loyalists and slaves in. During the Vietnam war there was a minority who did not like the idea of allowing the draft dodgers to stay. We have always allowed them to remain and have provided them with the opportunity to stay in Canada. We reaffirmed it.

Polling has shown two-thirds of Canadians would like the Iraq war resisters to be given the opportunity to stay in Canada. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the will of the majority of Canadians, Parliament and the House of Commons, in this particular case the minority Conservative government has decided it will deport the resisters.

In fact, within a month of the House of Commons expressing its will to allow them to stay, the government provided the Bush administration with a present. On July 4, an American holiday, the government began proceedings against the first Iraq war resister to be deported, Mr. Robin Long. Mr. Long applied to the Federal Court to not be deported. When his case was heard, Federal Court justice Anne Mactavish decided that irreparable harm would not be caused should the young man be deported.

Based on all the statistics she would have had in front of her, that seemed to be a correct decision. Only 10% of soldiers who go AWOL end up charged in the United States. Of those 10%, the vast majority receive very minor sentences of six to eight months.

(1205)

I will give an example of the type of justice the U.S. military metes out in military courts. First infantry division soldier Belmor Ramos was sentenced to seven months after being convicted of conspiracy to commit the murder of four Iraqi men. In 2007 he stood guard while others blindfolded and shot in the head four unidentified men, and afterwards dumped their bodies in a Baghdad canal. During his court martial, Ramos admitted his guilt, stating, “I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification to do this”. He got seven months.

Only 10% of those going AWOL end up charged. In that extremely serious case involving murder, there was a seven month sentence. Justice Mactavish quite reasonably deduced that irreparable harm would not be caused.

What happened? Mr. Long was deported. During his trial only one piece of evidence was presented. It was a CBC interview. The prosecution produced a CBC interview where he spoke out against the Iraq war. He received a 15 month sentence. That was 15 months for a young man of 25, a young father with a three-year-old Canadian born child. He should be with his son during the formative years. Quite clearly, the U.S. military justice system has caused irreparable harm to Mr. Robin Long.

What is even more disturbing is that in January of this year the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration publicly stated to the media that these people are not Iraq war resisters, that they are strictly deserters.

There are two problems with that statement. The first one is, the minister is supposed to have an arm's length relationship with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Decisions before the board should not be prejudged by the very minister who appoints and reappoints the board members. All those decisions of the board are now under a cloud. Even worse, before publicly making this proclamation, I question whether or not the minister actually sat down with these Iraq war resisters to hear their stories. The minister may not have, but in December I did.

I sat down with Iraq war resister Kimberly Rivera, a young mother of three, including a four-month-old Canadian born child. Kimberly was a volunteer, a patriotic American. She believed her president when he said there were weapons of mass destruction. However, upon arriving in Iraq, she became aware of a different reality. She told me that she saw the personal destruction of civilians' property and homes, the death of civilians, the shell-shocked small Iraqi children.

When she came back on leave, she made the difficult decision for a patriotic American, to uproot her family and come to Canada seeking sanctuary. She is quite clearly a conscientious objector. She is in jeopardy of being deported, and we know what kind of justice is being meted out by the U.S. military for those who speak out against the war in Iraq in Canada.

Why would we put this young mother of three children in a situation of jeopardy of this sort? Why would we separate her from her four-month-old Canadian born infant and put this young mother in prison for having made the principled decision not to be an agent in this particular war?

Let me also give the case of Phil McDowell. He was in Ottawa yesterday and I spoke with him briefly. He was in his senior year in university majoring in information technology. After 9/11 he volunteered. He served in Iraq from March 2004 to March 2005. He did his duty. He was disillusioned in the same way that Kimberly was disillusioned, but then he was called up again because of stop-loss, what many call forced deployment, a backdoor draft.

Parliament has expressed its will by majority. Let us not undermine the will of Parliament. Let us stop these deportations.

(1210)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I heard the impassioned plea of the member for Etobicoke Centre. His perspective is one that he has been able to make in the House and he has done so. However, it is an emotional plea. It is not one based on any legal foundation. It is not one based on the rules, regulations and stipulations that an individual makes when taking on the responsibility of joining the armed forces, certainly in the United States.

I have a two-part question.

First, his leader was very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq. His leader has now done a reverse on that after coming back to Canada. Does he believe his leader made the right decision to change his mind on that perspective? He was in favour of it and now he is not.

Second, could he comment on a quote from Prime Minister Trudeau on this issue? He said:

—surely a person who deserts from the armed forces of the U.S. is guilty of a criminal offense and accordingly would be inadmissible to Canada on that ground—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary began by referencing rules. We are the elected representatives chosen by the people of Canada to enact legislation and laws, to vote on motions and to reflect the will of Canadians, and that occurred. It is the minority government that has not respected the will of Canadians through their elected representatives. It is fundamentally undemocratic. Even worse, it undermines the very institution of the House of Commons.

I agree that when Parliament expresses its will, we should subscribe to the results of a majority vote. The government has chosen not to do that, which is most unfortunate.

He then said that this was an emotional issue. Sometimes, existing rules come together in a way that, in particular circumstances, requires our discretion—

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was completing his speech, he got to an important point about the nature of service in the U.S. military, during this period of the war in Iraq, and the whole stop-loss program. As he started to explain to us, the stop-loss program was a form of draft where individuals who signed up for what they were told would be one tour of duty have now been forced into second and sometimes third tour of duty in Iraq. Could he expand more on that?

Also, could he comment on the idea that we are somehow expecting people who sign on to the armed forces to check their conscience at the recruiting office door? Does he think that makes for a good military?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to expand a little on the stop-loss. Quite correctly, people call this a back door draft.

Phil McDowell was graduating from university and was not aware of the jeopardy he put himself into by signing on and volunteering. First, there was the disillusionment of the president claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction and that was the reason for this war. He arrived in Iraq and realized that this was not true. When he did his tour of duty and came back, the military went after him to do another tour of duty. This is a well-educated young man. Unfortunately, many of the recruiters used by the U.S. military—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

Order, please. Before we resume debate, I would like to remind hon. members that they have about a minute to ask a question and about a minute to respond. If you ignore the Chair, I am at times forced to cut you off. Please regard the Chair and I am sure everyone will get an opportunity to put their questions and the speakers will have an opportunity to answer them.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion before us, which leads us to reflect on our duty to welcome, or not welcome as the Conservatives believe, conscientious objectors from all over the world, but in this case from the United States, who seek refuge in Canada because they refuse to take part in a war they consider unjust and illegal.

It needs discussion, because this is particularly the case of the war in Iraq, which was declared under false pretences with false accusations of possession of weapons of mass destruction and is still being waged today, though it is just as illegal and illegitimate today as it was at the start.

Originally, some people were duped by George Bush into believing that there actually were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This war was backed for a time by people who reasonably believed that those weapons did exist, or who knew very well that this was not the case but felt that we ought to participate to please the Americans.

The present Prime Minister of course heads the list of those who backed Canadian participation in the war in Iraq. He sanctioned that war. The Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal Party was also among the ranks of those who sanctioned that war and wanted Canada to take part.

I am pleased to see today that the Liberal caucus has managed to convince its leader that this war is illegitimate. One might, however, wonder what lack of judgment and wisdom could have led him to support a war when the situation was clear to the most ordinary of citizens, even those perhaps lacking some of the intellectual capacity and wealth of information of the Liberal leader. How can it be that millions of people in Quebec knew the war was illegitimate, and yet it took so much time for the Liberal leader to figure out that the war in Iraq was a bad war and Canada ought not be involved in it?

The Liberal Party leader has changed his mind, and today the Liberals are supporting this motion before the House, for which I am very glad. I think I am right in stating that there is a very strong consensus on this within the Quebec nation and among Canadians.

The nation of Quebec has always stood for the values of pacifism, human compassion and respect for other peoples and our nation took an extremely firm stand during the debates on the war in Iraq. Please understand that I know that Canadians are a peaceful people too; I know and I believe that Canadians are a great people. Nevertheless, let me emphasize that opposition to Canada's participation in the war in Iraq was even stronger and more united in the nation of Quebec than it was in the rest of Canada, probably stronger even than in many countries in the west and around the world.

More than 250,000 people, in fact, braved the cold on that cold winter's day—and Heaven knows, days can be cold in Quebec—to demonstrate against the participation of Quebec and Canada in the war in Iraq.

(1220)

There were 250,000 people in the streets, a quarter of a million people. That is the kind of large demonstration that we normally see when the government makes decisions that directly affect people's lives, when the people feel personally engaged and fear the loss of their basic rights. They might be public servants or other workers who feel that they are going to be adversely affected themselves. They might be students, also afraid of losing their basic rights.

But what was so fantastic about that demonstration is that this was not the case. The people demonstrating that day in Montreal were not military people, and the great majority of them did not come from military families. They were people who, on a personal level, had very little connection with that war.

Those 250,000 people hit the streets in protest because it was about one of their values, one of their most deeply held beliefs. By the thousands, they represented the vast majority of Quebeckers who believed that the war was unjust and unjustified. I wanted to give that example since, here in the House, we are often divided because we reflect a division present in society, in both the Quebec nation and Canada, but I think that, in that instance, the consensus was very strong. Even at the time, few people other than the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party supported the American war in Iraq.

Think about it. We believe this war to be illegitimate and immoral because it is not sanctioned by the UN. If this war is immoral to Quebeckers, them it must be immoral to Canadians and Americans too. In fact, most Canadians think so. How can it be immoral to Canadians but not to Americans? If that is what we truly believe, we must stand up for our beliefs and act on our convictions.

As such, we cannot send people who share the deep conviction that this war is unjust back to the United States, where they will surely be punished, imprisoned, and treated unfairly and cruelly. Unlike most of us, they have seen it up close. We cannot send these people to certain jail, to cruel and unjust punishment, if we as a nation and a people believe this war to be unjust.

The whole refugee system is based on the principle that we believe our values are and should be universal. When we accept a refugee from a country where a dictator is terrorizing the people and trampling on human rights, we do so because we do not subscribe to those values.

Canadians and the Quebec nation do not support the absence of democracy and lack of respect for human rights. We therefore open our doors to refugees and tell them that they are welcome here because they are looking for a place where they can live according to the values we believe should be universal. We will not send people back to countries where we know that things we fundamentally oppose will happen. We do not have faith in the justice systems of such countries. The case of American conscientious objectors is similar.

(1225)

Let us be serious. Clearly, the United States is a democracy, with a thoroughly respectable legal and judicial system. Everyone agrees on that. Although they are our allies, our friends even, there is nevertheless a profound discrepancy between their values and convictions regarding the war in Iraq and our beliefs here in Canada. In the same way we accept refugees from countries where human rights are violated, because our values dictate that we should welcome people who are persecuted, we should also accept refugees who refuse to participate in an unjust war. That is the only logical decision possible. Even though this may not please our American friends, even though this could have costs attached, it must be done. We must act consistently.

I also had the opportunity to attend yesterday's press conference with Kimberly Rivera. She was facing deportation from Canada back to the United States. I thought she looked somewhat lost, with her four-month-old baby in her arms, among all the MPs and parliamentarians. She simply wanted to continue living a normal life here. She was not asking for much, really. She was not asking for charity or to sponge off of Canadian society. She simply wanted to be allowed to stay, and to participate in and contribute to Canadian society. We believe this is a completely reasonable, simple and intelligent thing to do.

The government's position is to refuse to intervene and to say, “Too bad for you, but you should not have enlisted, and you should not have changed your mind.” I would submit that it is not that simple.

First of all, yes, she did enlist, but then she saw for herself what was going on over there. She saw that the war was unjust and illegitimate. What is more, there is more than one person involved in this story. I would like to tell the parliamentary secretary that the four-month-old baby she had in her arms did not make the decision to sign up. He had nothing to do with it. He was born in Canada. He is a Canadian citizen, like all of us here in this place. He is at risk of separation from his mother, who could spent months—over a year—in an American prison for having refused to take part in a war which Quebeckers and Canadians strenuously object to. She did what the majority of our fellow citizens would have done. How can a mother and baby be punished because the mother did what we all would have done? This strikes me as completely illegitimate.

So, the minister still continues to refuse to intervene. That is a pity. When a person is elected here as a member of Parliament and then the Prime Minister has confidence enough in that person to make him or her a minister and decision-maker, then sometimes decisions need to be made.

I am aware, of course, that the minister cannot interfere in all cases and make all the decisions. It is not a matter of replacing public servants or living in a state where politicians second-guess the public administration. However, in cases as clear and obvious as this, where we are called upon to act as individuals, the minister should act and make use of his powers.

(1230)

But in cases as clear and obvious as this, where we are called upon to act as individuals, the minister should act and make use of his powers.

We have too often seen ministers, Conservatives now, but equally so the Liberals before them, settle for inaction and sidestep their responsibilities, saying,“I do not want to create a precedent. I do not want to interfere in the running of my department. ” But that is not what the Quebec nation and Canadians want from their elected representatives.

We have seen this in cases of all kinds, not only in this situation. We know our immigration system is not perfect. Everyone agrees with that, even on the government side. Everyone agrees that mistakes may be made, that bad decisions may be made, that there may be shortcomings in our legislation.

My dear colleagues, we all know that we work hard and that a great deal of work goes into passing legislation. However, sometimes we act quickly. We, too, are sometimes influenced by partisanship and emotion. I think that everyone here realizes that the laws we adopt are not perfect because they are adopted by human beings who are not perfect. Our public servants, who work passionately for us, for our government, for our country, also have the authority to make decisions. These people can also make decisions.

When such a singular case arises in our democracies, there is one person who has the authority to take action. That person is the minister. Making that decision, showing compassion, is not an admission by the minister that he is weak or has made mistakes. It means that he acknowledges that the situation is extraordinary, that there are special cases that require the intervention of someone who, we hope, can be compassionate. That person, the person in our parliamentary system, in our democratic system, who has the authority to make the decision is the minister.

This would not be the first time. Canada did the same for the American deserters who were fleeing the Vietnam war. This case is not a precedent.

I sincerely believe that this motion should be adopted by Parliament. I invite and urge the government to respect this decision, not only out of regard for democracy and the will of this House, but also out of compassion.

I would ask the minister to meet Kimberly and her young baby. I believe that after this meeting he would be feel more positive about the need to intervene.

We often deal with the files in a system. We set up a process or a machine and this machine is very dehumanizing. That is normal. We have no choice because there are so many files to deal with and so many things to do. But when we come across such moving cases as this one, that speak so strongly to our humanity, I believe that we must be guided by that humanity and make the only fair and reasonable decision, that is, to accept these American conscientious objectors who seek refuge in our country.

(1235)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his intervention in this debate and ask him to continue to work hard at committee where, hopefully, we can move all the work there that is necessary to be done on behalf of the government and this House.

Throughout his speech, the member spoke with an element of emotion and compassion. I certainly am one to agree with him that all of the issues that we face here are not just hard, fast and cold issues. They are issues that also have an element of emotion involved and an element of compassion.

The opposition is saying that they will be compassionate by taking the position they have, but I do not understand something. We have thousands upon thousands of refugees who apply legitimately to come to this country based on the oppression of a dictatorship, the oppression of their choice of religion and the oppression they see on a totalitarian government that is placed on them, and they are desperately seeking to come here to this country. That is also the compassion and emotion that should be displayed and we need to see that. Why does the member not show the same emotion and compassion to those refugees that he is showing to the individuals he is speaking about today?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr:

Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised by that statement. I am quite anxious to have a look at Hansard and review this situation which would apply perfectly to my bill, Bill C-291, which will compel the introduction of the refugee appeal division.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the two are not mutually exclusive. In my neck of the woods, we often say that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Frankly, I cannot see how the minister's acting to accept American conscientious objectors who come here to seek refuge would adversely affect all other refugee claimants. People who make that claim currently do so in Canada. As long as their claim has not been processed, they are not sent back to their country. Their life is not in danger. So I really cannot see what difference it would make if the minister were to intervene on behalf of conscientious objectors.

Of course, the minister and the government have to allocate more resources and process refugee claims more effectively so that these people can get answers more quickly. Moreover, to avoid arbitrariness, the government needs to support my bill to introduce the refugee appeal division.

(1240)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.):

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his comments on this important topic today. I would have one question.

Why does the deputy minister's attitude seem to suggest that all resisters are criminals? Parliamentarians met with Ms. Rivera yesterday. Is she a criminal? Perhaps the member knows the ideological reasons behind this government's refusal to agree with the majority of Quebeckers and other Canadians on this issue. Perhaps the member would have an ideological explanation as to why this family must grapple with this problem concerning the motion.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr:

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I feel that that question will remain forever unanswered. I may have my opinions, but I really do not know what the problem is for the government. We could always ask, but I suspect that we will not get any more of an answer.

But, at very least, we can hypothesize a little. First, there is clearly the desire not to upset the Americans, which is not a bad thing in itself when looked at objectively. I am not saying that we always have to be raising objections to what they do. But we do have to stand by our principles, our values and our convictions, even when the Americans may not be pleased about it.

The second thing I can see is a systematic desire on the part of the government and this minister to not make decisions and to not take action. I hope that that will change and that a person will be there to correct the mistakes that the machine keeps making.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the last question asking why the government is portraying war resisters in a certain light. I thank the member for his answer.

The motion is very straightforward. It is a special provision under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for persons who are conscientious objectors to the war in Iraq, It is a war based on a lie, a war Canadians do not support and a war the government did not support. This last Parliament endorsed this motion and yet the government stands here today opposing it.

I would like the hon. member's opinion or thoughts as to why the government opposes this motion when it has passed in this House before.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr:

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed quite incomprehensible, but let me add something. The parliamentary secretary will, of course, have the opportunity to respond, as will his colleagues.

We must ask ourselves a more basic question: how do we manage these exceptional situations? Is it weakness to step in when mistakes are made—as the Conservatives seem to think—or is it the intelligent thing to do?

In the specific case of conscientious objectors, I do not believe that it is an easy decision nor do I believe that these are irresponsible people. They signed a piece of paper, they changed their minds, and then they came to Canada. That is a difficult decision to make: they leave their families, their friends, their acquaintances and they head to the unknown, to risks and difficulties. They do so because they believe that this war is unjust. They do so because they have been there, and they have seen things that are unacceptable on a human level.

That is why they come here to see us, and that is how we should view this.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with some interest to the debate. I hear the member, in his remarks, referring to the Iraq war. Whether we agree or disagree, he has chosen to characterize it as an unjust war, an illegitimate war.

I would ask the member about Saddam Hussein. Maybe he is on his hero list. He was a man who used his considerable wealth to build himself multiple palaces. He kept his people impoverished. He ruled with a brutal regime. He used poison gas against the Kurds. Thousands of people died under his regime. He invaded the neighbouring sovereign state of Kuwait and set its oil fields on fire. He sent at least 39 missiles into Israel, trying to set the whole world on fire, and sent missiles into Saudi Arabia. He also provided $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

When the member makes the remarks that he does, he does not understand that not everybody agrees with his remarks. When he calls these people war resisters, he should understand that there is no mandatory conscription in the United States. Those people volunteered and signed up for military service and therefore cannot be characterized as war resisters. In doing so, they took a bonus and then decided to evade their responsibilities by coming to our country--

(1245)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr:

Mr. Speaker, we heard insinuations of support for Saddam Hussein. Quite frankly, and out of respect for this House, I will refrain from responding to such pointless comments.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, whenever we ask the government to do something, it seems to me that we should also ask the reverse question.

Is it the hon. member's opinion that, for instance, the U.S. government, with respect to a Canadian soldier, should apply the same sort of standard should a Canadian soldier, under the same circumstances, leave the Canadian army and seek refuge in the United States?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The member for Jeanne-Le Ber has the floor for a short question.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr:

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, we can consider a war to be illegitimate or illegal because, for example, it was never sanctioned by the UN and was initiated under false pretences. That happens throughout the world. It is not a question of governance; it is a question of universal human values.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Alice Wong (Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to speak against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration noted earlier, Canada has a fair, internationally recognized system to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution, risk of torture or risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. We are committed to protecting refugees and those in need of protection. This means that we must ensure the system is there for those who genuinely need it.

All refugee claimants have the right to due process and when they have exhausted legal avenues, we expect them to respect our laws and leave Canada.

Today I intend to address two key issues in this debate: the fair process available to refugee claimants and immigration applications and the potential problems that could arise from adopting this motion.

Canadians want a refugee system that helps to protect genuine refugees. All refugee claimants in Canada have the right to due process, a principle established by the Supreme Court in 1985 for refugee status determination in Canada. This is the basis for how Canada has maintained a fair and internationally recognized system to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution.

Refugee claims made in this country, including those made by U.S. service personnel, are heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, of Canada. The IRB is a quasi-judicial independent body that provides a fair hearing to those who claim to be in need of protection. It assesses each claim on its own merit with regard to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

The board reports that currently fewer than 50 claims have been made by U.S. citizens on the basis of objection to military service. As has been demonstrated in the publicized cases of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the refugee protection process allows ample opportunity for claimants to challenge decisions made concerning their claims. They may do so through seeking leave for judicial review by the Federal Court. In some instances, they have sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

While waiting for a decision on their claims, refugee claimants who pass medical screening are entitled to a work permit, which allows them to be employed in Canada. Those who cannot find work may apply for social assistance in the province where they reside. These claimants also have access to emergency medical services funded by the Government of Canada.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, failed refugee claimants may also request, prior to being removed from Canada, a pre-removal risk assessment. This assessment allows CIC officials to examine any new evidence, any change in country conditions or other circumstances that might arise concerning personalized risk to individuals. This could include evidence such as whether a person would face risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if an applicant was returned to the country of origin. These are the same elements that are assessed by the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB.

There are also other avenues available to people wishing to move to Canada should they not qualify as refugees. Normally, those seeking permanent residence do so by applying for a visa outside of Canada, but foreign nationals who wish to apply for permanent residence from within Canada may do so on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or, if eligible, as a member of an in-Canada class.

(1250)

There has been a great deal of coverage regarding the cases of Mr. Hinzman and Mr. Hughey, the American soldiers who deserted the United States army, came to Canada and made refugee claims in this country. The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants' claims for refugee protection. The Federal Court of Canada and, subsequently, the Federal Court of Appeal, dismissed their cases. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed their application for leave to appeal on November 15, 2007.

As others have said, claimants have access to a fair hearing in Canada with a number of opportunities for review. However, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have all indicated that these U.S. military deserters have not demonstrated that they are in need of Canada's protection as refugees.

The motion to implement an in-Canada program to allow these individuals to apply to remain and work in Canada and to be eligible for permanent resident status runs counter to having an immigration policy that is both fair and consistent in its application.

As I noted earlier, this government is committed to ensuring that all immigration applicants and refugee claimants have access to the full process outlined by IRPA and that all cases are fully and equitably resolved. By supporting this motion, the House would be calling for a unique benefit for some foreign nationals proposing that they can be allowed to apply for permanent resident status outside of existing immigration channels.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge my fellow members in the House to vote against this motion.

(1255)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are a number of concerns. In this case, it is not like Vietnam where there was conscription. This was a voluntary tour. The issue is that before they completed that tour they were actually ordered to serve an additional tour or more, which is quite unusual.

Notwithstanding that, it is my understanding that in the United States those persons who volunteered initially and then were ordered subsequently would be charged and found guilty of being war deserters, which is a crime. We had one recent case like that where the person was sent to jail for some 15 months.

I ask the member whether or not Canada's policy with regard to war resisters should be reflective of Canada's views on the legitimacy of wars and the choices we have made, or rather on the policy of the United States of America.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Alice Wong:

Mr. Speaker, it is our opinion that, as a general rule, military deserters from the United States are not genuine refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term. It is on these terms that we understand that the Immigration and Refugee Board makes that decision and it considers each asylum case on a case-by-case basis.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the hon. member. First, I would like to know why the Conservative government blocked any discussion at refugee hearings about the legality of the Iraq War since that is a crucial factor in making these kinds of determinations.

Also, the member says that these people are not legitimate refugees and cast aspersions on their refugee claims. However, under international law, Canada must uphold several principles. One comes out of the Nuremberg tribunals which said that every soldier has a moral duty, not a choice, to refuse to carry out illegal orders. Under a number of other international agreements, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the UN handbook for refugees, it makes it clear that conscientious objectors to war have rights and can require protection from states. Why has Canada refused to meet its obligations under these various long-established and upheld international principles?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Alice Wong:

Mr. Speaker, U.S. military deserters are not refugees. They do not fall under internationally accepted definitions of people in need of protection. This position has been upheld by three independent tribunals: the IRB, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary and member for Richmond for her comments. I thought she did an outstanding job explaining and expressing the position of the government.

One of the issues that has come through the House here is the issue of compassion, the issue of emotion that should be somehow interjected or intertwined into this discussion. I certainly have no problem with that. At the end of the day of course we have to base our decision on fact and law.

The member represents the riding of Richmond and I know she has many cases dealing with refugees who come to her office and ask her for help. Could she explain, in her words, the type of emotion and compassion that needs to be shown for them?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Alice Wong:

Mr. Speaker, there are people who come and say that they need to stay because if they go back to their own countries they will be persecuted. There are also people who come and express the need for help and assistance.

We deal with them individually, case by case, and we deal with them on compassionate grounds as well. For example, I was approached by somebody from Toronto whose wife passed away while giving birth to a child. He was in the process of applying for permanent residence to this country. We really give individual cases individual attention.

In this case, by passing this whole recommendation, we are opening up the floodgates and other genuine refugees will be deferred. This is not the way the system should be fairly treated.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court recently granted Joshua Key a new hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board and recent decisions by the Federal Court granted a stay of removal for Jeremy Hinzman and Kimberly Rivera, citing differential punishment of the Iraq war resisters. It goes to the whole point that because they have spoken out here, they have different kinds of punishment. How would she respond to that?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Alice Wong:

Mr. Speaker, the report presented by the committee actually covers everything. I do not understand why we have to address each individual war. Again I say, American deserters are not refugees and that is the position we are taking right now.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question again. Obviously, there is something wrong with the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board. If that is not the case, then the Federal Court, in three instances, would not have granted either a stay or a complete rejection of the IRB's decision, so there is something that is wrong with the board's decision. There is this whole claim that we should not worry because three boards, tribunal after tribunal, have rejected their claims of being refugees. How can we say they are not refugees when the Federal Court has now tossed that out and another hearing has to be granted?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Alice Wong:

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the record, American deserters who have applied as refugee claimants have never been granted that. Again and again, I would like to state that American deserters are not legitimate refugees.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to understand one thing. Today, this is a test not for war resisters, but for Canadians. It is not about respecting Canadian laws but about respecting ourselves.

[English]

This is a character test for us in Canada. This is about respecting our neighbours in the United States but it is also about respecting ourselves. We set laws and regulations according to our values, how we see our country evolving. We are saying that our immigration system, the friends and neighbours we choose to have come here, is also based on our values.

The question today is narrowing from a character test for all Canadians to one for government members. Why do they stand outside a Canadian sensibility? Why do they hide behind facts that are not correct, characterizations that are not accurate? Why are they threatened by a small number of people who had a crisis of conscience and at great personal cost walked away from the United States and came to Canada for refuge?

It is not correct to say that we have not accepted such people before. Out of the draft dodgers who came here for sanctuary before, 3,000 were volunteers in the American army.

This decision has been made by Canadians before. It is the government of the day that seeks to change how Canadians express themselves. Every reasonable Canadian can today ask themselves this: why does the minister in particular use his personal biases, declare at every opportunity and mis-characterize people?

We also have a precedence by the government. It passed a regulation, supported special immigration for a group of Vietnamese living in the Philippines. Quite contrary to what we hear from the members opposite, there is precedent for discussion, debate, and decision by Parliament about special needs and special cases.

That is truly what we are talking about today. We are talking about a group of people who come from the United States, our neighbour and ally, but who have found themselves in a crisis of conscience. They find themselves subject to compulsion that we do not agree with in Canada.

Some of the hon. members have already spoken to the compulsion around stop loss, and in one instance, one person served a full four-year term, tried to return and was called back. Some 13,000 American servicemen have been subject to that.

The new administration suggests it is going to phase out stop loss and get rid of it by 2011. The minister of defence of the United States has said, “This is not fair. This breaks contracts with people”. Quite a large number of war resisters find themselves subject to it and other forms of compulsion.

Near to my riding, there is a 27-year veteran of the United States armed forces. I would challenge any member opposite to have a better record in terms of contribution to military service in their country. He had a crisis of conscience. He is a nuclear engineer who decided his ship was bombing civilian territory. He was not permitted to question it, as he might have been in the Canadian military, which has different rules around crisis of conscience and what one might be able to do. With three years left to his pension, he instead came to Canada.

I think it is highly objectionable and outside the boundaries of fairness on the part of Canadians that one would characterize such people who showed fidelity and devotion to their country, principles we would agree with, as criminal in their behaviour. Clearly, there is a gap in our system, and it is one that the House is meant to address.

We stand on the traditions of previous Parliaments when we say these are people who merit our attention. It behooves members opposite to say why they would stay outside of that consensus, which was represented in the House, debated and discussed at the immigration committee, and expressed by many Canadians across the country.

Again, it is becoming a character test. Why is the government tone deaf? Why would it impose its narrow view of this country on others? It bespeaks a government unprepared to govern for everyone, and that is the job. There is no other job when one sits on the government side of the House.

We heard from the United Church, the Mennonite Central Committee, and the oblates in the Catholic Church. They said this cannot stand as a moral decision of the government. They exhorted the government to find it in the values that Canadians want to see expressed.

I think this is very clear. We need to make a choice for Kimberly Rivera, my constituent who got the stay in Federal Court, and who found herself in that circumstance. She has a young daughter, Katie, who is four months old. They are contributing to society and supported by Canadians.

(1305)

Hundreds of families came out in support of Kimberly Rivera in my riding. Mainstream Canadians heard her story and said that she needs to be among us. I have the greatest respect for the members opposite, but to try to raise the spectre that we have no room for these people and that it is at the expense of somebody else is simply not true. There is every bit the travail, loss and sacrifice that has happened to these people. Unfortunately it seems to require an overwhelming direction from the House that the government adjust to the way that Canadians view this particular group of people.

In case after case, these are people who have stood up to great jeopardy. Kimberly Rivera faces 15 months in jail and felony convictions. She faces separation from her Canadian-born daughter and her family because she had a crisis of conscience. She and her family have lost everything economically and have nothing to gain by coming here and being among us, except because of the revelation she had in Iraq. They were going to force her to serve another term and she chose to get away.

We do not judge the sets of values and consensus that form in the United States, even though they are now changing with the defence secretary and perhaps even the new president. However, we surely are free in the House to establish Canadian values when it comes to who lives here. We have done that in the past and done it effectively. To surrender our capacity to evaluate situations does not show true respect for a friend or neighbour.

There are more than 30,000 people, and their children and grandchildren, in this country who came to us from the United States in part because we stood differently. We did not stand better. We do not lord that over any other countries. However, we did stand differently, and every member of the House needs to appreciate what has come before us. It is interesting to see a Conservative Party that cannot respect traditions and does not believe in some of the hard-gained ideals that we have.

When one looks at what is happening in terms of the different people who are here, one sees not just a nuclear engineer, a young mother, or a university graduate. These are articulate people.

In my riding, we have people who are volunteering. Every single person they volunteer with at this particular agency that re-establishes computers has signed a petition for them to stay, every single one of these volunteers who give of their time. That is what they are doing while their status is in limbo.

I just want people to imagine what it was like for these people to have been ostracized in the United States when they left two or three years ago, what the feeling was, how they had to uproot themselves from their community, and how it must feel to still hear echoes of people condemning them here in this country. What they get on the streets and in the markets from people out there is that we understand.

All we are saying here is that these are potential future Canadians. They would still go through a process. They would be characterized through this motion as eligible for immigration. There is nothing automatic here, and they could not be arbitrarily deported by a biased minister or government.

(1310)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forward the question on the motion now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Monday, March 30, at the end of government orders.

* * *

Petitions

Income Trusts

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce yet another petition on income trusts, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly certified by the clerk of petitions.

The petitioners have indicated that they recall that the Prime Minister made a commitment to accountability when he said that the greatest fraud is a promise not kept. The petitioners, however, do remind the Prime Minister that he promised to never tax income trusts. He broke that promise and imposed a 31.5% punitive tax, which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners would like to call on the Conservative minority government, first, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and finally, to repeal the 31.5% punitive tax on income trusts.

* * *

(1315)

Transportation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of constituents where they note that CNR has arbitrarily, without dialogue with affected communities and with complete disregard of impact on local economies, put the rail line from Camrose to Alliance up for sale by tender on short notice with a closing date of February 13, 2009.

They note that the rail line was developed in the early 1900s for the sole purpose of community growth and economic progress, and they note as well that the Battle River Producer Car Group revived the usage of the rail line in 2002 after a period where the line had remained idle.

They are calling, therefore, for a committee to be formed, including members from the community and their local member of Parliament, to prevent this line from becoming abandoned.

* * *

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from constituents in my riding of Langley.

The petitioners say that there are a number of severe, potentially life-threatening conditions that do not qualify for disability programs because they are not necessarily permanent. People are losing their homes and livelihoods while trying to fight these severe medical conditions. The petitioners are therefore calling on the House of Commons to enact legislation to provide additional medical EI benefits at least equal to maternity EI benefits.

* * *

Housing

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition in support of Private Member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, due to come up for second reading on April 2.

A number of Nova Scotians have signed this petition, from the communities of Halifax, Dartmouth, Timberlea, Eastern Passage, Lower Sackville and other communities. They are calling for an increased federal role in housing through investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for new housing.

If passed, Bill C-304 would tie together Canada's current patchwork of homelessness and housing initiatives and would mandate the government to create a plan that is effective and comprehensive.

I look forward to the minister's response to these petitioners.

* * *

Nuclear Liability Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from people in Toronto. They are concerned about the Nuclear Liability Act that is before the House of Commons at this point. They are concerned that the act limits the liability of the nuclear industry without providing any insurance protection to the homes and cars of inhabitants of areas surrounding nuclear plants.

They are asking that the Nuclear Liability Act be scrapped.

* * *

Animal Welfare

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition this morning signed by a number of folks from greater Vancouver, including some from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas, who are concerned that Canada participate in the discussions toward the development of a universal declaration on animal welfare.

They point out that there is a scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals can feel pain and suffer and that all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering.

They note that one billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihood, and many others rely on animals for companionship. They also note that animals need support during natural disasters. Relief efforts do not often consider the needs of animals during those kinds of operations.

Therefore, they are calling on the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.

* * *

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 52 and 53 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Text]

Question No. 52--Mr. Don Davies:

With regards to public-private partnerships (P3s or PFIs): (a) what is the government’s overall policy on their use; (b) how many government contracts since January 2006 have involved P3s, and for each project, what are the names of these projects, who are the partners, how much money did the federal government contribute, how much money did other levels of government contribute and how much money did each private partner contribute; (c) what problems in general have the government identified with the use of P3s; (d) what precautions have the government taken to ensure that P3s represent value for money for taxpayers; (e) what measures has the government taken to ensure that the terms and conditions of P3s are honoured by private sector participants; (f) were there any lessons learned exercises or evaluations conducted with respect to any particular P3 project and, if so, what were the results of these evaluations; (g) has the government conducted studies on the use of P3s in other countries and, if so, what were the results of these studies; (h) has the government invested in P3 projects in British Columbia; and (i) does the government have a minimum contribution or minimum percentage required from the private sector?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 53--Mr. Don Davies:

With regard to the Asia-Pacific Gateway project in British Columbia: (a) how much money has the government contributed to this project since its inception, broken down by financial quarter and department; (b) has the government conducted any studies into the impact or effectiveness of the project, including but not limited to environmental issues, congestion and traffic circulation, neighbourhood effects and housing prices and, if so, what are these studies; (c) what is the government’s overall position on the Gateway project; (d) has the government identified any concerns with regard to the project and, if so, what are these concerns; and (e) which groups has the government consulted with regard to the project?

(Return tabled)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

(1320)

[English]

Criminal Code

The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey North. She has already delivered her 10-minute speech, so my speech will be for 10 minutes.

I would also like to thank our Minister of Justice for having made an excellent point today that finally we have arrived at continuing the debate on Bill C-14, an anti-crime measure against organized crime.

I want to remind Canadians of what actually happened today. We are just finishing three hours of debate on a concurrence motion, wasted time when it comes to what we are trying to talk about, which is anti-crime measures. What happened earlier today is that the opposition parties—

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due respect, when information is incorrect before the House a member should have an opportunity to correct the record.

The concurrence motion is pursuant to the rules of the House and the rights of that member of Parliament.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

I am not sure that is a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux:

Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing that. What I argue is when it came time to vote whether the debate on the concurrence motion should continue for three more hours, the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP all voted in favour to extend it, which delayed further debate on this bill.

What happened is our Minister of Justice stood and shamed the opposition members by drawing to the attention of Canadians that they were delaying the furtherance of this crime bill. Finally, they relented and agreed that Bill C-14 would pass by the end of today. Therefore, I thank our justice minister for having taken that initiative.

[Translation]

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in strong support of Bill C-14, which proposes changes to the Criminal Code to strengthen our responses to organized crime. Like many Canadians, I have been deeply disturbed by the rash of violence linked to organized crime, and in particular street gangs, and I am pleased that our government has taken this important step towards fortifying our Criminal Code regime in its capacity to respond to such violence.

This bill proposes changes in four areas, and I will briefly discuss each of them in turn. The first area relates to murders. The proposed amendments would make all murders committed in close connection with organized crime automatically first degree, regardless of whether the murder was planned and deliberate.

This bill proposes amendments to section 231 of the Criminal Code to specify that murder is first degree, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate, when it is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or when it is committed while the offender commits another indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization.

Murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and those convicted of first degree murder are ineligible for parole for at least 25 years. In the case of second degree murder, they are ineligible for parole for at least 10 years. Section 231 of the Criminal Code sets out the circumstances in which murder is considered to be first degree. It also states that all murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder.

I believe these will be very useful provisions, because they will give law enforcement two separate ways to target murders connected to organized crime. These two separate ways cover the broad range of circumstances where murders might occur in the context of organized crime activity.

Bill C-14 also addresses drive-by and other reckless shootings. It proposes to prohibit the intentional discharge of a firearm in circumstances where the shooter turned their mind to the fact that firing the gun could put the life or safety of another person at risk—say in a building, or in an open space—and consciously ran the risk. This offence would be different from the existing, and comparably serious, discharge of a firearm offence in section 244 because it does not require proof that the shooter specifically intended to cause bodily harm to a person. This is something which I understand can be difficult to prove in certain cases and may not be the case at all when the shooter is firing wildly for the purpose of general intimidation. This new offence would be punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty that would increase when the offence is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization or if a prohibited or restricted firearm is used.

I am optimistic that this new offence will assist us in responding to the increasingly brazen violence committed by gangs on the street with firearms.

(1325)

The third focus of this bill is providing increased protection to peace officers and responding to violence committed against other justice system participants. It does this by creating two new offences to punish assaults against peace officers that cause bodily harm or involve the use of a weapon and aggravated assaults against peace officers. These offences would be punishable, on indictment, by maximum periods of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years, respectively.

To ensure that these cases are adequately punished, the bill would require courts to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing an offender for any of the offences involving assaults against peace officers, as well as cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, such as judges, prosecutors, jurors, witnesses and others. This sends the right message and will assist in ensuring that the sentences in these cases properly reflect the serious nature of this conduct.

[English]

The fourth area of reform in the bill relates to the strengthening of the gang peace bond provision. These proposed amendments will clarify that when issuing a preventive recognizance order, a judge can impose any conditions that he or she feels are desirable to prevent the person from committing a criminal organization offence.

The amendments would also extend the possible length of the order to up to 24 months if the defendant had been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence. These orders are intended to impose conditions where it is reasonably feared that a person will commit a criminal organization offence, a terrorism offence or the offence of intimidation of justice system participants. A breach of the conditions is a separate offence, subject to prosecution, with a maximum penalty of two years on indictment.

These are important tools because they seek to prevent the commission of organized crime offences before they take place. I understand they can be an extremely useful tool for police in controlling gang activity and these amendments will make them all the more effective.

Of course, strong laws to punish offenders are only part of the picture. We must also be focused on addressing the root causes of how and why persons, particularly young people, become involved with organized crime groups. We know people are targeted by gangs for participation in many crimes, particularly drug trafficking. They may rely upon young persons to commit crimes on their behalf because of the belief that if the young offenders are caught, the justice system will be lenient due to the age of the accused. It is also the way that young people are recruited into the gangs.

Young people, however, are drawn to criminal groups, including street gangs, for a variety of reasons, one of which is to have a sense of belonging for companionship, protection, to be treated with what they see as respect or for money. Criminal Intelligence Service Canada has noted that virtually all street gangs in Canada are comprised of both youth and adult members and associates. Youth gangs also represent distinct entities with approximately 6% of all identified street gangs being comprised of persons under the age of 18.

It is important that we provide young people, particularly vulnerable youth, with alternatives to prevent their involvement in crime. The government has allocated $64 million as part of a national anti-drug strategy to support law enforcement in its efforts to combat the drug trade, and this will be of benefit to our youth.

We all share a commitment to making our communities and the people who live in them safe. Each and every person should feel safe to walk down our streets. This government has made the safety and security of Canadians a priority. This bill is a reflection of that and is a firm but fair response to the threat of organized crime.

(1330)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will be uncharacteristically brief. We do not want any delay in the bill going from this place to committee. As parties, we all stood unanimously and agreed that Bill C-14 should be sent to committee. The Minister of Justice did not seem to comprehend that when he used precious time in the chamber for a diatribe that was irrelevant.

The only delay today on Bill C-14 was that speech, which consisted of reading the bill. We have done that already. Ten minutes or so has been wasted by the member. Let us get the bill out of the House. We are all for it. Does he not agree?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is distorting the facts for Canadians. What happened today was a concurrence motion was put forward by the opposition. If the Liberals had voted against three hours of debate on a useless concurrence motion, it would never have passed.

However, what did the Liberals do? They voted for the concurrence motion. They voted for three hours of debate on anything except crime initiatives. That is my point.

The member is correct that the bill will pass out of the House today to committee for one reason. The Minister of Justice shamed the opposition members by rising on a point of order and identifying to Canadians that they were delaying anti-crime initiatives in the House.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this would be a good time for the hon. member to be speechless. It is a good time for everyone of us to be speechless. If we are speechless, we do not deal with the bill.

I would propose a unanimous motion that all hon. members be speechless.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux:

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the legislation needs to move as quickly as possible. I am simply pointing out the unfortunate events that caused a three hour delay.

I have been waiting at least a week to give my speech. It has continually been moved by opposition delaying tactics. Today we have them on board, thanks to our justice minister and his fine work. I thank the opposition for that. I only regret the loss of three hours on a concurrence motion that the opposition supported.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague across the way, the time to have been speechless so we could get to justice issues was two hours ago, not right now.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was in the House today. He brings up an excellent point. The time to be speechless was two hours ago.

The time to speak was with voting. We speak loudest as MPs when we stand and vote. The opposition members stood and voted for a three hour delay on moving ahead this important legislation. Shame on them. However, I do thank them. They sided with us at the end because our justice minister pointed out their faults.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should never mistake this. We never side with the government and its misconstruing of what should happen in our country. We side with the Canadian people.

Today it was our House leader who stood up. It was not the government members. They were all glued to their seats and bubbling over with outrage. Our member for Wascana stood and said “unanimous consent”.

Therefore, the facts for the Canadian public are that the bill is moving as quickly as it can. At the end of the day it will go to committee, thanks to the Liberal Party of Canada and not thanks to the sleepy and somewhat separated from reality government of the day.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux:

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out the error by the member. I was in the House when he was talking, just before I stood to speak. The member will say that he supports veterans who serve their country, defending their country for liberty and freedom. Today he is saying that he supports other people who choose not to support their country, defending liberty and freedom. He feels Canada should be a safe haven. He is giving contradictory messages.

My point is he is also giving contradictory messages on crime. The opposition members will stand and say that they support crime, but when it comes time to vote, they delay and obstruct. That is exactly what happened today.

I see the Minister of Justice here, and I thank him for his support this morning.

(1335)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the last few minutes did not make a very eloquent contribution to the current debate. The problem is settled and I would have liked the Minister of Justice to hear this. I hope that he will listen to what I am going to say. My colleagues opposite are not very knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure. That is the least I can say given these circumstances, so as not to offend them even more.

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to greet you. I knew you as Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This is the first time that I have risen to speak in this chamber when you were presiding over the deliberations. I want to congratulate you on your appointment to the position of Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole and thank you for the work you did as Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I hope, and am in fact convinced, that the work you are doing here now will also be very productive, especially during the kind of debate we are having today.

We are debating Bill C-14. Our Conservative friends made this a top priority in the fight against organized crime, something they seem to think has only appeared in the last few years. Unfortunately, I will have to give them a history lesson. Memory is well known as that faculty which forgets, and the Conservatives probably have the shortest memory on record. We should remember that the Bloc Québécois, since 1994—not just for the past two weeks—has been informing this House of the fact that there is a serious problem with organized crime and that steps need to be taken. Several were taken thanks to our efforts.

In spite of what the Conservatives will be saying, if not for the Bloc Québécois, thousand dollar bills would still be in circulation. The Bloc Québécois forced the government to make that change. I do not want to attack the Conservatives or the Liberals, but the fact is that governments finally understood that thousand dollar bills were causing an increase in organized crime and in money laundering. I can talk about this not because I have had several thousand dollar bills in my possession, but because before my election in 2004, I was a criminal lawyer for 30 years. I practised criminal law for the defence and I am very familiar with the organized crime file.

Whether the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles likes it or not, the measures put in place are the result of repeated requests by the Bloc Québécois. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as parliamentary secretary, does not seem to have known about this before 2000. We have known about it since 1990. It seems to me that he lives in Quebec, but he did not know about it either. It took some time for them to recognize the existence of organized crime. Now everyone knows who the Hells Angels are. We know a little about how its members are recruited and how we can combat these organized gangs, whether the Bandidos or the Hells Angels. It is easier for us, and I am choosing my words carefully, to understand how these organizations work.

However, we are facing a new phenomenon. Whether my Conservative friends, including the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, admit it or not, street gangs have existed for at least five or six years now. They have never understood that. For them, street gangs are the same as the Hells Angels. That is not the case. Streets gangs are a new phenomenon, and a growing concern. Whether in Vancouver, Toronto, in the east end of Montreal, even in Halifax and many other places in Canada, idleness is a phenomenon that is triggering senseless crimes. That is what they really are: senseless crimes.

First there was the mafia—and we need not look back at the godfather—with people killing each other. We could understand, follow and watch how it worked, but street gangs are completely different.

(1340)

Street gangs might decide that tonight, they are going to shoot at anyone wearing black. Street gangs operate differently. They are radically changing how we see and deal with crime.

I want to say right away that we will support Bill C-14, despite its flaws. We will ask that it be studied in committee. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on which I also sit, has already begun looking at organized crime. We will take a very close look at the new phenomena around organized crime as we study Bill C-14.

The bill is important, because it redefines murder. I feel that part should be clarified, such as the fact that a contract killing is not an ordinary murder. I am sorry, I am weighing my words and that is not easy, but murder is murder. Murder itself is bad enough. But contract killings, gratuitous murders, murders to intimidate and murders to send a message are a new and unacceptable phenomenon, and I think it is time we took action.

These new definitions in subsection 231(6.01) will be important, because they will go further. That is the purpose of the bill: to make murder committed for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal organization first degree murder.

Let us think back to what used to happen. It has not been so very long since I was a criminal defence lawyer. We made deals and tried to find solutions so that an individual got off. We said a killing was murder, but that it could be considered second degree murder because it was not premeditated. That will no longer be possible. We are going to close that door, which allowed a person to put a contract out on someone, I am sorry to put it that way. I do not like that sort of language either, but I use it and we all know what it means.

We are finally going to close that door in the Criminal Code. That will put an end to the dilemma around criminal organizations and the people associated with them. We will at least close that door. The same thing will hold true for murders committed during an attempt to commit an indictable offence, and we will have a chance to look closely at that. That will target criminal gangs. We will be able to deal with criminal gangs and hit them with heavier penalties.

Now here is where I must plug my message. The Conservatives do not yet understand this. They really do not understand this and, once again, Bill C-14 must be looked at carefully, because minimum prison sentences will not solve the problem of crime. I want to repeat this, so it can be properly translated into English and so they understand clearly. Imposing minimum prison sentences will not reduce crime. That is exactly what the Americans did and crime rates skyrocketed. Convicted offenders must serve their prison sentences.

As someone I know has said, the problem is not when offenders go to prison; it is when they come out. They get out too quickly. The problem is that the Conservatives are telling themselves and everyone has said that this does not make sense. Someone can be sentenced to 18 months, but get out of prison in two months. That is unacceptable. The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice need to have a chat. As far as I know, they are in the same political party. But they need to talk to each other, because something must be done about the parole system.

I know a bill is to be introduced tomorrow. We will have to wait and see what is in that bill. We think it is important to eliminate the two-for-one provision. We know what this means, but we can debate that another time.

(1345)

For the time being, the Conservatives must realize that we need to do something about parole to ensure that an accused sentenced after a fair trial serves his sentence, does not get any goodies and does not get out earlier because of good behaviour.

I have some examples. That is the problem with Bill C-14. It calls for a minimum prison term of four years. There would still be plea bargaining to reduce the sentence and change the charges. That is not the right solution. We will examine it in committee; it is an interesting bill in that regard. We will see how we can ensure that the sentences handed down—and it is not a question of giving the judges a set of directives—are served.

There are many other amendments in the bill. There are some minor, but interesting, changes. We will definitely be targeting organized crime as well as street gangs. We will probably have to rethink the interception of communications because, with respect to organized crime, there has been no change in the past 10 to 15 years in ways of intercepting communications. Because of the Internet and all the changes in that time, police have asked for amendments.

I do not wish to speak much longer, but Bill C-14 is truly interesting. The light has gone on for the government, but it still has a long way to go before understanding that crime will not be reduced when offenders enter jail or by imposing minimum mandatory sentences, but rather by having offenders serve the sentences handed down. That is the important point. However, this will probably be the subject of another debate.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his speech and for his work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I have one simple question to ask him. It seems that there is a lot of confusion on the other side. They seem to think that their actions resulted in the parties on this side deciding to proceed with Bill C-14. Does the hon. member share the opinion that it was our side, not the government, that decided together to send the bill to committee as quickly as possible?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am pleased to remind hon. members opposite that they are in a minority government. They have to understand that. It would at least be a step in the right direction. Second, when you are in a minority government, you try to work with the opposition parties to move matters forward. Bill C-14 is the best example.

If the government knew what common sense was, it would, at 9:00 a.m. this morning, have sat down with the opposition parties and asked them if they were in agreement. We are in agreement that the bill should be sent to committee. This is why debate in this House is being limited. The government must understand. It is a minority government and it is having a little difficulty understanding that.

(1350)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague not to anticipate the future too much, even if there is a dash of clairvoyance in all of this. I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and tell him how much—and I do so on behalf of all of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—we appreciate his presence at the committee. Not only does he have theoretical expertise on the Criminal Code, but he also has a very practical knowledge of it, since he was himself a sought-after criminal lawyer for more than two decades.

Is it not unfair to see the Minister of Justice completely lose all personal dignity and rise to have a temper tantrum, which could put him in the same league as young offenders and cause the loss of all decorum in this House? Would we not be remiss in not reminding people that it was this government that prorogued this House? If we had had more time, we could have had analyses of the bills. It is irresponsible to attack the opposition, when it was the government that prorogued the work of this Parliament not so very long ago.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Hochelaga, an extraordinary leader at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, gifted with a composure that will undoubtedly serve him well in his future endeavours. Personally, I would be very disappointed to lose him, should he go.

That being said, I think that there is a blatant lack of communication within the Conservative Party. If the Minister of Justice, rather than behaving in this way—my colleague is perfectly right—had spoken to his whip, things would not have come to this pass and this little crisis, which lasted 10 or 15 minutes, would have been averted. This does not reflect well on the image of a minister of justice.

That said, it is important that we be given the proposals ahead of time, and that we also move forward with Bill C-14, which will be referred to committee within a few minutes.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

New Democrats are supporting this bill but we are asking the government to do more to provide a comprehensive federal anti-gang strategy. Although we are supporting this bill, we are saying very clearly that this bill alone is not a strategy and it is not enough to combat gangs.

A comprehensive strategy must include, not only tougher sentences, but more police officers on the street, improved witness protection, tougher laws to tackle the proceeds of crime, modernizing our laws that cover surveillance and evidence-gathering and a comprehensive plan for prevention to ensure that our kids are not attracted to the gang culture and that they stay away from joining gangs in the first place.

In the last two months alone, there have been at least 31 shootings in the metro Vancouver region and 15 people have been killed. These are not petty thugs. These are notorious criminals, decked out in body armour and emboldened with a sense of invincibility, who are wielding guns and ready to do battle.

We need strong and effective action from all three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. Stiffer penalties for those involved in gangs are certainly appropriate but it is not a sufficient response to this problem.

The metro Vancouver region has one of the lowest police to population ratios in the country, but what have the Conservatives done as an answer to this desperate need for investment in policing services? They have torn up contracts with the RCMP, have rolled back their wages and have made worse an already difficult recruitment and retention situation.

The Conservative approach to gang violence has been to latch on to the most simplistic, headline grabbing component of the action we need, which is tougher sentences.

New Democrats have already said that we support tougher sentences for gang violence but tougher sentences will not mean much if we do not get convictions. Tougher sentences will be ineffective unless they are part of a comprehensive strategy because tough sentences alone do very little to divert kids away from gangs. They need to be coupled with diversionary programs and activities, things that give young people alternatives to the gang lifestyle.

A comprehensive anti-gang strategy requires substantial investment to bring hope to communities that are hurting. These efforts need to be well thought out, carefully implemented and monitored to see what is working and what is not. Diverting kids from gangs is far from an exact science. This is what is lacking from the Conservative government that says that it is tough on crime but is either unwilling or unable to come up with the creative kinds of ideas that are necessary to solve the problem.

One place that we can look to for an example of a program to divert youth away from gangs is in the U.S. The program is called GREAT, which stands for gang resistance education and training. This program sees police officers visit elementary and middle school classrooms, teaching life skills to help kids avoid delinquent behaviour and violence, and encouraging the building of positive relationships between law enforcement, parents, children and the whole community. It has proven to be effective. It has proven to give students a more negative view of gangs and a more positive view of law enforcement. This program operates right across the country, thanks to funding from the U.S. federal government. It sees programs like this as an investment in our children and in healthy and safe communities.

I urge the government to make a similar substantial investment in our children in programs to keep them out of gangs. Tougher sentences are meaningless when our police departments and our prosecutors do not have the resources needed to ensure that guilty gang members are brought to justice and convicted. At both the federal and provincial levels, we have seen governments that profess to be tough on crime and howl with indignation when they see criminals walk free through the gaping cracks in our criminal justice system, and yet they have systematically cut our police and our prosecutors.

Again I draw attention to the Conservative government shredding a negotiated contract with the RCMP. This is but one example. It is an absolute disgrace and particularly shameful coming from a government that claims to be tough on crime when we need to be going in exactly the opposite direction. We need greater investments in putting police officers on the ground because they are the front line in stopping gang violence.

(1355)

In my own riding, the city of Coquitlam has one of the lowest police to population ratios in the entire country. The Conservative Party made promises in the 2004 and 2006 elections to ensure there would be 2,500 more police officers in municipal departments, a still unfulfilled promise.

A model for the integrated approach to policing and prosecution that is needed to tackle gang violence can be found in the city of Toronto's anti-guns and gangs task force. The task force has a dedicated staff of police officers, crown prosecutors, victim and witness support workers, probation and parole officers. The task force is headquartered in a state of the art operations centre, which allows for the highly coordinated investigations and prosecutions needed to combat gang violence.

If the government were really serious about tackling gang violence, it would provide funding to assist provincial governments in setting up similar task forces in major cities across the country.

Another area where the police need the support of the federal government is to pass legislation to modernize the laws around surveillance and wiretapping. These laws were written before the Internet age and wireless technology, which has changed society. Criminal organizations are operating and conducting business with all of this technology, cell phones, BlackBerries and online, and they know the police are unable to combat that. Criminals are taking advantage of the most cutting edge technology and we must give our justice system the same kinds of legislative tools to combat them.

I want to touch briefly on the proceeds of crime. I share the anger of citizens in my communities who have been terrorized by gang violence, only to see gang members profiteering freely from dangerous and violent activities. Police and prosecutors need to be able to go after the luxury cars and the million dollar homes that upper echelon gang members flaunt in our communities. Otherwise, how can we truly tell our children that crime does not pay?

We propose that the proceeds of crime recovered by government should be reinvested in communities that have been victimized by gang violence. I can think of nothing more appropriate than auctioning off the possessions of gangsters to fund school programs or community centres.

I know all members of the House want to see an end to this kind of violence. I join with my New Democrat colleagues in calling upon the Conservative government to move further and faster to put forward a comprehensive strategy to end gang violence. Every day that goes by that the government does not have a strategy to end gang violence is another day wasted. That is a shameful reality. Communities are looking to the government for hope and action but so far they have been sadly disappointed.

(1400)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

I must interrupt at this point. The member will have two minutes remaining in her speech when we return to this matter.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Youth Involvement

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House to recognize a remarkable constituent of mine.

Recently featured as one of southwest Saskatchewan's five most fascinating people, Lonnie Hunter is a teenager living in Waldeck, just outside Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Lonnie Hunter has a lot in common with teenagers across our nation. He is a high school student who likes sports, music and spending time with his friends. Lonnie Hunter is also far from typical. He is deeply passionate about youth involvement in the community and the political arena. He sits as the local Chamber of Commerce youth ambassador and serves on school and community boards.

In the last election Lonnie Hunter encouraged many young people to play an integral role.

This nation's potential to succeed is magnified when our youth are willing to step up to the plate.

I want to congratulate and thank Lonnie Hunter for everything he has done for southwest Saskatchewan and for his country of Canada. He believes that youth can make a difference in our community now.

* * *

Polish Canadian Community

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, as a Polish Canadian, I rise today to ask the government to take action and deliver. As my mentor, Jesse Flis, did for many years in this very House, I intend to do the same, to stand up for Polish Canadians and deliver the goods. The Conservatives talk the talk, yet the only thing they deliver is the photo op.

It has been over a year and Polish Canadians around the country, including Wladyslaw Lizon, president of the Canadian Polish Congress, are waiting for ratification on pension portability, youth mobility and Allied veteran pension benefits.

On April 2, 2008, an agreement was signed between Poland and Canada regarding social security. Where is the ratification of this agreement and when will it be signed?

Last year there was an agreement between Poland and Canada regarding youth mobility. Where is the ratification of this agreement and when will it be signed?

During every election the Conservatives promise to extend benefits to Allied Polish veterans. What came of these promises and when will the goods be delivered?

It is time the government stopped with open-ended promises and delivered the goods--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The hon. member for Laval.

* * *

[Translation]

Pierre Brisebois

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Pierre Brisebois from my riding has recently finished an assignment with CESO, the Canadian Executive Service Organization. He went to Ivano-Frankivsk in Ukraine, where he prepared and trained restaurant employees in a new hotel in modern technologies and new methods of food preparation. He went on to evaluate the proposed menu and to make changes to reflect staff abilities and the restaurant themes.

He trained the staff to prepare the 15 new menu items he had created for the hotel.

The hotel was so satisfied with Mr. Brisebois' work that they then asked him to assess staff professional standards.

I and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois congratulate Mr. Brisebois for giving his time and sharing Quebec's expertise with those who can get the most benefit from it.

* * *

[English]

Colombia

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, just last week Amnesty International condemned the Colombia authorities for abusing the country's judicial system “to undermine the legitimate work of human rights defenders”.

More than a dozen human rights defenders and 46 trade unionists were killed by paramilitaries in 2008 alone, double the number in 2007.

According to testimony received today at the trade committee, thousands of paramilitaries with ties to the government are forcing poor peasants off the land and taking it over with the regime's complicity.

More than 1,500 peasants have been massacred so far by the Colombia military as so-called “false positives”. This is no less than the cold-blooded murder of innocent people.

Incredibly, the Conservative government is pressing ahead with a Bush-style free trade agreement with the regime.

What is more incredible is that theLeader of the Opposition is supporting this trampling of human rights in the name of powerful corporate interests.

The NDP is standing on the side of millions of Canadians who oppose murder, torture and human rights abuses. We oppose the blood that is on this agreement.

* * *

(1405)

Thompson Rivers University Scholarships

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an extraordinary gentleman from my riding, Mr. Alvin Grunert.

Mr. Grunert has generously donated $1.5 million to Thompson Rivers University, allowing for the creation of an endowed scholarship for the top students in each of the faculties.

It was Mr. Grunert's desire to carry out his wife's wishes, making post-secondary education a reality for those students who might not otherwise afford it. Lydia Grunert's legacy will add to the spectrum of opportunities provided by TRU. This unique university offers not only post-graduate degrees but also professional diplomas and apprenticeship training.

This remarkable donation is made even more special because it did not come from family wealth. Instead, Mr. and Mrs. Grunert worked tirelessly throughout their lives saving where they could and investing wisely. They believed that this act of altruism would be the best investment they ever made.

I ask all members of the House to pay tribute to these fine Canadians. They are a shining example of what our nation has to offer.

* * *

[Translation]

Republic of Haiti

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the former premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, recently visited Haiti with Bill Clinton in order to encourage more fortunate countries to come to the assistance of this country which is so in need of help. We are asking all governments and businesses to help Haiti get its economy back on track. As Mr. McKenna said:

[English]

Our trip brings attention of the international community to the plight of Haiti and I think it also reinforces a view in Haiti that the rest of the world is interested in their problems.

[Translation]

The lack of political leadership and the environmental instability in Haiti have led to the loss of Haiti's natural advantages; its land is eroded and floods occur regularly.

Canada is experiencing an economic crisis at present, but we have a duty to make every effort to also help countries such as Haiti that are worse hit than ourselves. With improved stability and an effort from the global community, there is hope for a prosperous and safe Haiti. We owe this to our Haitian friends.

* * *

[English]

Dalit Freedom Network

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to welcome to Parliament Hill, Dr. Joseph D'souza, president of the Dalit Freedom Network.

Dr. D'souza testified today at our House Subcommittee on International and Human Rights. Dalits are below the lowest caste in the Hindu religion and have been called “the untouchables”. Traditionally relegated to menial occupations or various forms of servitude, Dalits are frequently denied equal opportunity in Indian society.

Dalit girls and women are often forced into prostitution. Dalit children are the victims of maiming and are forced into begging as so vividly portrayed in the film, Slumdog Millionaire.

The Dalit Freedom Network is working to provide vaccinations and basic medical care to provide Dalit children with education and to provide Dalit women with job skills and micro loans. The network is also striving to ensure equal treatment under the law for all Indians through its campaign for religious freedom.

I thank Dr. D'souza for all that he does.

* * *

[Translation]

Adriane Provost

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute a Terrebonne athlete, cyclist Adriane Provost.

Adriane was named “Quebec female athlete” at Sports-Québec's 36th gala and awarded a Maurice. Thanks to her tremendous determination and outstanding passion, she dominated junior women's cycling in Quebec, finishing first in both the Quebec Cup rankings and the final rankings for the Quebec cycling federation.

At 15, Adriane's incredible performance in the Canadian championships made her the country's best junior cyclist. Next season, she hopes to hold onto her Canadian road cycling championship title, improve her track performance and go to the world championships in Moscow.

This young woman is a model for everyone in our community, and I would like to congratulate her and say how proud I am to represent her in the House of Commons.

* * *

[English]

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, while we are all anxiously waiting to learn the details of the justice minister's bill to limit pre-sentencing credit, provincial attorneys general, particularly those from western Canada, are already overwhelmingly stating their support for this legislative change.

Saskatchewan Attorney General Don Morgan is quoted as saying that getting rid of the two for one credit will help the public's perception of the justice system.

Alberta Attorney General Alison Redford has said, “What this will do is allow us to correctly move these cases more effectively through the courts”.

With this kind of support, the opposition should have no trouble in assisting us in getting the bill, which will be tabled tomorrow, quickly through this House and the Senate. However, we are concerned the NDP will not co-operate as that party's justice critic is more concerned about ensuring that inmates “get credit for suffering”.

While the NDP is preoccupied with the suffering of violent and dangerous offenders, our government is standing up for the victims of crime.

* * *

(1410)

Josip Gamulin

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this month Canada bade farewell to a man who had a sense of justice and a scale of generosity that reached across the world.

Dr. Josip Gamulin came to Canada from Croatia in the 1970s to set up practice as a family doctor. Long before the Internet, he built his own worldwide web, connected by fax, shortwave and even the loudspeakers on his station wagon.

Through his Croatian Human Rights Committee and Croatian Radio Libertas carried around the world on shortwave, he sought freedom for political prisoners and sought relief for oppressed people everywhere.

In Canada he would shy away from no worthy cause, shrink from no challenge and stirred thousands to action.

Dr. Gamulin leaves a legacy of activism and integrity that continues to inspire the lives he changed with his belief, his genius and his generosity. His friendship was the greatest privilege I have known.

* * *

[Translation]

The Conservative Government

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in its economic action plan, our government committed to stimulating the economy by investing in infrastructure in order to create jobs and get Canadians back to work. The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec took another major step in that direction today by signing a historic agreement that will direct billions of dollars to infrastructure projects in la belle province. These plans for roads, bridges and water systems mean real projects that will create the jobs our citizens need.

Our government supports a stronger economy, creates jobs and allows communities in Quebec to be more prosperous. We are proud to deliver these concrete results for Quebec. These results will help rebuild our communities, get our citizens back to work and give Quebeckers hope for a better future. This is a government that delivers the goods.

* * *

[English]

Pesticides

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the New Westminster Pesticide Awareness Coalition has been working tirelessly to bring the harmful effects of pesticides to the attention of our community and to ban the use of cosmetic pesticides.

Medical and scientific research on the negative health effects of pesticides has shown that they have been explicitly linked to a number of types of cancer, along with birth defects and various neurological illnesses. These toxins are highly dangerous for our children and pose considerable harm to the environment. In fact, my son Stuart was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma after working on golf courses as a summer job.

It is critical that we reassess our continued use of these harmful chemicals. There are viable, less harmful alternatives. It is time for the government to follow the example of municipal governments across the country and support legislative measures to restrict the use of cosmetic pesticides for the safety of all Canadians and all Canadian children.

* * *

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice announced that he has drafted legislation which, if passed by Parliament, would cap the credit given to criminals for the time spent in custody before their trial, a practice that developed under 13 years of Liberal soft on crime government.

Canadians and our law enforcement communities have been speaking out loud and clear that they are fed up with a legal system that rewards convicted criminals with a credit, while victims and their families receive no credit, no consideration and no justice. Credit is something that is typically earned and it is time that we recognized that justice is deserved and expected.

Conservatives campaigned to end this practice and work toward truth in sentencing and now, suddenly, the Liberal critic for justice is attempting to take credit for this initiative. I would like to remind the hon. member that this is not an issue that magically appeared during the last few weeks. It has been around for many years.

I sincerely hope that the opposition parties will give credit where credit is due and stop giving credit to criminals.

* * *

[Translation]

Model United Nations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ):

Mr. Chairman, for the second consecutive year, 11 students from the Lanaudière regional CEGEP in L'Assomption will participate in the National Model United Nations in New York, from April 7 to 11. During these five days, thousands of students from universities and colleges all over the world will get together to discuss important and timely world issues and attempt to find sustainable solutions to them, while faithfully applying the rules and procedures of international organizations. Having represented Haiti last year, our students will this year be playing the role of diplomats from Paraguay, according to the choice made by the organizers of the event.

Last year, the CEGEP was awarded the prize for most improved delegation with regard to the work done at the Pan American Health Organization. As a former student of the CEGEP and as a member of the Bloc Québécois, I wish to personally congratulate these students for their participation in this important event. I am sure that they will represent our CEGEP brilliantly.

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Purple Day

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the outstanding accomplishment of nine-year-old Cassidy Megan, a constituent in my riding of Halifax West.

Last year, Cassidy founded Purple Day, an international awareness campaign about epilepsy. Cassidy lives with epilepsy and started Purple Day as a way of educating the public. She also wanted to let other kids with epilepsy know that they are not alone. Today people around the world mark this special day by wearing purple and talking and learning about epilepsy.

I know all members will want to join me in congratulating Cassidy Megan.

* * *

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, while this Conservative government continues to focus on Canada's economic action plan, the Liberal Party continues to push its reckless, job-killing policies.

Our plan will reduce the tax burden on Canadians, while the Liberals want to increase the tax burden by raising the GST.

Our plan includes an unprecedented new investment in shovel ready projects. The Liberal plan is to delay money getting to those projects.

Our plan is to help Canadians who are hardest hit by the recession by enhancing EI benefits and broadening access to skills training. The Liberals' plan? Well, they do not actually have a plan on that front yet.

Canada needs the economic action plan this Conservative government has created, not the Liberal plan that would raise the GST and bring in a job-killing carbon tax.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[Translation]

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that the Conservatives' economic projections are so far from reality that they should be tossed in the trash. Today's TD Bank projections are another blow to the Conservatives' credibility.

Why has the Prime Minister cut one-third of the PBO's budget? Did he do it because the PBO has dared to tell Canadians the truth?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, my office just confirmed moments ago that indeed the budget for this particular officer is provided by the Library of Parliament and the hon. member and his counterpart in the Senate confirmed the budget for that library.

In other words, the question should be directed to the hon. member and if he would like to check his facts and do his homework, a great place to start would be in fact the Library of Parliament.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we all know the government just caused his budget to be restored, but not only has it cut his budget, the Prime Minister is also refusing to give vital information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Canadians, we are told, will learn everything they need to know from a government website which, by the way, is still urging the Senate to pass the budget bill two weeks after the fact.

Why does the Prime Minister put Canadians on a forced diet of manipulated Conservative numbers rather than letting the Parliamentary Budget Officer get on with his job?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Librarian testified before a parliamentary committee and was asked specifically if the Parliamentary Budget Officer had a funding cut, and he answered, “There was no budget cut for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He received the same increase as the rest of the library received”.

He is completely independent from us and if the hon. member would like to learn more, I suggest he participate in some quiet study in the library.

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in terms of accountability, these Conservatives ignore the Auditor General's advice and refuse to tell Canadians, even in the broadest terms, how they propose to spend $3 billion of taxpayers' money. Then they boycott the Parliamentary Budget Officer and tell Canadians they will only get the information that the Conservatives want them to get.

Given that this probationary Prime Minister used to dress himself up as God's gift to accountability, is there no limit to his double standard?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, is there no limit to that member's indignity? He is standing ferociously, criticizing something for which he voted in favour. He voted in favour of the $3 billion. Apparently, he did not know that happened already.

Now he is standing up to criticize that very expenditure. We, on this side of the House, have passed the economic action plan to help us get through these difficult times by lowering taxes, creating jobs, building roads, bridges, hockey arenas, and other important projects.

We are getting the job done. He should study those results in the library.

* * *

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, since 2001 the CBC has received a $60 million fund dedicated to Canadian programming. As of today, w