Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 115 (Official Version)

The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion that Bill S-210, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, we are resuming the debate at second reading of Bill S-210, the sole purpose of which is to institute World Autism Awareness Day.

On reading the bill, which contains only one clause and several “whereas” paragraphs, it is clear that it was written by a Canadian. It is clear to me, as a Quebecker, that some of these paragraphs concern elements that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

I will discuss this with my colleagues when this bill goes to the Standing Committee on Health, of which I am a member. Many of the matters that come before this particular committee for study fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Canadians represented by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party cannot seem to distinguish between matters that the federal government is responsible for and those that legislative assemblies in Quebec and the provinces are responsible for.

As Quebeckers, Bloc Québécois members feel it is important to remind people about each level of government's responsibilities. For example, in the context of the current study on human resources in health care, it is clear that training, professional associations and deployment of resources in hospitals and social services centres fall exclusively within the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. That being said, I will address the problem “whereas” statements in committee.

I highly doubt that any member of the House would be against instituting World Autism Awareness Day. As we all know, any disorder can deeply affect those who have it and their family members. It is therefore important to give people regular reminders so that they can become more aware of the issue. We should also take time to recognize the health professionals and researchers who work to minimize suffering and find long-term solutions.

I would now like to talk about autism to begin building awareness among those listening and members of the House who may or may not be familiar with the disorder.

The information I will share was taken from the Internet. The website of the Fédération québécoise de l'autisme et des autres troubles envahissants du développement says that autistic disorder, better known as autism or Kanner's autism, is one of five pervasive developmental disorders. The other four developmental disorders are: childhood disintegrative disorder, Rett syndrome, pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified or atypical autism, and Asperger's syndrome.

I should point out that autistic disorder, pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified and Asperger's syndrome are the three most common types of pervasive developmental disorders.

According to this site, there are three categories of symptoms commonly seen with people who have pervasive developmental disorders: difficulties with verbal and non-verbal communication; difficulties with social interaction; and restricted interests and/or repetitive behaviours.

Here are some quick facts about autistic disorders: they affect 4.3 boys for every 1 girl; they lead to different developments among children of the same age; individuals have difficulties maintaining eye contact; they cause delayed, non-existent or abnormal language development; they cause individuals to have repetitive and limited play; there is abnormal posture, walk or movement; and, 10 out of every 10,000 people have a PDD, according to a Fombonne study conducted in 2003.

Autistic disorder is one of the most common types of PDD, which refers to pervasive developmental disorder. I remind members that PDD affects four or five boys for every one girl, and is defined as a neurological disorder characterized by a delay in the overall development of an individual's basic functions.

Mutism is present in nearly half of all cases of autism. Non-verbal autistics have major problems with comprehension, mimicry and gestures. Impaired imagination can be manifested by a lack of symbolic games and stories invented with toys, or by difficulties imitating the actions of others. A number of autistic people show weaknesses in terms of motor coordination. Many also have difficulties with fine and gross motor skills. Autism can be found in individuals with varying levels of intelligence. However, the majority of people with autism seem to have lower than average intellectual performance, and present adaptive behaviour deficits, so in this respect, they are similar to people who have moderate or severe intellectual disabilities. Because of their particular characteristics, many people with autism also have behavioural problems.

A diagnosis of autism implies that the deficits have appeared before the age of three, that they have become a part of the individual's functioning, and that they are nearly constantly present.

The Autism Society Canada website also describes the general characteristics, and I would like to read them now.

Children and adults with autism spectrum disorders, or ASDs, have challenges with the following: social interactions; verbal and non-verbal communication; the ability to learn (in the usual settings); repetitive behaviours; unusual or severely limited activities and interests.

They usually find it hard to communicate with others in a typical way and have difficulty understanding social conventions. As a result, individuals with autism may respond in unusual ways to everyday situations and changing environments.

Autism varies tremendously in severity. Individuals with severe autism conditions may have ... symptoms of extremely repetitive and unusual behaviours. This can include ... self-injury ... and aggression.... Without appropriate intensive intervention, these symptoms may be very persistent and difficult to change. Living or working with a person with severe autism can be very challenging, requiring tremendous patience and understanding of the condition. In its mildest form, however, autism is more like a personality difference caused by difficulties in understanding social conventions.

There are also a number of related disorders.

Many individuals with autism have other health problems, for example: neurological disorders including epilepsy; gastro-intestinal problems, sometimes severe; compromised immune systems; fine and gross motor deficits; and anxiety and depression.

That information can all be found on the Autism Society Canada website.

I also wanted to talk about the impact it has on the family, but since I am out of time, I will have to leave it at that.

(1110)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to voice my wholehearted support, as well as that of my caucus, for Bill S-210, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day. If passed, this bill would declare April 2 world autism awareness day.

Prior to donning a political hat, for 10 years on the west coast and of course in my great riding of Sudbury, Ontario, I was a front-line worker supporting individuals with autism and their families.

Let us first look at why it is important to have a world autism awareness day. First and foremost, what is autism? Believe it or not, there are still many people who do not understand this neurological condition or its potential impacts on behaviour.

The term autism is used quite generally to describe a wide spectrum of symptoms. Since children's severity of symptoms can vary so widely, professionals have been using the term autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, to emphasize this variance.

Autism occurs four times more frequently in boys than in girls. Autism occurs in all countries and within all socio-economic classes. There is no cure for autism, so treatment may reduce a person's symptoms, but he or she will still suffer from autism.

More often than not, children with autism exhibit unconventional reactions to sensory stimulation. Some children show a hypersensitivity to stimuli while others display a hyposensitivity to stimuli.

A great example of that was found in one individual I was supporting. That individual had a very difficult time going to a specific pool and, as support staff, we could not figure out why this individual had such difficulty going to that pool. After numerous attempts, we figured out it was the glare from the lights on the pool that made it difficult for the person to go to that particular pool. We moved to a different location and that person was then able to swim, once again being integrated into the community.

Another fact about autism that many do not know is that a large number of friends and neighbours are affected by it. According to some reports, autism affects more children worldwide than cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined. In fact, one in two hundred families in Canada is living with autism. Those families and others around the world need the government to help. They need all of us to help.

Unfortunately, because of our society's misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of what autism is and how it can affect people, families and children with autism can often feel isolated from their friends, classmates, neighbours, communities and, of course, the world around them.

Many different therapies are available, but waiting lists are long and many therapies are not covered by our health care system. It is not easy, but many individuals and groups across Canada and in my riding of Sudbury have worked tirelessly to raise awareness about autism.

The Sudbury and district chapter of Autism Ontario is one of them, and I would like to congratulate Mr. Rick Grylls, the former president of CAW Mine Mill Local 598, who took on this cause once he retired. He has been working tirelessly on its behalf. This group was re-established over two years ago by a small group of dedicated volunteers.

The group holds workshops throughout the year, complete with guest speakers, all in an effort to educate members of the Sudbury community about autism. Some of the issues the Sudbury chapter has raised include positive behaviour interventions, sensory issues, educational advocacy and how to build friendships for individuals with autism.

I applaud the Sudbury and district chapter of Autism Ontario and, in particular, Heather McFarlane, president of the Sudbury and district chapter of Autism Ontario for her continued dedication and hard work and, of course, as mentioned earlier, my friend Rick Grylls, who has been a tireless advocate for this cause that is as close to his heart as it is to mine.

(1115)

Autism Ontario was also fortunate enough to pair up with one of Sudbury's finest country singers, Larry Berrio, in May of this year for a concert at the Fraser Auditorium to promote autism awareness. Larry generously gave some of his good fortune back to the local community. His wife, a child psychologist, has been helping Sudbury families deal with autism for years. Mr. Berrio has said there is a lack of autism awareness in the area.

Another huge help with this concert was Brenda Ranger, who is with Canadian Injury Management Services. She and others have been huge allies of this local awareness campaign.

Another important local ally of autism awareness is the movement right now by the Sudbury Catholic District School Board. In October of this year, the school board partnered with Autism Ontario's Sudbury and district chapters to share office space within the St. Benedict Catholic Secondary School. With this space, Autism Ontario will be able to hold weekly office hours and to meet with members of our community, school staff, and individuals and families on the autism spectrum disorder to provide support and share resources.

I would be remiss not to thank Yolanda Thibeault, my wife, for her countless hours of work at the Catholic school board on this file. I am very proud of my wife's tireless efforts as the coordinator at the Catholic school board providing support to teachers, teachers' aides, and the families and students dealing with autism. This will also get me in her good books.

While we do not know very much about autism, we do know that the earlier the treatment, the more successful it tends to be. That is why I introduced Bill C-360, An Act to amend the Canada Health Act (Autism Spectrum Disorder). This act will actually open up the health act to look at some of the treatments we can provide to children who are diagnosed with autism at the early stage.

When people with autism do not receive treatment in a timely fashion, it means they are denied the tools they need to succeed and to contribute to the community.

IBI or ABA treatment can, in some cases, cost up to $65,000 a year. Each province has a different approach to funding treatment, and far too many families have to remortgage their homes, find a second job or make other sacrifices to ensure that their children receive the treatment they need. This is shameful.

I think the federal government and all parliamentarians need to take the lead and adopt a national strategy, or at least look at creating a national strategy on this file.

The cost for society also increases when treatment is lacking. I believe a Senate report called, “Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis”, outlined this issue.

Canada needs treatment, interventions and services for both children and adults with autism. The title of the report, “Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis”, came from a man from New Brunswick. He said, “Look, we either have to pay now or pay later.” I think that sums it up.

Would it not be great if Canada could do as much as our neighbour the United States is doing to help our own citizens with autism? Let us recognize that autism is serious and affects a growing number of Canadian families. Let us declare April 2 World Autism Awareness Day.

It is great to be able to speak to this issue. I look forward to celebrating April as World Autism Awareness Day.

(1120)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, my adopted kids were born healthy, but early in their lives their families noticed that their personalities were different from those of other babies of the same age. They hit milestones later and they increasingly showed little awareness of the outside world. Their words became fewer and they banged or chewed their toys, rather than playing with them. Tantrums were common, and others were quick to judge them when, for example, the child flapped his or her arms or shoved a nearby adult who had ventured too near. Even birthday parties or grocery shopping could be distorted by outbursts of anger and frustration.

Eventually the parents received the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, which is often made harder by a lack of understanding of those around them.

Most parents are concerned with whether their children will be engineers, lawyers or teachers, and whether their children will find happiness and marry. My adopted kids' parents faced the very real questions of whether their children would lead independent lives or not, and who would look after them when they, the parents, were no longer around.

Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, is a neurological condition that causes a range of developmental disabilities. Some people can function well, while others are locked in a world of their own.

Today ASD occurs in 1 in 165 children, representing an increase of 150% in the last six years, and there is no explanation for the dramatic increase. Worldwide more children are affected by autism than AIDS, diabetes and pediatric cancer. In Canada a total of 48,000 children and 144,000 adults have some form of ASD.

A child who shows a number of the following characteristics and behaviours would likely be diagnosed with autism: if he or she shows no interest in other people; does not know how to play with or talk to people; develops language and speech skills slowly, or not at all; can only initiate and maintain conversations with difficulty; and repeats ritualistic actions, such as rocking, spinning or staring.

A person with a mild case could go for years and may only be detected when he or she goes through a crisis that brings them into contact with professionals who are able to recognize the disorder.

There is no known cause, but research is focused on differences in brain function, environmental factors, genetics, immune responses and viral infections.

No single test will confirm that someone has ASD. Some people with mild forms of autism may never need treatment, as they may function well and even excel. However, those with severe forms of the disorder cannot function and may benefit from active therapy.

There are several ways that people with autism are treated. Applied behavioural analysis and intensive behavioural intervention are designed to actively engage the children with behavioural, communication, learning and socialization problems. Therapy can be extremely expensive, as it may involve one-on-one teaching for up to 40 hours per week, with costs ranging from $30,000 to $80,000 a year. Other therapy may include counselling, development of motor and language skills, diet and medication and physiotherapy.

It takes hard work, patience and sheer determination to help navigate the system and allow a child to emerge from the bonds of autism. The physical and psychological strain on a family can be overwhelming, and the isolation profound. I am therefore honoured to rise in the House to speak in support of Bill S-210, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day.

I would first like to thank the sponsor of the bill, Senator Munson, as well as my many colleagues in the House who have been supporting and advancing this cause. I also thank Senator Eggleton, who was the chair of the standing Senate committee that provided an extensive report on funding for autism, entitled “Pay now or Pay Later”.

Bill S-210 calls for Canada to join with member states of the United Nations to focus the world's attention on autism each April 2.

(1125)

World Autism Awareness Day shines a bright light on autism as a growing global health crisis, and it is one of only three disease-specific United Nations days. It reflects the UN's deep concern about the prevalence and high rate of autism in children in all regions of the world, and the consequent development challenges for long-term health care, education, training and intervention programs, as well as its tremendous impact on children, their families, communities and societies.

This day also acknowledges the extraordinary talents of people living with autism, as well as their ongoing struggles and those of their caregivers, families and friends.

This bill will not change the reality of families affected by autism, people such as Jacob, Dee and Mary in my community. Jacob is a beautiful little boy with long eyelashes, who loves technology and is an accomplished photographer. His prizewinning picture of owls is front and centre on my desk at work. His mother, Dee, left her job to focus full-time on Jacob. She and Aunt Mary, an 82-year-old who is currently recovering from heart surgery, are his greatest advocates, but they still have to fight every day to get treatments and to make the sacrifices necessary to pay for those treatments.

This bill will increase Canadians' opportunities to learn about autism and to recognize that in their communities there are families living with ASD, people like our Jacob, who is a superstar.

Last year the United Nations hosted a rock concert by Rudely Interrupted, whose members have various disabilities, including ASD. The words of lead singer Rory Burnside were especially inspiring:

My advice to kids who have some form of disability is: don’t let it stop you. Use it as your strength; don’t use it as your weakness. One red light can lead to a whole bunch of green lights, with a few orange lights thrown in. And the red lights are just a bit of a test.

I have seen first-hand what caring people who work tirelessly can achieve. We must change the future for all those who struggle with ASD. That means each of us must fight hard for every Jacob in our community, and when roadblocks are put in front of families, we must work all the harder. We must fund research into the causes, prevention, treatment and cure for autism and raise public awareness about autism and its effects on individuals, families and societies.

In 2006, the United States' Combating Autism Act authorized nearly $1 billion in expenditures over five years to help families with autism. We must bring hope to all of those who deal with the hardships of this disorder and we must develop a national strategy on autism.

I am proud to share with you that we have formed an all-party subcommittee to address neurological disease and to bring researchers, stakeholders and decision-makers together on ASD, MS, ALS, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, all of which are major neurological diseases that cross all ages.

One in three, or 10 million, Canadians will be affected by a neurological or psychiatric disease, disorder or injury at some point in their lives. NeuroScience Canada estimates that about $100 million at most is invested in operating costs for neuroscience research in Canada annually. This compares with a burden of disease in the order of $20 billion to $30 billion, a ratio of 200 to 1.

This past April, Yoko Ono unveiled Promise, a mural created especially for World Autism Awareness Day. It consisted of 67 pieces, representing the 67 million autism sufferers around the world. The pieces were to be broken apart and auctioned off individually. With each winning bid came the promise that when the cure for autism is finally found, all the pieces will be reassembled for a day. Promise, just like World Autism Awareness Day, symbolizes the coming together of society around people with autism and the unfinished work of the world in finding the causes and cure for the disorder.

Let us keep the promise. Autism speaks: it is time to listen.

(1130)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert on many things and I certainly am not an expert on autism, but I would profess to being an expert on being a parent of a child with autism. I have a 14-year-old son, named Jaden, who has autism. He was diagnosed 11.5 years ago with autism. I am not going to get into the numbers and the definitions. I will let others do that and it is a very important part of the debate here. Instead, I want to talk about why autism awareness is so important and why the bill is so important.

Before I do that though, I will recognize a few people. I would like to recognize Senator Munson for putting forward this important bill and the work that he has done in terms of raising autism awareness. I would definitely like to recognize our Minister of Health who, on April 2, declared that from now on each April 2 will be known as World Autism Awareness Day in Canada.

I would like to recognize colleagues from all parties who have shown an interest in my son and asked me many questions about autism, and have come to me for advice in terms of dealing with constituents who approach them on this issue. Most of all, of course, I would like to thank Jaden and recognize my son for all that he means to me. I would also like to take the opportunity to recognize my wife, Debi, and my daughter, Jenae, for the work that they do in holding down the fort at home while I am here working on behalf of my constituents.

Why is autism awareness so important? There are many reasons. First, because early diagnosis is critical. In the past decade, we have seen that knowledge about autism and related disorders has increased tremendously. We have seen that more early diagnosis, treatment and support at those early stages is absolutely essential. We need not only parents to be aware but for doctors and the public at large to be aware of this disorder, what it looks like and recognize it early.

In our experience, when Jaden was 18 months old, we remember taking him to the doctor to express some concerns about the fact that he was not talking and there some other behaviours that we noticed. At that point, just over a decade ago, even the doctor who looked at him said, “Oh, he's a boy and some boys talk late”. We have heard similar stories from many parents who eventually had diagnoses of autism.

It was actually a cousin of ours who mentioned, when Jaden was about 21 months old, that maybe he had autism, that some characteristics looked familiar. The cousin knew someone with autism and thought maybe that was the case. That was the first time it was brought up to us.

Thankfully, at two years, we did recognize that Jaden had autism and at two-and-a-half he was actually officially diagnosed at the Glenrose Hospital in Edmonton, and we were able to start treatment. Many of the people who have spoken to the bill have talked about the importance of that early treatment and quality treatment. We were able to get that treatment and Jaden's pediatrician several years later commented that Jaden was an entirely different kid because of the treatment he received at those early ages.

Another reason why the bill is important, why autism awareness is important, and probably the most important reason in our view is because families need support. I am not just talking about the support of the medical community. There has been talk of the treatment challenges across the country, but I am talking about support in terms of understanding, the things we do not see. When families are dealing with autism, oftentimes we do not see that 24/7 stress they are under. We do not see the knife jammed in the door jamb at night because they are concerned that their child might decide to go swimming and it is mapped out in his or her head where the swimming pool is and he or she knows how to get there, but the child has no concept of danger, traffic, or nighttime. If the child decides to go swimming, he or she might just go swimming.

We do not see the times that the child wakes up in the middle of the night. In our experience, it was often about five or six times a night that Jaden would wake up and we would be alerted by a bang on the door. Jaden was nonverbal so he communicated by saying “bah bah bah” before he threw himself on the bed in the middle of the night. This would happen five or six times over the course of the night. I am not sure how the translators will translate “bah bah bah”, but now we are down to two or three times in the night that he often wakes up, but there is this stress that is caused in terms of lack of sleep and the need to be on high alert all the time for the child's safety because the child does not understand or recognize danger the way other kids do all day long.

(1135)

One time we had an incident. We were at a friend's house who had a swimming pool. Jaden was about five or six years old and he stepped out onto the tarp of the swimming pool. He did not really understand that the tarp was not solid and he tried to walk out on top of it. He loves swimming, so there will be lots of swimming stories here.

Then there are the things that the public does see but does not necessarily understand. My colleague, who previously spoke, talked about kids throwing themselves down onto the floor in the middle of a grocery store. These are six- or seven-year-old kids who look like every other kid, but throwing a temper tantrum in the grocery store can be very hard for parents.

There was a situation in Edmonton not that long ago, about a year and a half ago, where a child threw a tantrum and was squealing and making a lot of noise in a restaurant. The restaurant manager came to them and asked them to leave because they were being disruptive, not understanding that the child had autism or not understanding what that was.

There is another funny story actually with Jaden, just to kind of illustrate the sort of lack of filters, in terms of conduct, or lack of barriers. When Jaden was about eight years old, we went to a McDonald's in the West Edmonton Mall between Christmas and New Year's. The place was jam-packed. There were about 50 people in line and about 20 people buzzing around behind the counter, working. It was probably one of the busiest McDonald's I have ever seen. We were picking up food for a bunch of other people, but it was Jaden and I in the restaurant. We got to the front and got our food. I was walking out with my hands full so I could not hold Jaden's hand like I normally would. We got about halfway out of the restaurant and all of a sudden Jaden got a big smile on his face, started giggling, turned around and ran, keeping in mind he was seven years old, behind the counter, all the way across behind the counter, with all these people starting at him, reached into the bin where they held crushed Smarties, grabbed a handful of crushed Smarties and shoved them into his mouth. He had Smarties all over his face and the biggest smile, as everybody stood aghast at this scene that they had just witnessed of this pretty normal looking seven-year-old running behind and filling his face full of Smarties.

However, not all the stories are so funny. It is very difficult, for example, for kids with autism to express more abstract feelings. We had one situation around that same time where Jaden had got hurt. He had actually fallen down the stairs. He came upstairs and his head had been cut pretty badly and he was bleeding pretty badly. We had no idea what had actually happened. All we knew was that his head was bleeding badly, but he could not explain, he could not articulate. Even though he can talk on a computer or write things down, it is hard for him to express things that are more abstract. As parents, we can imagine how difficult that is when our children might be suffering from something like the flu or a sore stomach or something like that, and they cannot possibly explain what it is that is causing the pain they have.

These are things that parents of kids with autism deal with every day.

I have not even spoken about the challenges that parents of adults with autism face, wondering what is going to happen to that child of theirs when they are not there any more to take care of them, and how heartbreaking that is. It is something that we think about, even at this stage in our lives, fairly regularly.

I want to talk a bit about the people who go above and beyond, the people who get autism awareness, who express that awareness. I want to thank people who take their time to, in our case, encourage Jaden to get involved in things. He has been involved in hockey. A coach of a tae kwon do class started a class for kids with autism. Even though he did not have any family members, he recognized the potential there. There are cooking classes and things like bowling. Different things where community leaders have had their eyes opened and been made aware of the potential for kids to get involved.

I also want to quickly talk about the opportunity for people with autism to contribute. In Jaden's case, at his school, they have found ways to have him work in the library, putting books away, which is something that he absolutely loves to do and is incredible at.

I see my time is getting very short. I could talk for hours about the need for autism awareness and thank the people who have contributed and enriched our lives. I will close with this. I want to recognize and thank all of the people out there with autism spectrum disorders, the family members and friends who live with this disorder every single minute of every single day. God bless them.

(1140)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow the member from Edmonton. I have had the honour and privilege of meeting his son. He is a great kid. I have also met hundreds of other children with autism across this country. They are all beautiful, wonderful children. The member of Parliament from Edmonton's son has the right parents. They are beautiful parents and they are doing everything they can to help him. Jaden is very lucky to have the parents he has.

Beyond the love of the parents, we need the support of governments. We need the provinces and the federal government to work together to develop a national strategy so that it does not matter where one lives in this country. If a child or family member has autism, they should be able to get the help that they need. It should be similar across the country.

We just do not have that right now. Alberta is fortunate enough to have treatment up until the age of 18. In Nova Scotia, we have it starting at six, with a few trial programs here and there. Quebec has its programs as well as Ontario, but there is not a national strategy. We have asked for many years that the federal government and the provinces work together to develop a strategy that allows us to develop the best practices. No matter where people live in this country, if they have a child with autism, they should be able to get the treatment and care that is required in order to assist them.

I want to mention a few people who have been instrumental in my life in raising the cause of autism with me. First, there is Mr. Andrew Kavchak of Ottawa. When I saw him years ago, he was outside here with a sandwich sign, asking that autism be under medicare. I did not know much about the issue at that time, but I learned from him and many others. There is Laurel Gibbons, also of the Ottawa area, whose husband serves in the military. He is away an awful lot and they have a son with autism.

Roxanne Black of Vancouver has two children with autism. I know some military folks from my riding in Eastern Passage. One gentleman has served overseas in many tours of duty. He has a child who is a severe flight risk. As the hon. member indicated, some suffer a lack of speech and some are flight risks. If the crack of a door or window is open, they will take off, not knowing the fear of danger. The only thing they know is that they are going. Whether there are cars on the road or whatever, they are oblivious to that. They will just keep on going. While her husband is serving in the military, that lady back home requires support programs in order to assist her and her family.

Anyone who has met children with autism knows that they are some of the most wonderful, beautiful and gifted children in this entire country. They deserve that opportunity. In fact, I know that the autism pin that people wear is in the shape of a ribbon, but it is actually a puzzle. From what I have heard from medical experts, the objective is that if we can get the puzzle rearranged at a young enough age and if these children are diagnosed early enough, we can assist them to the point where they can live productive lives without much assistance. This is the key.

One system does not fit all children or all families. We know that. However, we have a caring and compassionate Canada. I honestly believe, our party believes, and I am sure that most members of Parliament also believe that if we put our heads together, we can come up with a system that is cost effective, accountable, and does what we would like it to do. We can provide a national system in this country for the treatment of autism.

I am going to highlight this again. I have mentioned his name many times in the House, but there is a young man here named Josh Bortolotti, who is from the Ottawa area. I believe he is around 15 years old right now. A few years ago, he was in an Ottawa Life magazine as one of the future people to watch for. Josh Bortolotti is a young man whose younger sister is autistic. He said to me and many people in the House many times that his sister cannot speak for herself, so he was going to do it. That is not bad for a kid who was only 11 years old at that time.

(1145)

Josh is now 15 and is still fighting the good fight. He is raising the issue and raising funds for autism treatment. This young man will be the next Craig Kielburger, the gentleman who raised the issue of child work slavery around the world. Craig is a dynamic young man and someone to watch out for.

This is something that goes beyond politics. Every one of us knows someone in our ridings who has dealt with autism.

We just heard here in the House of Commons a very eloquent defence by a father standing up for his child. I have heard my colleague from Edmonton speak so eloquently on this issue. Kudos to him and to his wife for raising Jaden and giving him every opportunity they can possibly give their child.

Other families are not as blessed, which why we need a national strategy to ensure that autism is not put in the closet and ignored because we do not have the funds for it. The reality is that we do have the funds for it.

I have said it many times, and I honestly believe that if we could get together in a non-partisan way and work with our provincial cousins and first nations groups we could develop a strategy so that no matter where people live in this country, if they have a child with autism the child will get first class treatment and the family will get the best services possible to assist them.

On behalf of our party and all the people in my riding who I represent, I thank the member for Charlottetown for moving this particular motion and all those who spoke on this important issue. It is one of the issues that transcends politics. Hopefully, we will see the day when we can have a national autism strategy in this country.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on this very important discussion of Senator Munson's Bill S-210, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day.

In my background in health care as a community based nurse, I remember parents visiting with newborn children and their delight and excitement as they welcomed these new additions into their families. I also remember visiting with parents over time as their children normally would start speaking. The parents would be concerned about the development of their children when they realized the very difficult and unique challenges they would need to deal with in terms of their children being diagnosed with autism.

The other experience that stands out very prominently in my mind was of a particular child who was not diagnosed until he was a teenager. I had known his mother quite well over the years and she would say, “God gave me patience and then God gave me Mark”. She was just amazing. However, it was not until her child was in his late teens that he was diagnosed and got special support. I have to wonder how much easier it might have been for her and Mark and how much easier his life might have been had he managed to have an earlier diagnosis and perhaps support earlier in his life.

The Chris Rose Therapy Centre for Autism in Kamloops is a centre for children who have been most profoundly affected by this disease. The caregivers and the parents are amazing. It is a very challenging circumstance and the passion, commitment and work the caregivers and parents do is absolutely amazing.

I will now focus on some of the things the government is doing. We know autism affects Canadians across this country, impacting the lives of those affected, as well as family members and beyond. Among children under the age of four, autism is the third most commonly reported disabling chronic condition, after asthma or severe allergies and attention deficit disorder. Among Canadians aged 15 and older, the prevalence of autism is not known, but approximately 5 out of every 1,000 report being disabled due to developmental disability, which would include autism, among other conditions.

The actions of the government to improve the lives of those affected by autism are part of our ongoing commitment to safeguard the health and safety of all Canadians. The Government of Canada recognizes that there is a lack of evidence and consensus regarding the nature, cause and treatments for autism, and that this is a barrier to any strategic undertaking by government and stakeholders to address autism. It is for that reason that the federal government is supporting a variety of activities and initiatives to improve knowledge and awareness of autism.

For example, in declaring April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day, the government has demonstrated its commitment to increasing awareness and understanding of autism spectrum disorder.

In addition, the federal government provided funding in 2007-08 to the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network, CAIRN. This funding supports the network's excellent work of disseminating new knowledge about autism and has improved access to quality information on autism for families affected by autism and for those providing care.

We also have provided addition support this year to the Oxford Centre for Child Studies to further fund CAIRN, to conduct a survey among autism stakeholders to identify research priorities and to host a conference this October. This conference provided an ideal opportunity for all stakeholders and scientists to come together to pool knowledge and experience in the development of updated research priorities for autism. We understand the response to this was positive.

Research has been a strong priority in the federal government's work to support Canadians with autism, as noted by my colleague. CIHR's Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction is supporting autism-related research and is working with partners in the autism community to set research priorities, to coordinate action and to accelerate the speed at which knowledge is translated into improved health for Canadians with autism and their families.

(1150)

Health Canada also plays an important role in this government's activities to address autism. The strategic policy branch of Health Canada is designated as the autism spectrum disorder's lead for actions related to autism at the federal health portfolio level. In designating a portfolio lead, the government has demonstrated that it takes the issue of autism seriously, and we will continue to do so.

Another pivotal action undertaken by this government is autism surveillance. I will talk a little bit about this today. Surveillance is the systematic and ongoing collection of data about diagnoses of a disorder in a population over time. Its purpose is to enable action to minimize the negative effects of the disorder in question.

Effective surveillance requires high-quality screening and a comprehensive surveillance program to manage the results. The accurate and up to date information on autism in Canada, which effective surveillance can provide, is essential to implementing an effective response. Quality information on the distribution and impacts of autism in communities across the country allows public resources to be put to use where they will make the most difference.

The importance of the autism surveillance is outlined by the Senate Committee On Social Affairs, Science And Technology, chaired by the hon. Art Eggleton, in its final report on the enquiry on the funding and treatment of autism. The report, entitled Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis, recommended the stakeholders be consulted regarding autism surveillance and cited a call for national surveillance of autism.

The government heard the call for better surveillance information on autism in Canada and has taken action to strengthen this crucial link in the autism chain.

Today we have heard from fathers and from everyone who has been touched and impacted. We are in support of this important initiative. We are also hearing that the government is taking some good action on some very important things, such as the surveillance and research that will be absolutely critical.

(1155)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I first want to take this opportunity to thank every member of Parliament who spoke in favour of this bill. Although we do not necessarily agree on everything that happens in this House, I believe we agree this is a major issue facing Canadian families.

As has been pointed out by other members, this bill originated in the Senate and was championed by Senator Jim Munson. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and congratulate Senator Munson for the time and energy he put into this important piece of legislation. Speaking of persistence, Senator Munson introduced the bill three times, but because of elections and prorogations, it was delayed. He certainly is persistent and needs to be congratulated.

As has been pointed out by other speakers, who I submit are more knowledgeable than I am on this particular issue, presently in Canada approximately one in 165 Canadian children is living with some form of autism. That means that one in every 165 Canadian families is dealing with the financial and emotional hardship of caring for a child with autism. These families need and deserve the support of the federal and provincial governments and the community at large.

It must be pointed out that this bill does not provide that type of help. The most fundamental function of this bill is that it reiterates the importance of raising public awareness about autism spectrum disorders. The benefits of public awareness certainly cannot be denied or understated.

As Canadians, we have to realize that people affected by autism are not just statistics; they are not numbers on a page. We heard that from the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, who eloquently spoke of his experiences. Rather, they are our friends, colleagues, co-workers and neighbours. That reality deserves our attention.

This bill is a reminder to us in the House and all Canadians that there is much more we can do as parliamentarians and lawmakers to address this alarming national health crisis, and I underline the word “health”. Right now, there exists no national strategy for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders. That means that treatment availability and financial support vary tremendously depending on where one lives in Canada.

In certain provinces, autism treatments, including applied behavioural analysis and intensive behavioural intervention, are covered under the provincial medicare program and are more readily available, especially, as has been pointed out by others, for those who are diagnosed early where treatments are much more effective. However, in other provinces of the country where facilities or trained caregivers are limited, families have to pay out of their own pockets for this treatment. In some cases the treatment is not even in the health envelope; it is in the social services envelope.

Some families, as has been pointed out by others, can expect to pay upwards of $65,000 each year for treatment, a financial burden that no family in Canada should have to endure. That unfairness does not reflect my view of the values that we have as Canadians.

For those who are interested in following this issue, I point out, as the previous speaker did, the excellent Senate report entitled, “Pay Now or Pay Later”, which discusses this particular issue.

To bring us back to the bill we are presently considering, I see this legislation currently before us as an important stepping stone in this process. Hopefully we will achieve a national autism strategy designed to protect and support the families and those living with autism.

Earlier this year the Minister of Health recognized April 2 as world autism awareness day. I applaud the minister's efforts, but at the same time, I remind the House that there is no force of law behind such a declaration. The only way is to formally declare April 2 of each and every year as world autism awareness day, as has been done by 192 other countries in the world following the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

(1200)

In closing, I urge every member of the House to think seriously about this bill, to consider those constituents of theirs who are facing autism each and every day of their lives and to move Canada forward in the fight to better the lives of Canadians across the country who are dealing with autism spectrum disorders.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

It being 12:03 p.m., the time provided for the debate has expired.

[English]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Criminal Code

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (for the Minister of Justice)

moved that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (for the Minister of Justice)

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona on a point of order.

* * *

Points of Order

Comments by Member for Ottawa South

[Points of Order]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order related to a statement by the member for Ottawa South on November 20, 2009.

That statement was that it was not two weeks ago that his colleague, Mr. Hyer, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, the critic in the NDP was in agreement--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

Order. I would like to remind the member that she should not refer to colleagues by their given name, but by their riding. The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan:

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

The statement I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, was by the member for Ottawa South and appears on page 7036 of the November 20, 2009 issue of Hansard. That statement is:

It was not two weeks ago that his colleague, the critic in the NDP, was in agreement that this extension for 30 days in committee was extremely important in order to hear other expert witnesses.

I want to bring to the attention of the House that that is an untrue statement. I very clearly in the House voted against the extension that was requested. I would request that the member return to the House and withdraw that untrue statement.

(1205)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The Chair has heard the point of order raised by the member for Edmonton--Strathcona and will take it under advisement.

* * *

Criminal Code

[Government Orders]

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36 now that it has been reported back to this House by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bill C-36, the serious time for the most serious crime bill, will amend the Criminal Code to repeal the so-called faint hope regime for all those who commit murder after the legislation comes into force. Importantly, it will also toughen the procedural requirements to make a faint hope application for the approximately 1,000 already convicted murderers now serving life sentences in Canada's prisons who presently have the right to apply for faint hope, or who will have the right to do so after serving 15 years.

I am pleased to note that after hearing from several witnesses, the standing committee reported Bill C-36 back to the House with but a few technical amendments that will better harmonize the English and French versions of the bill.

Allow me to recap the nature of the substantive Criminal Code amendments contained in Bill C-36 for the benefit of hon. members.

As most hon. members are aware, high treason and first and second degree murder are all punishable by life imprisonment with the right to apply for parole after a stipulated period of time. Section 745 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the earliest possible parole eligibility date for those convicted of first degree murder and high treason is 25 years. It is also 25 years for second degree murder, where the murderer has been convicted of a prior first or second degree murder, or of an intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Otherwise, the parole ineligibility period for second degree murder is automatically 10 years and can be up to 25 years as determined by the judge under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

Serving up to 25 years in prison without being eligible for parole is obviously a very long time and it is deliberately so, for murder and high treason are two of the most serious crimes in Canada's Criminal Code. Nonetheless, the faint hope regime provides a mechanism for offenders to have their parole ineligibility period reduced so that they serve less time in prison before applying to the National Parole Board for parole.

The current faint hope process is set out in section 745.6 and related provisions, and has three stages.

First, an offender must convince a judge from the jurisdiction in which he or she was convicted that the application has a reasonable prospect of success. The courts have already told us that this is not much of a hurdle and almost all applications are eligible to go to the next stage.

Second, if the judge is convinced, the applicant can bring the application to a jury of 12 ordinary Canadians, whose role is to decide whether to reduce the applicant's parole ineligibility period. This decision must be a unanimous one.

Third, if the applicant is successful with the jury, he or she may apply directly to the National Parole Board. At that point, the applicant will have to convince the board that, among other things, his or her release will not pose a danger to society.

The faint hope regime has been around since 1976 when capital punishment was abolished. The data indicate that between 1976 and the spring of this year, there have been a total of 265 faint hope applications. That is an average of eight applications a year. Of the 265 applicants, 140 obtained reductions in their parole ineligibility periods. Thus, 103 applicants with 25 year ineligibility periods obtained reductions of 1 to 10 years, and 37 applicants whose ineligibility periods ranged from 15 to 24 years obtained reductions of 1 to 5 years.

Ultimately, the National Parole Board granted parole to 127 applicants. In short, nearly half of the 265 faint hope applicants were ultimately granted parole before the expiry of the parole ineligibility period imposed on them at the time of sentencing.

The existence of the faint hope regime and high success rate of applicants has led to a great deal of public concern, particularly among victims' advocate groups. This has in turn led to a series of amendments to restrict access to the faint hope regime and to make better arrangements for the needs of the families and the loved ones of murder victims.

(1210)

Thus, government amendments to the faint hope regime in 1995, which came into force in January 1997, toughen the application procedure, first, by entirely barring multiple murderers from applying if one of the murders occurred after the coming into force date of the legislation; second, by requiring a judge to conduct the review already mentioned whereby the applicant must show a reasonable prospect of success before the applicant may go to the jury; and third, by setting the high standard of jury unanimity that I have already mentioned before the applicant's parole and eligibility period may be reduced.

I wonder if I might ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Oakville. I neglected to do that at the beginning of my speech.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

Does the hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time with the member for Oakville?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Calandra:

I thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker.

In 1999 the Criminal Code was amended again in response to the concerns set out in the report of the Common's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “Victims' Rights--A Voice, Not a Veto”.

As a result, under Section 745.01 a judge sentencing someone convicted of first- or second-degree murder or high treason must declare, for the record and for the benefit of the surviving victims or their representatives, the existence and nature of the faint hope regime.

Given the controversial history of the faint hope regime, the rationale for Bill C-36 is very simple. Allowing convicted murderers a chance, even a faint chance, of getting early parole flies in the face of truth in sentencing. With its alternate title, this bill indicates that truth in sentencing means that those who commit the most serious of crimes must do the most serious time.

This is what the proposals in Bill C-36 aim to do. They aim to restore truth in sentencing for murderers and to protect society by keeping potentially violent offenders in prison for longer periods of time.

I am pleased to note that Bill C-36 would fulfill a long-standing commitment of the government to repeal the faint hope regime for future offenders and to tighten up the current application procedure in the interests of families and loved ones of murder victims.

Bill C-36 would bar all those who commit murder or high treason after the legislation comes into effect from applying for faint hope. In effect, the faint hope regime will be repealed for all those who commit murder in the future.

Bill C-36 would also toughen further application processes for those already sentenced as lifers with the right to apply for faint hope by setting a higher judicial screening test. From now on, a judge will have to be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that a jury will unanimously agree to reduce an applicant's parole ineligibility period. Moving from a reasonable prospect to a substantial likelihood will likely screen out the most undeserving applications.

There are also longer waiting periods for reapplication in the event of an unsuccessful initial faint hope application, a minimum five years instead of the present two.

Most important, Bill C-36 would impose a new three-month time limit for an offender to apply or reapply under the faint hope regime. The three-month time limit would apply in the following situations.

First, it would apply to those offenders who have served at least 15 years of their sentence and have not yet applied. There are many offenders in prison now who have served 15, 16, 17 or more years but who have not yet applied. These offenders will have to make an application within three months of the coming into force of the legislation or wait an additional five years.

Second, it would apply to those offenders who are now serving a sentence but who have not yet reached the 15-year mark. For example, they may have served four years, eight years, or ten years when this bill passes. At exactly the 15-year point in their sentence, all of these murderers will have three months within which to bring an application.

There is also a new five-year waiting period during which an offender may not apply at all if he or she does not apply to a judge within the three-month time limit.

These new longer time limits are explicitly designed to reduce the number of applications that someone may make, in order to spare the families and loved ones of their victims from having to rehash the details of the crime every time a particular applicant applies for faint hope.

In closing, Bill C-36 would eliminate the faint hope regime for all future murderers and would ensure that murderers now in prison would have a much tougher time accessing the regime.

None of these substantive aspects of Bill C-36 have been amended in any way by the standing committee. As I mentioned earlier, there are a few highly technical amendments that have no impact whatsoever on the substantive provisions that I have briefly described.

The reforms to the faint hope regime proposed in Bill C-36 will accomplish two worthwhile goals: first, they will allow us to meet the concerns of Canadians that murderers do the time they have been given and stay longer in prisons than they do now; and second and equally important, they will help ensure that families of loved ones and murder victims are not forced to rehear the details of these crimes every two years as they are sometimes required to do under the current regime.

I support this bill and call on all members of the House to do so as well.

(1215)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to go slowly in order that the interpreter and my colleague may fully grasp what I am saying.

I do not understand—and perhaps you could explain this to me—why you are changing something that works perfectly well. The faint hope clause works perfectly well. We have all the numbers from the solicitor general and the parole board. All the numbers show that among all the prisoners released as a result of the faint hope clause, none reoffended by committing an offence as significant or serious as murder. There has been no failure.

There are currently 4,000 prisoners serving life sentences at a cost of $100,000 each. If you do the math, it costs several hundred million dollars a year.

My question is: why change something that works just fine?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Calandra:

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me suggest that we are not going to be putting a price tag on justice in this country. One of the things the hon. member misses is that each time a faint hope application is brought forward, the victims have to relive the crimes over and over and over again.

The hon. member talks about liberating people who have been convicted of murder. The victims' families will never be liberated of the burden that they carry from these actions. Last week in my constituency office I had the honour of meeting of someone whose sister was murdered. A number of years later the family is still torn up over what happened to their sister. She will not be coming back after 15 years. She will not be applying for early parole.

The hallmark of the justice system is that it is a justice system, and people are required to do the time when they commit some of the most serious and heinous crimes. The member should reflect on that. He should put the families of the victims first and should not put the criminals ahead of them. As I said earlier, I would suggest to the hon. member that we cannot put a price tag on justice. It is important that we do what is right for Canadians. Canadians have said loud and clear that they want this provision repealed. I am very proud to do so, and I hope the hon. member will reflect on that and come on board and support the bill.

(1220)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the bill is puzzling to me because an amendment in 1997 actually required that it be the unanimous decision of a jury to even recommend that the Parole Board hear the faint hope application. What is puzzling to me is the government is proposing that what it is doing is representing the views of the public who do not want these people released. It seems to go against the grain of the fact that under our system we recognize a jury of peers, who are people, where the offence occurred. In that process they actually allow for statements by the victims' family.

I wonder if the member could explain why he would want to replace the views of a jury of citizens from the area where the offence occurred.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Calandra:

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon. member that the bill actually repeals the faint hope clause. It is pretty clear. All of those who are convicted of some of the most serious crimes will no longer have the ability to apply for early parole. In fact what the bill does is respect the people who made the initial sentence. When someone is convicted to 25 years in jail for a crime of murder, the jury that has convicted that person assumes the person will serve 25 years for the act that they have been convicted of.

The faint hope clause sets aside the earlier decision of a jury of the person's peers and seeks to go back and see if they cannot change their mind. We are saying that is not appropriate, that we are going to change the way that justice works, we are going to put victims ahead of criminals and we are going to make sure that people who do the most serious crimes will do the most serious of time.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Oak Ridges—Markham for sharing his time with me today.

It is my pleasure to speak in strong support of Bill C-36, amendments to the Criminal Code that will put an end to the faith hope regime.

Saturday morning was Oakville's Santa Claus parade. I rode in a convertible with Frosty the Snowman, erstwhile Sheridan College student, Jaclyn Seer, as thousands of joyous adults and children waved and cheered along the curbs.

Towards the end we passed a police officer holding his radio microphone while he was chatting with another. “Look what I picked up”, he commented to the other officer. Alongside was a little boy about eight years old, still smiling, with a red foam ball attached to his nose, part of his Rudolph costume, apparently waiting for the officer to find his parents. I immediately wondered what might be going through his parents' minds. No doubt it would be worry that would grow exponentially as time passed, sadly with good reason.

I thought back to when I was a child in the 1950s and early 1960s. Even in Toronto, Canada's largest city, parents could allow their children to go out and play in the parks without fear, without fear they would be kidnapped, tortured or murdered. Today that is not true. Parents have to actually train innocent children against stealthy predators, both male and female. Tragically sometimes the predators still succeed.

I have to conclude that past governments have simply not done their best to protect our children and other vulnerable people. They have spent more time and effort worrying about the criminals in the system. As we passed that officer and little boy, I thought about why the people of Oakville sent me to Parliament. The first duty of any government is to protect its people, especially vulnerable people. That is my first duty to my constituents in Oakville. By voting for this bill, I am fulfilling that first duty.

Bill C-36 will ensure that those who commit the serious crimes of murder and high treason will serve the time that was imposed on them by the court that heard their case, serious time for serious crime, instead of getting some special break after 15 years and a paper review.

This means under this government many of our most dangerous criminals will be off our streets for 10 years longer, and others will think twice about their criminal plans. This will be real deterrence.

It is important to note that these are not troubled teens who stole a car to go for a joyride. They are not people who broke the law by mistake. They are the worst of the worst, people who have planned and carried out the worst crimes against innocent victims, crimes that are so horrible people would not even discuss them in front of children.

The faint hope clause was conceived in 1976 as a wish, an experiment by Liberal Justice Minister Warren Allman. It was supposed to provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves and at the same time increase security in prisons. It was good for the criminals but bad for the victims and their families.

I have heard some of the members opposite talk about studies that supposedly show that longer prison sentences do not deter crime, but how are these studies done? They are carried out by interviewing the people who have demonstrated they lack morals and have the highest motivation to lie, the criminals themselves, or they use selective statistics or they quote figures from the U.S., a largely different culture, regarding poverty, guns and crime.

Of course longer sentences reduce crime. The police and crown attorneys who deal with violent criminals will tell us that murderers are generally very well aware of the penalties they face if caught. Time in prison is what it is all about for these people. It is our most important tool in the justice system. The faint hope clause is a way that the worst criminals try to beat the system one more time. This is to say nothing of the huge cost to the taxpayers of the reviews and the hearings.

From victims' statements it is clear that the average person can only imagine the fear that the victim's families bear year after year that the person who murdered their loved one will obtain early release and kill again, or the continuing nightmare that they may one day meet the criminal face to face on the bus or in a lineup for a movie.

They have another dread, that one day after 15 years they will receive a letter in the mail requiring them to relive their terror and grief in order to make sure the criminal who stole the life of their loved one serves the full sentence he or she was given, because Parliament decided over 33 years ago to allow criminals to revisit that crime and sentence every two years. Why is that so? Is it because the perpetrator has been well-behaved in prison and he or she wants out?

(1225)

There is no parole for the families. There is no early release for murder victims. The Liberal minister, who first introduced this clause in 1976, was concerned about the waste of the offender's life being in prison for 25 years, but where was the concern for the wasted life of the victim when the murderer chose to snuff it out? Who cared that the families were asked to relive their nightmares, in some cases every two years, by appearing at hearings for these criminals to tell their tragic stories over and over, effectively preventing them from leaving their pain behind and having any kind of closure?

Those of us in the Conservative Party care. There is an old expression that a Liberal is a Conservative who has not been mugged yet. There is an essential truth to that expression. Victims of violent crime on the whole have a vastly different view of crime and sentencing than those who have never been a victim. They see things much differently. That is because they have had the joy sucked out of their lives, at least temporarily, and their eyes are open. For some of them, life is never the same.

People who have looked into the eyes of a serial murderer or rapist and lived offer a unique perspective on a criminal's claim that 15 years in prison will change the criminal sense of right and wrong. All criminals want is for everyone to forget about their crimes. All the families of the victims want is for everyone to remember it. For justice, pick one.

The NDP member for Burnaby—Douglas claims that the system is working because, from 1997 to 2009, of 991 criminals who were eligible under this clause, only 131 were released and only four of them were caught in a similar crime. How incredibly naive that is. That statement is based on the ridiculous assumption that all crimes are solved and that all criminals are caught. Yet, we know there have been 3,400 unsolved murders in Canada since 1961. Over 500 native women have vanished in the last 30 years.

Clifford Olson was convicted for killing 11 children. Tragically, we have serial killers in Canada. Why would any clear-thinking person assume that the 101 faint hope parolees still out there are all perfectly reformed? When the time came to decide if Clifford Olson could apply for parole, however unlikely it was that he would get it, literally thousands of family members of those children and of those 500 missing women suffered a new man-made cruel and unusual punishment, this process of faint hope, as they relived their own losses.

We are keeping our promise to get tough on crime and hold offenders to account. If passed, Bill C-36 will bar all future murderers from applying for faint hope. This will effectively repeal the entire regime.

We in Parliament are tasked and trusted to protect vulnerable people. Each of us in this place asked for this trust and we must fulfill it. It should make no difference that the prison is in an unpleasant place. Our priority must be victims and their families and deterring violent crime.

I believe every member of the House should vote on the bill with one question in mind. If it were my child or spouse who was raped and murdered, how would I vote? We owe our constituents the same level of protection we would provide for our own families and nothing less.

(1230)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Oakville for his speech. I would like him to clarify something.

[English]

During his speech, the member for Oakville said that the current system, under the Criminal Code, for an offender to apply for the faint hope clause was a “paper review”. It is my understanding that if the judge finds there is a reasonable prospect of success on an application, the judge then orders that a 12 member jury be constituted. That jury hears from the offender, the families of the victims, should they so wish to testify, and from other expert witnesses. Is the member not incorrect when he calls it a “paper review”?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Terence Young:

Mr. Speaker, what I have said is there is no new evidence regarding the crime presented. If a jury is put together, the judge looks at paper. What they are essentially doing is revisiting a criminal trial that took place 15 years prior or earlier than that.

I ask my friend opposite where she stands. I would like her to listen to what families have said.

Heidi Illingworth, with the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, said in the National Post, on June 6, “The process is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment for survivors”.

Ed Teague, whose 18-year-old daughter was murdered, said, “My sons will have to end up going to those parole hearings. I don't want them to have to go through that on a regular two-year basis like has happened in the past”.

Carolyn Gardner, whose sister was murdered, said, “He can waive it”, a faint hope application, “but we don't have that option, to say 'we don't want it', If we don't go, there's no voice for my sister, for their daughter”.

Theresa McCuaig, whose grandson was murdered, said, “It's going to be very difficult for our family to go through court three times in one year for each criminal, and if they don't get it they are allowed to re-apply every second year after that. So we're going to go through this hell every second year”.

I ask the member opposite to listen to the families and help us repeal this provision.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, when I hear such things it makes what little hair is left on my head stand up. I am certain that the hon. member has never appeared before the board to have someone released. That is not really how it works. Only someone with experience can tell it like it is and properly inform the public.

Exactly 127 inmates have been released and none has reoffended by committing murder. I can assure hon. members that the parole board is not going to release the likes of Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo. Get real. You have to be ridiculous and dim to think that the board would be so reckless.

I have a question for the hon. member. What is his beef with the 1976 act that gave faint hope to an inmate? Why destroy something that has been working so well since 1976?

(1235)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Terence Young:

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are concerned that the victim does not get one last chance. The victim does not have a voice, and we are primarily concerned about the families. Not many of these people are released anyway, but the families, as we have heard from the quotes, go through a living hell and for no good reason.

Let me quote Darlene Boyd, who said, “You don't have to relive it every time they feel like going through a judicial review or parole—that's hard on families”. I have quote after quote from people who are suffering because of this unfair system.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of my party. I will state outright that my party, based on the recommendations of our justice critic, will support the legislation at report stage and third reading. However, I would like to make a few points.

It is becoming more disconcerting to listen to the Conservative government and its MPs use fallacious statements and facts in order to bolster its position. There are many times when all members of the opposition or one or another party of the opposition support a particular policy that the government has put forward. Yet the government seems to be unable to help itself in either quoting out of context, in order to put a false conclusion on it, or in giving misinformation. The best example of that was right during the last speech.

The Liberals will, as I said, support Bill C-36 at report stage and third reading. We have concerns about the legislation. However, we would like to stick to facts because we believe, if we are solid on the facts, that they will support whatever conclusion or policy a government or a party puts forward and that there is no need to quote fallacious information, or to misquote people or to take things out of context in order to bolster one's position. That is inherently dishonest. If one is convinced of the rightness of one's position or the solidity of one's position, then there is no reason to undertake that kind of argument.

Bill C-36 would repeal section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, known as the faint hope clause. That section is applicable to offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. Under that section, those offenders can apply at the 15-year mark of their sentence for an earlier parole eligibility date. There is a process that has been put into place. It initially began in the 1970s. In 1997, under the previous government, it was tightened up.

The judicial review for an earlier parole date is not a paper review. It is not simply a question of rehashing whatever evidence was put in before a court on the original charges of first degree or second degree murder, depending on which charge it is, or high treason. For members of the governing party to claim that it is, is simply not true and does not bolster their case. In fact, it weakens their position because it makes people then suspicious about every other statement of so-called fact and just how valid it is.

In fact, the current process is that at the 15-year mark of having served a first degree life sentence without possibility of parole until 25 years has been served, offenders can apply for an earlier review as to whether they are eligible for an earlier parole. That application form is quite substantive and unwieldy, as has been testified to before the committee by justice and public security officials, by Correctional Service Canada and by various groups, psychiatrists, criminologists and offenders themselves. One person who benefited from that clause came before us and explained the conditions and the process.

As was rightfully explained by the first member of the Conservative Party who spoke to this, the standard of proof that a judge on a judicial review of this application has to base his or her decision upon is that proof has been established that there is a reasonable prospect of success.

(1240)

If the judge is of the opinion that this standard has been met, the judge then orders that a 12-member jury be constituted. That jury does not simply look over the evidence of the previous trial that led to the first degree murder conviction, but actually hears from witnesses. It hears from the offender. It hears from the victim's family and relatives, should they wish to testify. It hears from the members of the Correctional Service of Canada who have seen and handled this offender, and who will come to testify as to the conduct of the offender since.

When the member for Oak Ridges—Markham claims it is a paper review, that member is being disingenuous and does not bolster the case of the government. It actually weakens the government's case because it then leads people to believe that the government is trying to hide something. I would urge the members opposite not to be disingenuous, but simply to base their arguments for the bill on the facts.

What are the facts? The facts are that the overwhelming majority of offenders sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years for first degree murder, or 15 years served for second degree murder, do not even apply. They do not apply because they know they do not even meet that lower standard that exists right now, which requires a “reasonable prospect” of success.

Clearly, if the overwhelming majority do not meet the lower standard, it is clear that even fewer will meet the higher standard that Bill C-36 puts into place, which requires a “substantial likelihood” that a jury would unanimously approve the request for a hearing for earlier parole.

There is no reason for the members opposite to obfuscate the facts. That is my first point.

My second point is that it repeals the faint hope clause for those offenders who will be found guilty after the bill receives royal assent. For those who are currently serving, or will have been convicted and have begun serving their sentence prior to the day of royal assent, they will still benefit from Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. So it is very important that the members opposite do not attempt to play a hoax on most victims.

The minister came before committee and basically said that the reason he was bringing the bill forward was to ensure that no victim's family would ever have to relive testimony, et cetera. I asked him if there was a retroactive effect to this legislation, and he answered honestly, thank goodness, that no, it would only be repealed going forward. Therefore, I said to him that in fact the family members of victims who have already been murdered, and for whom the murderer has already been found guilty of first or second degree murder, will likely continue to have to face the prospect of testifying, should the offender apply under the faint hope clause. To that point, the minister said yes.

I beg the minister to please stop obfuscating the truth. What he should have said was that he was unable to garner a sufficiently strong argument to justify retroactive application of section 745 and, therefore, he has tightened up the possibility of limiting the application time of those offenders for whom section 745.6 will continue to apply, and has provided more security and certitude for the family members of victims.

(1245)

I find it amazing that as a member of the official opposition, I am having to provide the government members with solid arguments to justify the government's own legislation because they have not done their homework. I am finding that is the case more and more.

We asked the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada for information, which was supposed to have been brought to the committee beforehand. That information dealt precisely with the actual statistics, whether or not anyone who had benefited from the faint hope clause had in fact gone on to reoffend and commit murder again, first or second degree, or high treason. We asked because those are the only charges to which the faint hope clause actually lends itself to a review and the possibility or faint hope of early parole. I have yet to see that information.

I cannot believe that the Correctional Service of Canada does not have that information, but I have not seen it. I have to question whether or not my colleagues from the Bloc and NDP who sit on the justice committee received that information. It would be curious to note whether or not the Conservative members who sit on that committee received that information.

I am offended when I am being asked to evaluate, study and review proposed government policy and legislation and the government does everything it can to keep information from members of the committee and parliamentarians. It does not bolster the government's case at all. It lends itself to making other parliamentarians less open to even listening to the government when it comes up with other new policies, because past behaviour is, in many cases, a predictor of current and future behaviour.

We have seen how the government has absolutely no qualms about misinforming people and taking information out of context, and when confronted about it, refusing to even acknowledge it was in the wrong. Then one has to call into question the government's good faith, because if someone unknowingly misquotes or quotes something out of context and it is brought to his or her attention, if that person has good faith, he or she will publicly apologize for getting it wrong. I have yet to hear this government or any of its members apologize when they have been confronted clearly with misinformation or misquotes.

The government has proposed repealing the faint hope clause after royal assent of the bill for anyone who is convicted of first degree murder, second degree murder, and high treason. Liberals will be supporting that. The government could not make it retroactive, and even on that I have concerns whether or not that was the case, because I have asked the question already. The minister did not table any legal opinions that would have demonstrated that a constitutional case could not have been made to make the repeal retroactive. I asked that question because I know this very well from when I was parliamentary secretary to the then solicitor general, now the public safety minister portfolio. At that time, when we were looking at creating a national sex offender registry, the proposed legislation first brought to us by the departmental officials was not retroactive.

(1250)

At that time, I said that in my view there was a solid constitutional argument that would withstand a charter challenge and allow us to make the sex offender registry retroactive. I asked the officials to go back and do their homeworker. I did my own homework on the jurisprudence et cetera. When they came back, the Department of Justice officials admitted there was a solid argument that would allow the creation of a retroactive sex offender registry that would withstand a court challenge.

I asked the minister whether or not that work had been done for this particular legislation, and while he said yes, he also refused to provide any kind of documentary evidence, legal opinion, or research, et cetera, showing they could not make it retroactive in this case.

I have said all I need to say on this matter.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say, and I would like to congratulate her on her speech, because what she said was accurate. I will talk about this in more detail when I speak in a few minutes.

I am a bit surprised, though, and that it what my question is about. In 1976, if memory serves—and I hope it does—the Liberals were in power. I believe that Mr. Trudeau was Prime Minister at the time, but I am not certain. If I recall correctly, the Liberals abolished the death penalty in Canada in 1976 and introduced the faint hope clause. I will come back to this in a few minutes in my speech.

I have a question for my colleague, who seems to be a lone voice among her Liberal colleagues, who will likely vote in favour of Bill C-36. I am looking for just one good reason why she should vote against it.

The party opposite should not talk about the victims. It does not understand the victims. We will talk about the victims later. I would like to know why the Liberal Party, which brought in the faint hope clause and knows how the system works, would vote for such a bill, which will take the last hope away from certain hand-picked inmates who have proven that they may be eligible for parole. I would like to understand.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings:

Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleague that his memory serves him well.

In fact, in 1976, the Liberal Party of Canada was in power. It formed the Government of Canada at the time, and the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau was Prime Minister. My predecessor in my riding, the Hon. Warren Allmand, was Minister of Justice at the time.

If I were to behave like the Conservatives, who are forever labelling everything with their logo, their big C and the colour blue, I would say that that was the year the red Liberal Party of Canada abolished the death penalty and brought in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, which gave inmates very faint hope, but one last chance nonetheless.

I am a Liberal. I am a good Liberal. When the official opposition justice critic recommends that my caucus vote for or against something, I try to be a good Liberal.

(1255)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, based on that last comment, I just cannot let it go.

I appreciate the presentation by the member opposite. I know she is active on the justice committee and has been dealing with these issues for a number of years. The minister clearly indicated the charter issues with retroactivity. The member may not agree.

I am asking the member a question. Where is the member going? Is she allowed to leave? It is time for questions and comments. Is that what a good Liberal does? Avoids questions and leaves the House. Is that what happens? I will make it simple.

The member was at committee. The member voted against the legislation at committee. That is my understanding. Has she changed her mind and what has made her change her mind?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I recommend that you suggest to the hon. member to be somewhat respectful.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

I am not sure that is a point of order. However, I would remind all hon. members that we ought not to reference colleagues who are or are not in the House and whether they are coming or going.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings:

Mr. Speaker, if the member actually read the transcripts of the justice committee, clause-by-clause voting, he would not see my name appear either in favour or opposed.

Therefore, when the member says that he has been told that I, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine voted against Bill C-36 at second reading, clause-by-clause, he has been misinformed.

I would beg the member, in future, not to repeat the same misinformation because I have seen members of the Conservative Party sitting in the House giving out misinformation, be corrected about it, and continue to repeat it as though they had never seen the actual facts shown to them and proven to them.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. I shared with my colleague the concern when the minister came before the committee and the only argument he had, because it certainly was not based on any facts on how this section has worked, was that he wanted to be sure that victims' families would never go through this again. He seemed ignorant of the fact, based on the bill, that they would go through it not once but twice both at the time for the review, which could happen under this bill two or three times, and then again before the Parole Board.

I am wondering if the member has any concerns that we are going to see another attempt by the government either to reintroduce the death penalty, because the only way we can do away with reviews is to actually have the state execute convicted murderers, or the other possibility is, which the government may be considering, having a provision where there is no possibility of parole at all which poses some major constitutional problems under the charter.

I wonder if the member would comment on those two alternatives and where she might see the government going on either one of them.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings:

Mr. Speaker, the question that has been asked by my colleague from the NDP, who also sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, is quite serious. I will not speculate on what the government's future intentions might be.

As to the issue of the appropriate sentencing for first degree and second degree murderers who have been convicted of those charges, I can say that I have been in the House since 1997 and there were members of the previous Reform Party who did, in fact, express a wish for the return of the death penalty. I do not believe that they sit in the House at this time. I believe that some of them have been defeated, either at their nomination conventions or in an election, or have retired.

I am not going to speculate on what the government's medium- and long-term intentions on that should be, but I am dismayed when we have a minister, whom I actually respect and I cannot say that for many of the Conservative ministers, who comes before the committee and does not appear to be intimately aware of, understanding of, and knowledgeable about his own legislation that he is bringing forth.

The member is entirely right. The Minister of Justice, when he came before our committee with the arguments that he gave wanting to save victims' families from having to relive the pain, the anguish and, I can imagine, the terror over and over again, had to be informed by members of the opposition, myself included, that in fact his bill did not remove that reality because it was not retroactive.

That was the point at which I asked the minister about whether or not he had considered the possibility of making the repeal retroactive, period, finished, if he were that concerned about the victims' families.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The hon. member for Burlington on a point of order.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Wallace:

Mr. Speaker, the answer that I got indicated, based on the response, that my integrity was impugned and that I was not following the rules.

I am happy to put this on the record in the House here today. In the minutes of the proceedings of Monday, November 16, the question, “Shall the bill, as amended, carry?” has the yeas and the nays listed. The previous speaker's name is listed under the nays. I was doing exactly what I had done in terms of research on what was happening.

The member indicated that I did not know what I was talking about and impugned my integrity, saying I had not done my homework. I want to put on the record that this is not true and the member of Parliament who spoke owes me an apology.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is rising on the same point of order.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings:

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the member had not done his homework. The member had stated that it was reported to him, so I informed him that the reports were incorrect.

If in fact the minutes of the November 16 meeting of the standing committee indicate what he has said, I will ensure that those minutes are corrected because every single member at that meeting knows very well that I did not vote on any of the questions that were put to the committee regarding Bill C-36, including whether or not the title should pass, whether the bill should pass, or whether 500 new copies should be printed. Therefore, I will see that those minutes are corrected to in fact reflect what took place in the committee.

I do not blame the member. He is quoting from what appears to be a perfectly valid transcript and based upon that, he made his statement in good faith, but I am informing the member that those transcripts are not correct. We have a meeting this afternoon. I will ask that they be corrected to reflect what actually took place, which is that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine did not vote on any of the votes on Bill C-36.

(1305)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

This appears to be a discussion about the facts in this case. It is my understanding that the members are going to take some further action. If necessary, the Chair will return to this matter in the future.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-36.

I will begin by reading a very short quote from a piece by the journalist Manon Cornellier published in Le Devoir. For my colleagues opposite who do not understand French and who do not read it, Le Devoir is a French-language newspaper published in Montreal. Ms. Cornellier is a journalist on the Hill and was present for our debates and speeches as well as the introduction of Bill C-36. Here is the quote in question:

“And what if the lack of hope crushed the desire for rehabilitation of the convicted and increased violence and the problems in prisons?”

If Bill C-36 is passed, I believe it is very likely that the answer to this question will be yes, that it will. What does an individual do when he no longer has a chance and has nothing to hope for?

I am truly convinced that my colleagues opposite have never gone into a prison and know nothing about criminal law because they are spouting utter nonsense before the Standing Committee on Justice. When I hear what is being said and the questions asked by some Conservative colleagues in this committee, I even wonder if they really passed their bar exams.

I am revolted by this morning's comments in support of passing Bill C-36. We are keenly aware that victims must be protected. I will repeat it for my colleagues opposite because the translation is slow. The Bloc Québécois agrees that victims must be protected. I will repeat it for my Liberal friends who are preparing to support Bill C-36: victims must be protected. However, adopting this bill will not protect the parents of victims. Unfortunately the victims were murdered. Murder in the first degree is the most heinous crime that can be committed by an individual, and it deserves the harshest punishment.

In Canada, the death penalty for someone found guilty of murder was abolished in 1976. I know that some Conservatives would like to see it reinstated, but that is not what we are debating today. They must stop making false claims and providing misleading information. It is not true that someone found guilty of first degree murder is sentenced to 25 years. When an individual is found guilty of first degree murder, he is sentenced to life in prison, which means until he dies. That is what a life sentence means. The Conservatives need to stop their disinformation.

Since 1976, prisoners have been allowed to apply for parole after 25 years, but they were sentenced to life imprisonment; that means life in prison. The Conservatives need to stop making the public believe that everyone will get out after 25 years, because it is not true. The statistics we have in front of us prove that.

(1310)

The statistics date from April 9, 2009, and there must have been a few people sentenced for murder in the past few months. Let us round it off. There were 4,000 prisoners serving life sentences in Canada as of April 9. So they are not all out, and they will not all be out of prison. So when the Conservatives go all delusional and claim that Clifford Olson could be released, or that Bernardo could be released, they are not thinking about the parents of the victims. They need to stop. It is not true that Olson and Bernardo will be released, and this is why. This is what the Conservatives need to understand, because they have a lot of trouble understanding it, and some Liberals still have trouble with this issue. I will explain it, and I hope that it will be clear.

An individual is convicted of first-degree murder and immediately sentenced to life. This means that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. However, as things stand, that individual can turn to the courts after being in prison for 15 years. This is important, and it is what the Liberals introduced in 1976 when they amended the Criminal Code and abolished the death penalty. They introduced the current system, which is working very well. The Liberals and the Conservatives cannot say that it is not working well, because they have never provided any numbers.

I will now explain how the current system works. The individual is convicted and sent to prison, where he must serve at least 25 years.

After 15 years, if his good behaviour has been proven and attested, he can apply to the court. The Conservatives led us to believe that an individual could lie for 15 years in prison. Come on. It is obvious that the Conservatives never go into the penitentiaries. Some of them should visit institutions at least a few times a year to see how things work. They would see that inmates cannot lie with impunity, especially in a maximum security penitentiary. Individuals sentenced to 25 years or life are placed in maximum security facilities.

After 15 years, the individual must appear before a superior court judge in the place where he was convicted. I am going to go slowly, because the Conservatives think that this can be done anywhere in Canada where the individual is being held. That is not true; it is set out in the legislation. The inmate must appear where he was convicted, before the chief justice of the superior court, not just any judge, not a judge appointed by the Conservatives, but a real judge.

The judge in question will examine the application, have the individual appear and ask him to convince the judge to empanel a jury to consider his application. This is not an application for release. The judge does not have the authority to release the inmate, but only to empanel a jury. I will come back to this in a few minutes.

The individual appears before the superior court judge and tries to convince the judge that he has proof that he has changed. He can call the prison guards to testify and can do everything in his power to convince the judge to empanel a jury.

That is the first step, and very few get past it. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, we asked for numbers, and of course, if any of them had been flawed, we would have known, but they were all fine. So, the person appears before the court and convinces the judge. Then the judge empanels a 12-member jury in the place where the first degree murder was committed 15 years before.

The Conservatives need to stop saying that such an individual can try two or three times, because that is not true. That is disinformation. So, the judge empanels a jury of 12 people from the place where the murder was committed 15 years before, and then there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

(1315)

I will translate that for my Conservative colleagues. It means that there has to be enough proof that there can be absolutely no doubt that the person appearing before the jury has changed his ways. The jury cannot free the prisoner. The only thing that the jury can do is say unanimously that he can request parole in a year or two, or three, or five. The jury decides. The jury does not let the prisoner go. The Conservatives are wrong again. They must be delirious. Maybe they have delirium tremens because they would have us all believe that the jury would not study anything and would just let the prisoner go. That is not what subsection 745.6 of the Criminal Code says. The jury has to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the individual has so completely changed his ways that he deserves to apply to the parole board.

What proof must be provided? The individual in question must provide some evidence. Criminologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, victims, victims' parents—given that the victim, of course, cannot testify—cousins, and the entire family, must explain how that individual has changed. I hope my Conservative colleagues are listening carefully. This will come as a surprise to them. I know they are not listening to me, but that is all right; at least it will be in the blues. Since 1976, 4,000 prisoners have been sentenced to life sentences. As of April 9, 2009, of the 265 applications submitted, 140 applicants had obtained a reduction in their parole ineligibility period.

This means that the 140 people in question obtained a reduction in the waiting period before they can apply to the parole board.

This brings us to the second step. They have convinced a jury. They jury has decided that the individual can apply to the National Parole Board in one, two or three years. It is up to the jury.

Then the individual goes before the parole board. My Conservative and Liberal friends who plan to vote for this bill should listen carefully; this is important. These are not my figures or the Bloc Québécois' figures; these are the National Parole Board's figures and they do not lie. Of the 127 applicants who were granted parole, 13 returned to prison, 3 were deported, 11 have died, one was out on bail, one was in temporary detention, and 98 were meeting their parole conditions. I think this bears repeating. I will set the record straight right now. We heard from people from the National Parole Board and the Department of the Solicitor General. They appeared before the committee and we asked them if any of the 13 people who returned to prison had returned for another murder, another manslaughter or another second degree murder. The answer is no. They all committed crimes like theft or shoplifting. Perhaps they failed to meet their parole conditions. Many Conservative and some Liberal members seem to think that when someone is granted parole, they sit at home, relaxing, with their feet up. That is not how it works.

(1320)

The committee heard one of those individuals. What did we hear? All is not over for the 98 individuals who are on parole. Just remember what I was saying before. When someone is sentenced for first degree murder, they are sentenced to life. They are therefore on parole for as long as they are alive. For the rest of their days, the individual has to report to the parole board and has to stay on the straight and narrow and respect the law. Parole can be revoked at any time for a whole host of reasons.

I have pleaded similar cases and I know what I am talking about. For example, if an individual has to report to his parole officer every Tuesday at 9 a.m., and arrives at 9:30 a.m., a complaint will be filed and he will have to explain himself to the parole board. If he has to take training and does not show up for his classes, his parole is automatically revoked and he is returned to prison.

When the public is misled, those who spread the disinformation will get caught. And that is what is happening right now. What the current government is trying to do, probably with deliberate help from the Liberals, who are concerned about their dip in the polls when it comes to being tough on crime, is to destroy any faint hope an individual has of being released.

Bill C-36 proposes to fully eliminate the right of all offenders convicted of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole on the day the amendment comes into force.

What that means is that inmates will become violent because they will no longer have any hope. What happens in penitentiaries when inmates have no hope? I hope that certain Conservatives, and especially certain Liberals who are about to vote in favour of this bill, will take a tour of a penitentiary to see what is going on. Individuals make themselves available to other individuals, often organized gangs inside the penitentiary, and become hired killers. It does not bother them because they know they will never get out. Parole officers have told us they are worried about increased violence in the penitentiaries if Bill C-36 is passed. Those are not just my words.

What else do they want? They want to protect the parents of victims and have them appear before the parole board as few times as possible. I do not agree with that position. I would say to the parents of victims that it is false to claim that they will be made to relive the same crime over and over, because only those individuals who have been rehabilitated can file an application.

Quite often, individuals who file an application—I have at least four examples—have already met with the victim's family in order to apologize, to speak to them or to find some way to heal the pain they have caused.

I will close by stating that Bill C-36 is a very bad bill. The consequences will not be felt today or tomorrow, but in five or ten years. At that point it will cause harm because we will have crushed an individual's hope. We will never support that.

(1325)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member's information, it was actually Clifford Olson not Barry Olson who was responsible for killing a number of children in British Columbia.

It is hard to listen to the member when in his previous question he said that we do not need to talk about the victims. He said that if a murderer is nice in jail, if the murderer says please and thank you, if the murderer opens the door for people and is a good boy in jail, then somehow the murderer should be allowed to approach the courts, approach the people of Canada for an early release after 15 years. He went on further to say that the murderer's family will testify that the murderer has changed his or her ways, that the murderer is actually a different person than when he or she was killing people.

Is the member truly serious in suggesting that the faint hope clause should stay and that we should tell murderers that if they are nice in jail we might let them out early? I may be an old fashioned type of guy raised by old fashioned parents but I believe the minimum standard expected in our prison system is good behaviour.

Why will the member not for one minute put the rights of victims ahead of criminals, just one time, especially on this bill?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

Mr. Speaker, I will put myself in the shoes of the victims' parents for one minute. I will give the same answer that I have given to others. My colleague should look at the case of Mr. Dunn, a lawyer who, a number of years ago, killed his associate, Mr. McNicoll, in a presumed hunting accident in Las Saint-Jean. Mr. Dunn was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years imprisonment. He was found guilty of first-degree murder and was given a life sentence.

Today, Mr. Dunn is no longer in prison. He is a success story and is doing very well because he was concerned about the victim. He was concerned about the victim's family. I would like my dear colleague to know that no one will be released by the parole board unless they show concern for the victim's family. It is impossible. I have never seen it happen nor will I ever. In fact, one of the parole board's most important criteria is that, while in prison, the individual must show concern for the victims' fate. No one is released if they do not show concern for the victims. Never. I can assure him of that and my colleague can verify it. We asked the parole board and that is exactly what they told us.

In reply to my colleague's question, I would say that, on the contrary, we are thinking about the victims, and especially the victims' families, when someone is handed a life sentence.

(1330)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not help noticing in the debate here today how barren and devoid of any concept of justice, forgiveness and reconciliation the speeches are by the Conservative side. Those are all part of our justice system, I hope. I hope some of those will come through in the debate here today but I have not heard it yet from the Conservatives.

I want to sincerely thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for putting all of the facts on the record.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I am very familiar with such cases, because I have worked them. I defended clients who have applied for parole, and whom I told that they were not ready and would never make it before the National Parole Board. Members must know that there are three important and essential steps. The prisoner must convince a judge. The judge must bring in a jury, and the prisoner must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing a jury can do is to give an individual the opportunity to appear before the National Parole Board.

If this does not show concern for victims, I do not know what is. However, I will respectfully add that passing this bill is certainly not the way for the Conservatives to show their concern for victims.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, on that last point from the Conservative side, I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc could comment on the witness the Conservatives brought forward, who was the father of a victim of murder, who indicated to us, over the course of his testimony, that in the last week or two before coming to us he had been on a panel with one of the individuals who had been released on early parole. As a result of his discussion with that individual, he had changed his mind on this section of the code and felt that there were occasions when it was appropriate for people, who have rehabilitated themselves and convinced a judge and jury that they have rehabilitated themselves, to be released earlier.

I just wonder if my colleague could comment on the impression that particular witness left with our committee.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is so true. It is so true that a person cannot truly be rehabilitated if he does not care about the victim's fate and what the victim's family members are going through.

That witness, whose name escapes me just now, appeared before us. We discussed parolees. We talked about why first degree murder happens and about life sentences. Any person who might be released on parole would be subject to parole supervision for the rest of his days. The convict has to care about the victim's fate because if he does not, he will never be eligible for parole and will never be able to apply for parole under the existing system.

With this bill, which I find completely ridiculous, we are not only closing the door but taking away the individual's last chance at rehabilitation. I hope that my colleagues will consider the conditions and the consequences five years from now.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by my colleague's speech on this matter and moved by his comments in this House.

Several years ago, I heard a story on Radio-Canada in which some parents were sharing their thoughts on the parole system. I find it appalling that members on the other side of the House do not give more credit to the people responsible for the parole system.

Could my colleague tell us a little more about what we are hearing from people in the community, from other lawyers in the same field and from associations that support the Bloc's position?

(1335)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

Mr. Speaker, the main objective of the parole service is rehabilitation. What is rehabilitation? An individual may have received a very heavy sentence. Of course, I am talking about life in prison, because that person has committed the worst possible crime and killed someone in cold blood. There is nothing worse. The individual has taken a life; there is no doubt. Even as a criminal lawyer, I never had an easy time defending such a person.

Let us come back to the objective of parole. The individual has to be kept away from the population for many years, after which time officials will see whether he has begun a process of rehabilitation. An inmate will never be eligible for parole if he has not begun rehabilitation or a process that will lead him to recognize the seriousness of his crime.

What some people are talking about has never happened. That is why the parole service is so important in connection with the faint hope clause, and that is also why I am very much afraid that there will be more prison violence if this bill is passed.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for St. John's East.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent to split her time?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan:

Mr. Speaker, in rising in the House to speak to the bill, I want it to be known that I oppose the bill. In the same way that I treat all the bills before the House, whether they are government bills or private member's bills, I endeavour to look to the factual base in forming my opinion. It has been brought to my attention in the review of the bill by a number of persons and organizations, and what stood out for me was the submission to the justice committee by the Canadian Bar Association.

The brief was presented by the National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association, which represents more than 37,000 jurists, including lawyers, notaries, law teachers and law students across the country. It also includes not only defence lawyers, but prosecutors. That is very important. These are the professionals who work day in and day out, year by year in this area and are fully apprised of the facts of what is happening in the judicial system, including in the administration of the faint hope clause.

The Canadian Bar Association's testimony to the committee was very clear and it seems to be consistent with what the other members presented today in the House on the bill. The testimony was that the government's communications on Bill C-36 suggest there has been an increase in the number of offenders being released under the clause. However, that this is far from reality, which deeply concerns me. It is incumbent upon all members in the House that when we take a position on a bill, or if we draft a bill for presentation to the House for serious consideration, that it actually be based on fact. This is all the more critical when talking about a bill affecting criminal justice and affecting those who are subject to the system and people who have been victims of crime.

The brief by the Canadian Bar Association on Bill C-36 raised a number of concerns about the proposed reforms, in addition to the fact that it does not appear to be premised on a fact based appraisal, and that has been endorsed by all opposition parties. They have been extremely concerned that no proper factual information appears to have been tabled by the government in tabling the bill. That is a of great concern, particularly given the fact that the Department of Justice has undertaken a number of reviews and, presumably, those reviews should have been tabled for consideration by all members of that committee.

The Canadian Bar Association also testified that the government clearly had not assessed whether the proposed reforms would actually enhance the objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system. Obviously the very point of amending the Criminal Code, which is a critical law for peace and order in this country, makes it absolutely critical and incumbent upon the government to show that the change would improve the safety of citizens. The Conservatives do not appear to have done that. It seems it has been more from an emotional base.

It is my suggestion to the House that, given the importance of these bills, it is very critical that they be fact based because we are affecting people's rights, the rights of the people incarcerated, the rights of the people working in the prisons and the rights of people who may be victims of crime.

The Canadian Bar Association testified that Bill C-36 was unnecessary and would not improve community safety. This should be the first and foremost matter in the minds of members of the House when we consider an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. The very purpose of the bill is to provide for the safety of Canadians, to punish those who may break the law and to impose punishments appropriate to ensure that we do not have recidivism and to ensure deterrence.

It is also important for the House to consider that the jury system is a very important component of the Canadian judicial process. As the Canadian Bar Association pointed out in its brief, when we abolished the death penalty in 1976 and put in place the new system of first and second degree murder penalties, included within that provision was the system for sentencing, the inclusion of provisions for the consideration for parole and, most important, the provision that juries would first and foremost make that consideration before the application may go to the Parole Board. A very clear and thoughtful process was followed when this process was put in place.

However, it did not stop there. The process for the review of these offences has gone through careful scrutiny and review by the justice committee and various studies have been done. On a number of occasions they have been enhanced and made stricter.The decision to amend in 1997 also was based on the fact that of the 63 people who applied initially, 13 were rejected, 19 were allowed to go to the board and 6 of those denied by the board, but only one reoffended.

(1340)

We must remember, as the Canadian Bar Association testified, that the 1997 amendment put in very strict procedures for considering the faint hope clause. It was precluded for multiple murderers. We should not be using those examples in considering this. It is not even possible under the faint hope clause.

The amendments introduced a screening process by the judge before it went to the jury and required unanimous jury recommendation. The House should note the importance of this provision. It is a jury of people of the community where the offence occurred that is considering the matter based on information on the offence, the character of the offender, how the offender has conducted himself or herself in prison, whether or not the offender is likely to reoffend, and information by the victim. It must be pointed out that that is optional. There is no requirement in law that any family member of the victim of a crime be required to testify. It is the family's option, but it is an important option, and a right and privilege to speak against the release of a particular prisoner. The jury must also unanimously recommend that the consideration may be made by the Parole Board.

The intent of the faint hope provision is to try to encourage the prisoner to show true remorse and to work hard at rehabilitation. That is an important part of our prison system. That is what sets us apart from a lot of regimes. Our regime is based on trying to rehabilitate every prisoner who goes into our system.

The hope is faint. There are many barriers to being able to obtain early release. We must remember that early release in many cases is very late in the game.

We also must remember that early parole is subject to a lifetime of supervision and that the parolee can be sent back for any transgression.

What is really troubling me is that the government seems intent on removing the parts of the judicial process where the jury is involved and where we actually work toward rehabilitation of prisoners. More important, the government has not seen fit to provide the resources to prevent crime. The most important thing we can do for victims of crime and future victims of crime is to prevent the occurrence of crime.

This past week I visited a youth emergency services program in my riding. It is an incredible program that is struggling to get appropriate resources. It takes in young people off the street, protects them from becoming victims of crime and tries to prevent them from becoming engaged in the criminal process. It is a commendable program where people dedicate themselves, and it is struggling to receive any federal funding.

Instead of trying to further punish and take our criminal system back to medieval times, I would encourage the government to look at the incredible process that we have developed over time. I would encourage the government to start redressing the frailties by properly financing our crime prevention programs. I encourage the government to put resources into those programs to give those who might otherwise become involved in serious crimes a chance to decide not to. That is the best way to serve our community and prevent crime. It is the best way to help those who may become the victims of crime.

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the committee hearings, there was a good deal of evidence that came forward from a number of sources, and I think we can say it was uncontradicted, that the incarceration rate in Canada for first and second degree murders is the highest in the world, with the exception of the United States. Quite frankly, in some of the evidence that came out, the length of time--I want to be clear on that, the length of time--that people spend in custody in Canada is the longest, even over some of the United States.

I wonder if the member could comment on the continued demagoguery that we get from the Conservatives of Canadians being soft on crime, our courts being soft on crime, this legislature being soft on crime, when we have an incarceration rate that is the highest in the world, with the exception of one country.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh has asked an excellent question.

Indeed it is of grave concern to me and members of the legal community with the increase in incarceration of people who are convicted in Canada. I have had the opportunity of working in the Yukon and participating in circle sentencing. It is incumbent upon the government to look at more innovative approaches to addressing crime, engaging the community and having appropriate responses.

I am also equally concerned about what we are hearing regarding the rising levels of solitary confinement of prisoners, in particular aboriginal prisoners. We already have far too high a percentage of prisoners and far too high a percentage of the aboriginal population incarcerated. It is time we started addressing these critical matters.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need some assurances about our approach to criminal justice issues, the role of incarceration, the role of rehabilitation and the role of prevention.

At the end of her speech, the member mentioned the need for a better balance in terms of crime prevention. I do not know what the latest statistics are but maybe she could provide some with regard to the effectiveness and cost efficiency of prevention rather than remediation after we have the problem.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan:

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the statistics off the tip of my tongue. I would hope that those statistics would have come before the committee. Certainly, they should be before the House before we make these kinds of decisions.

From my over 35 years as a lawyer, I am certainly aware of the percentage of aboriginal members of our community who are incarcerated. I am deeply concerned that now the government wants to put even more people in our jails which are very overcrowded. In our jails, there is a propensity for a lot of violence which could include prisoners who are in jail but not for violent behaviour.

It is critical that we think carefully about what the purpose is for the offences we have put under the Criminal Code. We should mirror that with looking at whether we are putting enough resources toward preventing people becoming involved in violent acts to begin with and being imprisoned.

(1350)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding the proposed amendments to what is known as the faint hope clause under the Criminal Code for those sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for stated periods of time.

First, it has to be understood that what we are talking about is literally a faint hope, very faint, in fact. As of April 2008, there were 4,429 prisoners serving life sentences. We can compare that to the number of people who have actually obtained parole under the faint hope clause for the last 20 years, which is 131. We are not talking about opening the prison doors and letting everybody out. We are talking about the mere possibility of someone having an opportunity to seek parole.

There is a very stringent process in place that allows for this very faint hope. It involves at least three steps, probably more. I will outline the three most significant steps that have to take place.

For example, if someone is sentenced to life without any possibility of parole, the first criterion is that there must be at least 15 years of the sentence served. We are not talking about someone who committed a murder, has been in jail for a few years and is trying to get a free pass out. We are talking about someone who has served at least 15 years in jail, which is in fact longer than the average time spent in custody of anyone sentenced to life in New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden, Belgium and Australia, for example. We are talking about people who have already served at least 15 years.

The first thing that has to be done is to convince the chief justice of the province or territory in which the conviction took place that there is a reasonable prospect the application for review would succeed. If that test is not met, there is no opportunity to get parole. If the chief justice, or whoever has been designated, is satisfied there is a reasonable prospect, then it goes to the next step.

The justice first considers the character of the applicant, the conduct of the applicant while serving the 15 years plus that has already been served, and the nature of the offence. Those concerned about people who are guilty of serial murder will not be surprised if it would prevent someone from getting early parole. Also considered is any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of a hearing under the section and any other matters that the justice considers relevant.

If an inmate meets those criteria and a provincial or territorial chief justice thinks there is a reasonable prospect the review might succeed, it then goes to a jury. Whatever opinions the Conservatives have about justices, I would hope they would have faith in our jury system. Our system depends on a person having a trial by jury of his or her peers. If an individual happens to get past the first hurdle, then there has to be a unanimous decision by 12 members of the jury that the person ought to have the period of parole ineligibility reduced.

For example, if the eligibility for parole is set at 25 years and 12 members of a jury unanimously agree, they can say they are satisfied that the period of eligibility for parole can be reduced, and not only that, they get to say by how much. They can say they agree that the person should have an opportunity to apply for earlier parole, but it can only be reduced by two years or three years or five years. It is the jury's decision in both of those cases. A unanimous decision is needed for the possibility of reducing the parole and a decision of two-thirds of the jury is needed in determining the number of years.

(1355)

All that does, after those two hurdles, is give the individual a right to apply to the National Parole Board. There is no automatic parole. That just allows the Parole Board to even consider an application from an individual who has been given a long sentence.

A faint hope clause review is not a forum for a retrial of the original offence. Nor is it a parole hearing. A favourable decision by the judge and then later by a jury in a separate hearing simply advances the date on which the offender will be eligible to apply for parole.

When people talk about our system not being tough on criminals, we have to compare our situation with countries around the world. In Canada the average time a person is incarcerated is the highest in all countries surveyed, including the United States, where the average life sentence means someone serves 18.5 years. In Australia it is 14.8. In New Zealand it is 11. In Sweden it is 12. In Belgium it is 12.7. Canada, compared to the United States with 18.5, is 28.4 years. That is the average amount of time someone serves if he or she is given a life sentence in our country. That is for first degree murder. Therefore, we are talking about a very faint hope indeed.

The importance of the faint hope has been underlined by the John Howard Society, for example. It says that the availability of the faint hope clause may provide incentive for prisoners to rehabilitate themselves. It also adds that the repeal of the clause allowing faint hope could lead to increased violence in Canada's prisons. It says that if one takes away even a faint hope, there is a potential that the incentive to behave well will go with it.

I am particularly moved by the example described by my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh about an individual who changed his mind when he heard the story of one individual who had left the prison system under the faint hope clause and turned himself into an advocate for integrating other inmates and prisoners back into society. He had dedicated his life, in fact, since his release to doing that. That is an example of what can happen.

I am obviously not saying that everybody who ever gets out under the faint hope clause is a paragon of virtue. Let us face it, these individuals may have rehabilitated themselves enough to convince the Parole Board, after convincing a justice and a jury, that they were not a threat to society. They will at least be able to lead their lives outside of prison. However, this is an example of an individual who not only rehabilitated himself, but has now dedicated his life to the rehabilitation of others and to assist those who end up in prison for any number of reasons, such as getting caught in committing a crime. He helps to integrate them back into society and thereby protects all of us, protects Canadians because we have one more individual who has gone down the wrong path and is now able to rehabilitate others and help them lead useful and productive lives, which makes for a safer country.

There are lots of reasons why the faint hope clause should be maintained.

I see my time is up and it looks like we will head into statements very soon. Maybe there will not be time for questions and comments before the break, but I will leave that to the wisdom of yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Those are my comments at second reading. We have very serious concerns about these proposed reforms. We need to keep the faint hope clause.

(1400)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):

The member for St. John's East is correct. We will return with questions and comments after question period.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Williams Lake, B.C.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there is a big celebration happening in Williams Lake, B.C. this Wednesday. On November 25, a spanking brand new Walmart superstore will open its doors to a huge crowd of excited shoppers.

This will mean 300 full-time and part-time jobs to a region devastated by the mountain pine beetle. This will mean that local charities will see a huge boost in their fundraising because Walmart is one of the biggest corporate charity supporters in Canada. This will mean a huge boost to the tax base of the town of Williams Lake. This will also mean some great merchandise at some great prices.

Congratulations to Walmart, to the Pioneer Family Group, to Avion Developments, the Seibert family and to the people of Williams Lake. Good job, well done and it is going to be a great Wednesday.

* * *

[Translation]

20th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[English]

There are no rights more fundamental than those of the child, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. It is a shame, therefore, that Canada has yet to implement this convention and to commit itself to the protection of children's rights both at home and abroad.

The best interests of the child should come first and include: promoting greater equity in Canada's national income support program for children, including reducing poverty so it is less than 5% by the 25th anniversary of the convention; ensuring that no child in Canada should ever become a ward of the state or go to prison to get help for special needs; affirming that the best interests of the child underpin all intergovernmental funding disputes; and advancing the right of young people to be heard in matters that affect them.

Finally, the government should make the convention a part of Canadian law, establish a commissioner for children's rights, provide regular public reporting on the status of children and a fair review process for complaints in Canada and at the UN.

Simply put, the test of a just society is how it treats its children.

* * *

[Translation]

Rural Postal Services

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is currently evaluating mailboxes on rural routes as part of its rural mail safety review. A number of mailbox owners will have a choice to make: change their set-up as required, or use a community mailbox.

Not only could rural residents be deprived of their right to receive their mail at home, but a cut in mail delivery will necessarily result in job losses. I support the Canadian Union of Postal Workers which is wondering whether Canada Post's safety argument is not just an excuse to cut costs and reduce services offered to people in rural areas.

That is why I oppose any attempt by Canada Post to reduce services if citizens, their representatives and postal workers have not been duly consulted.

* * *

[English]

Harmonized Sales Tax

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, Laura Barr is getting married next summer, but the HST is putting a damper on a very special and happy occasion. Every item and service Laura and Jim purchase for their wedding will cost 8% more. They are being forced to add an HST line to their budget, but are getting absolutely nothing in return.

Allan Bowditch calls it a “stealth tax” that is setting back Canadian economic growth and creating incredible hardship among those who can least afford it, like pensioners and retired seniors.

People who live in condominiums will be especially hard hit with their condo fees going up. Every service from plumbing and electrical repairs to legal fees will be subject to the tax grab.

As a business owner, the HST will also cost Joseph Paget more. He sees it as an irresponsible and poor decision that will negatively impact the Canadian economy.

The people of Trinity—Spadina demand that the government stop this HST tax grab now.

* * *

(1405)

Snowmobiles

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the snow has already started falling in northern Alberta.

In Fort McMurray—Athabasca we are once again seeing the beautiful lakes and rivers of our region freeze over and the many trails across our landscape turn to snow and ice.

Canadians know how to make the most of this frozen season and for thousands of Albertans that means heading out with friends and family on snowmobiles.

Unfortunately each year we see injuries and fatalities related to snowmobiles, most of which could have been prevented. In fact, over 50% of snowmobile-related fatalities involve intoxicated operators. Other factors in these tragic accidents include excessive speed, unsafe operation, inattention and drowning.

Therefore, at the beginning of this winter season, I would like to encourage my constituents and all avid snowmobilers to enjoy safely. They should wear a helmet, watch their speed, stay alert and most of all arrive home safely and do not drink and ride.

* * *

Women Moving Forward

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, Women Moving Forward, a group in my riding, set out to create a strategy with a singular goal: to reduce the poverty rates of Canada's fastest growing impoverished group, that being young, single mothers. This groundbreaking effort was ambitious, but through a combination of life skills instruction and support, Women Moving Forward aimed to move participants off welfare and into post-secondary training in just one year.

The young mothers in Women Moving Forward are ambitious, strong women who, despite the adversity they face, are determined to move ahead with their lives for the sake of their children's future.

Despite its success so far, Women Moving Forward now faces its greatest challenge yet. As funding sources dry up, this essential community service is under threat. I call upon the government to take the steps necessary to ensure this vital lifeline remains.

* * *

Canadian Wheat Board

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there is something particularly egregious when corporate management takes the money of shareholders and spends it in opposition to shareholder interests. It is a very sad day when management comes to believe that a company exists for the benefit of the managers and not for the benefit of the shareholders.

In the corporate world, shareholders can sell their shares when management abuses company finances. The same cannot be said for farmers who are forced, against their will, to subsidize expensive PR campaigns produced by the Canadian Wheat Board. If the Canadian Wheat Board were voluntary, this would be fine, but farmers must sell their grain to the CWB. They cannot opt out of the Wheat Board no matter how self-servingly Wheat Board bureaucrats act.

Proponents of a single desk Canadian Wheat Board bitterly complain when elected officials campaign for a dual market, but they are only too happy to forcibly take money from all farmers to run their propaganda campaigns.

The Wheat Board may not know how to market grain, but it is in a class by itself at marketing hypocrisy.

* * *

[Translation]

Laval University's Rouge et Or

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pascal-Pierre Paillé (Louis-Hébert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate Laval University's football team, Rouge et Or, for an excellent season. Last week the team won the Dunsmore Cup by defeating the Université de Montréal Carabins. The Rouge et Or were defeated, 33-30, by the Queen's University Golden Gaels in the Mitchell Bowl.

Football fans in the Quebec City region are very fortunate as the Vanier cup, the Canadian university football championship, will be held at Université Laval's PEPS sport complex.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I congratulate the top-ranked Canadian football team this year, the Rouge et Or. We also wish the best of luck to the Vanier Cup finalists, Queen's Golden Gaels and Calgary's Dinos, as well as to the Montreal Alouettes who will be facing the Saskatchewan Roughriders in the Grey Cup next weekend.

* * *

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that, on justice issues, Liberal and Bloc members defend the rights of criminals. Fortunately, Canadians know that they can count on our Conservative government to defend the rights of victims.

Our government believes that murderers must serve tougher sentences for the most serious crimes.

Bill C-36 would eliminate the faint hope clause. Criminals who commit first or second degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole. We do not want families to have to go through the pain of attending repeated parole hearings and having to relive their losses over and over.

We hope that, for once, the Liberal and Bloc members will stand up for the victims in this country by supporting this bill.

Our government works in favour of those Quebeckers and Canadians who obey the law.

* * *

(1410)

[English]

RESULTS Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Glen Pearson (London North Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, today dozens of grassroots volunteers from the citizens' advocacy group RESULTS Canada are in Ottawa to deliver a message about our collective capacity to put an end to global poverty and needless suffering.

Volunteers of RESULTS are everyday citizens from across our great country who take the time to get educated about development issues and then, with their own voice and their own hearts, take action to make change in the world. They are mothers and fathers who believe that no other parent's child should die because he or she lacks access to basic immunizations that cost pennies. They are neighbours who believe that no one across the street or across the globe should suffer from preventable disease for lack of simple and inexpensive drugs. They are everyday citizens who understand that their voice matters and with that voice they can raise awareness, inform governments and call for action.

They are my constituents and they are other members' constituents and we welcome them to the House and commend them on their important work.

* * *

Halifax International Security Forum

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend the Minister of National Defence brought the world to Nova Scotia. The German Marshall Fund, in cooperation with the Department of National Defence and ACOA, launched the first annual Halifax International Security Forum to address the top global security challenges facing the transatlantic community.

This major international conference was the first of its kind to be held in North America. Over two days, global leaders in politics, government, business, academia and media participated in an interactive, in-depth debate on pressing strategic issues like Afghanistan, the Arctic, pirates and nuclear proliferation. Serious high-profile conferences about regional and global security have traditionally taken place outside of North America until now.

Today's new dangers require new thinking and solutions, and the Halifax International Security Forum is the one venue to explore serious policy alternatives. Our government is committed to ensuring that Canada is a prominent player on the international stage. I congratulate the Minister of National Defence for bringing the international stage to Nova Scotia.

* * *

Student Voices for Attawapiskat

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 28, students from six Thames Valley District School Board secondary schools were honoured by the human rights, status of women and political action committees of district 11 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation for their winning entries in the Student Voices for Attawapiskat creative arts contest.

The students of Thames Valley and OSSTF district 11 became involved in the human rights issue connected with the lack of a school in Attawapiskat in November of last year. London and district students became part of the largest student-led children's rights conference in Canadian history when they joined in the fight for a new school for the children of this remote first nations community on James Bay.

I am privileged to congratulate Kayla Stewart, Ryan Bol, Jamie Karn, Spencer van Leeuwen, Samantha Skinner and Terry Nham and introduce Jerrod Kolanski, Tom Grainger and teacher R. J. Wieczor. They are all champions of social justice.

* * *

Criminal Code

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that murderers must serve serious time for the most serious crimes. Our government's Bill C-36 repeals the faint hope clause. This means that criminals who commit first or second degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole, and those currently serving a life sentence or awaiting sentencing would face tougher rules when they apply for early parole.

By ending faint hope reviews, we will spare families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to relive their losses over and over again. This Conservative government is continuing to follow through on its tackling crime agenda. We are standing up for the victims of crime and we are putting the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of criminals.

We hope that for once the Liberal leader will stand up for victims in this country by ensuring that this bill gets passed. Canadians can count on this government and the Prime Minister to stand up for the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians.

* * *

[Translation]

AbitibiBowater Pensioners

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I met with representatives of the AbitibiBowater pensioners' association, and I was able to see for myself just how worried these people were. After working their entire lives and paying into the company pension fund, their retirement plans are now seriously jeopardized.

I would like them to know that the Bloc Québécois shares their concerns and plans to do everything it can to ensure that the government assumes its responsibilities when companies go bankrupt. The Bloc Québécois has, in fact, proposed measures intended to provide greater protection of retirement pension funds.

However, first and foremost, the worrisome situation currently facing AbitibiBowater pensioners is directly linked to this government's ideological decision to deliberately abandon forestry workers and instead pay large subsidies to automotive workers. The workers of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean will not forget this.

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Conservative Party Flyer

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there has been widespread condemnation of the Conservatives' abuse of public funds to transform ten percenters into partisan propaganda pieces. Imagine my disgust when I received a flyer at home from the Conservatives, trying to brand the Liberals, my party, as anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist and anti-Israel.

This is a new low for Conservatives. To print and to force taxpayers to pick up the tab for this pernicious, malicious and defamatory attack flyer is a disgrace. It dishonours all who serve in this place. Having served the Jewish community and others for over two decades, I know with great assurance that honesty is a paramount Jewish value and a quality dreadfully lacking in this government.

Will the Conservative Party now apologize to the Jewish community and to all Canadians for associating them with this offensive and dishonest flyer?

* * *

Toronto's Chinatown

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Alice Wong (Richmond, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, shoplifters, vandals and other criminals are terrorizing small businesses in Toronto's Chinatown. The victims of crime are often recent immigrants who own and operate their own small businesses.

Every dollar's worth of merchandise that is stolen is a dollar less a store owner can spend on food and shelter for his family, a dollar less for his children's university tuition, a dollar less for his family's retirement.

Shoplifting is costing Chinatown grocer David Chen, owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart on Dundas Street West, as much as $50,000 a year. Chen employs ten people and has a family of four. David Chen is a victim of property crime. There are many more small business owners in Toronto's Chinatown just like him.

[Member spoke in Mandarin and provided the following translation:]

Our Conservative government has introduced legislation in support for victims of crime and we will continue this support. We believe that the primary purpose of a criminal justice system is not the welfare of the criminal; it is the protection of law-abiding citizens, their property and their families.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[Translation]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to make us believe that there is no credible proof of torture in Afghanistan.

And yet, the highest official, General Natynczyk, has said that prisoner transfers were stopped on a number of occasions.

Why were these transfers stopped? Why did they resume?

Why does the government not try telling the truth about this matter?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition would know, and as he has indicated, decisions to stop transfers are operational decisions taken on a case-by-case basis in a theatre of operations by military personnel.

In this instance, and this information is now on the government website, there were three operational decisions taken that resulted in pauses of transfer. I want to indicate that most recently, the reason the transfers were stopped was that the Afghan officials were not living up to their expectations, not living up to the expectations set out in the transfer arrangements.

The decision to stop was based on the fact that they were not living up to those expectations.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in other words, it is reasonable to assume that detainees were being abused.

Last week Richard Colvin testified that Afghan detainees were being tortured and the Conservative government knew about it. The government responded by attacking Mr. Colvin's reputation.

Now the defence minister says he knew that torture was a possibility from the moment the Conservatives took office. Why did the Conservatives take 15 months to act?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that we acted immediately.

As soon as credible allegations came to our attention, we immediately began to invest in Afghan prisons, invest in training, and make substantial investments to ensure that the justice system was improved.

With respect to the pause in operations for transfers made on the ground in Afghanistan, that took place because we could no longer have unfettered, unannounced visits to Afghan prisons. When Afghans are not living up to their expectations, we pause transfers. When they started to allow that access again, the transfers then began again.

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this does not add up.

The minister is saying that he knew that torture was a possibility from the moment they took office in late January 2006. No action of any remedial kind was taken until April 2007.

Why, then, has the government been smearing the reputation of a public servant who tried to tell it what was happening in that period? None of this adds up.

When will the government set up a public inquiry to give Canadians the truth?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what does not add up is taking leaps of faith without substantiating evidence. That would not be acceptable anywhere.

What we have said repeatedly is we have in fact improved the situation in Afghanistan. We started investing two and a half years ago. We are not out to smear anyone.

This is very much about the examination of serious allegations. It is about putting to the test allegations with respect to torture. These are not things that we can take holus-bolus without evidence. We have taken serious steps to improve the conditions in Afghan prisons, and we will continue to take those steps.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there is substantial evidence. From China to the United Kingdom to the United States, media are reporting an un-Canadian story of a cover-up of torture in Afghanistan.

The longer the Conservatives deny the facts and stonewall, the worse the damage to Canada's reputation. We must be prepared to live by the standards of decency, transparency and respect for human rights that we ourselves embrace on the world stage.

Will the government call a public inquiry and restore Canada's reputation as a global leader in human rights?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. There has never been a single proven allegation of abuse involving a prisoner transferred by the Canadian Forces, not one.

As far as getting a full and open public hearing goes, let us remind ourselves that this matter has been heard not once but twice at the Federal Court level. It has been examined by the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. It has been the subject of a Canadian Forces National Investigation Service review. It has been the subject of an RCMP review. A board of inquiry investigation was conducted. The Military Police Complaints Commission has had public hearings which are currently suspended at the call of the chair. This issue is also before a parliamentary committee.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is the same Military Police Complaints Commission where the government is engaged in massive obstruction of justice. The actions of the Conservative government undermine our reputation abroad. They also undermine the work of our brave men and women in uniform. The cover-up of these allegations risks our credibility in Afghanistan where our troops have worked courageously to ensure the safety and security of the Afghan people.

Our troops deserve nothing less than the truth. Will the government do right by our troops and call a public inquiry now?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to facts. Let us talk about the fact that there is a parliamentary inquiry ongoing and, in fact, that the Military Police Complaints Commission was shut down at the call of the chair.

With respect to how this impacts on Canadian Forces, let us be very clear. There has not been a single proven allegation involving a prisoner transferred from the Canadian Forces. They are doing exceptional work in a very difficult mission in Afghanistan. They continue to labour under those challenges. The last thing they want to do is be smeared by members of the opposition suggesting wrongdoing on their part.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of reliable sources have confirmed that detainees transferred from the Canadian army to Afghan authorities were tortured. In addition to Richard Colvin, both a senior NATO official and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission have confirmed this. Even an Afghan prison warden has confirmed it. Nevertheless, the government insists that these allegations are unfounded. According to the Geneva Convention, all transfers of detainees must be halted if there is a risk of torture.

Will the minister admit that he acted irresponsibly by ignoring the many people who have confirmed that torture took place?

(1425)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there has not been a single, solitary, proven allegation of a prisoner being abused that was transferred from the Canadian Forces. In fact, what Afghan officials did to Taliban prisoners is what is blurring some of this issue. It is very clear that the Canadian Forces and all government departments take allegations seriously, and they act.

They have been absolutely in compliance with international conventions, including the Geneva Convention, and have made substantial improvements in the Afghan justice system. We continue to invest. In fact, $132 million has gone into addressing this issue and we will continue to act with their good work.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, instead of halting the transfer of Afghan detainees, the Prime Minister chose to ignore the facts. His office even sent propaganda lines to NATO officials to help them publicly deny allegations of torture.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, instead of fulfilling his responsibilities, he chose to cover up the whole thing and discredit witnesses like Mr. Colvin?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Government of Canada does not control the communication policy of 28 NATO member countries. In fact, to suggest so is absolutely ridiculous. But let us come back to the main issue though. The fact is we acted decisively two and a half years ago. We started investing in the training of prison officials, investing in the physical surroundings of those prisons. We have spent time, money and effort, and sent qualified people to those prisons to monitor conditions. We continue to do so because of an enhanced arrangement, when we inherited an inadequate arrangement left in place by the previous government. Unlike the previous government, we acted.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cynically declared that his government does not attempt to intimidate people who do not agree with it. One need only observe how whistleblower Richard Colvin was treated to conclude that the Prime Minister spoke in bad faith. Instead of acting responsibly, the Prime Minister condoned his goons' attacks on the diplomat who revealed that prisoners transferred by Canada were tortured.

Instead of attacking the messenger, why was the government not transparent about its involvement—yes, its involvement—in the matter of the torture of Afghan prisoners?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is a bogus allegation. We have suggested the testimony that was heard last week is not credible. It is not substantiated. In fact, references to all prisoners being tortured, to innocent people being rounded up by the Canadian Forces does exactly what members of the opposition do not want; that is, cast aspersions over the Canadian Forces and the work they are doing.

We are protecting people. We are investing to improve the capacity of how Afghans treat Taliban prisoners. We have invested heavily in that regard. We will continue to do so. To cast aspersions and blur the issue is to dishonour the services being provided--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, through the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the government continued to evade responsibility in connection with the torture issue by stating that “these stories are about Afghan allegations against other Afghans".

Since Canada was involved in the transfer of prisoners to the authorities that employed torture, and given that the Geneva Convention imposes obligations even when doubt exists, how can the government continue to deny its responsibilities?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have taken responsibility. We have acted. We have invested. In fact, to date, Canadians have made over 180 visits to detention facilities. That came about as a result of the new transfer arrangement.

In fact, we have gone further. We have invested $132 million in improving the Afghan prison system. We have invested in its officials. We have spent time training officials. We will continue to do so.

In fact, to quote an individual involved in this effort, Gail Latouche of Correctional Service of Canada said, “Corrections Canada who do the same work have seen zero evidence of torture or other abuse”.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has reported 400 cases of torture, but the Conservatives still refuse to face the facts. But the chief of defence staff has confirmed that the Canadian army stopped transferring prisoners a number of times.

Can the government answer some simple and factual questions? How many prisoners were transferred by the Canadians? How many times were these transfers stopped, when and why?

(1430)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the facts and figures that the hon. member has put forward do not apply to prisoners transferred from the Canadian Forces. Those are broad-sweeping numbers that speak to the conditions in the prison. They do not apply to the numbers that were transferred by Canadian Forces.

With respect to what we did, we stopped transferring when the agreement was not working; an agreement that we improved upon; an agreement that enabled unannounced, unfettered access to prisoners that we transferred.

Let us talk about where the responsibility begins and ends. We took responsibility. We acted. We improved the situation and continue to do so.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I assume now then we will get all the evidence about the visits that took place in those particular cases so we can see exactly what happened. Will the minister table them in this House as quickly as possible?

We have to deal with the fact that the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission reported on 400 cases of torture. How can the minister be so sure that absolutely none of them are relevant to the Canadian situation?

Colonel Abdullah Bawar, chief warden of the Sarposa prison in Afghanistan, confirms, “Yes, there was torture and people were certainly beaten. Hands and legs would be tied and they would be beaten with cables”.

How--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. The hon. member wants to just accept that some of this or all of this applies to prisoners transferred by Canadians, and that in fact is not the case. That is the crux of the issue. We are asking for these allegations to be proven. There have been no proven allegations that we can refer to.

What is important is to listen to somebody who is there on the ground. Gail Latouche of Correctional Service of Canada reports that, in fact, unequivocally, she and three of her colleagues working in Afghanistan have said there is zero evidence of torture and abuse, based on the visits taken place by Canadian officials.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this whole question of torture, unlike other party leaders, we are not going to stand for denying of the evidence. We are not going to cover up the truth. We are not going to write books justifying torture in any way, shape or form. Nothing can justify torture and nothing can justify the full-scale denial mode that we see from the Conservatives right now.

Why will the government not do the right thing and launch a public inquiry, as we have called for, so that we will have all the facts on the table?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member demonstrates very little faith in the parliamentary committee and in the independent arm's-length organizations that are currently looking at the issue. In fact, he shows very little faith at all in having evidence substantiated or actually proven. That is what is important.

It is also important to note, again, that not a single, solitary, proven allegation involving a transfer of a Taliban prisoner from the Canadian Forces has been proven. The operational details on the ground are available. We will be hearing from more witnesses this week and I suspect more in the future. Let us hear what those people have to say.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, our international and national legal obligations are clear. These laws expressly prohibit the transfer of prisoners who may face torture.

Direct proof is not needed. If there is any reasonable suspicion of torture, we must stop the transfers.

Why are the Conservatives avoiding this critical responsibility under international and Canadian law?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker, Canadian officials in Afghanistan absolutely abide by international obligations. They absolutely abide by the Geneva Convention and they are further enabled to carry out those responsibilities because of a new enhanced transfer arrangement.

Let the hon. member explain to the House and Canadians why it was that his government, when leaving office, only put in place an inadequate transfer arrangement that we had to improve upon months after taking office.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be teaching Afghans about transparency, human rights and the rule of law, but the Conservatives are avoiding these responsibilities here at home. This is not about the Canadian Forces. It is about the failure of the Conservative government here at home.

When will the Conservatives stop acting against our interests abroad and here at home, and when will they call an independent public inquiry?

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Let us let due process, Mr. Speaker, determine what the facts are here. Let us actually let the parliamentary committee hear from individuals on the ground who were doing their important work.

I do appreciate the fact that he has pointed out that not a single Canadian, whether Canadian Forces or otherwise, is implicated in any wrongdoing. That is important for Canadians to understand.

It is also important to remember that the enhanced agreement was put in place by this government because of the failings of the previous administration to do its important work to protect Canadians in the field working to improve the situation in Afghanistan. That is something those members will have to explain over time.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, honest democratic governments have nothing to worry about when it comes to accountability and transparency. They know that those are the only ways to guarantee they are legitimate.

This government should encourage everyone who knows the truth to come forward.

Instead, the Conservative government treats whistleblowers like Mr. Colvin with contempt, and try to create a diversion.

Why is this Conservative government so afraid of the truth?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Let us examine that, Mr. Speaker. The reality is we are truth seeking in this exercise. We want to hear from individuals and we want to put the truth on the record, the truth being, obviously, that we have invested heavily in the improvement of the situation in Afghanistan.

It is clearly undeniable that we improved the transfer arrangement we inherited, the failed arrangement put in place by the previous government. We do want to hear from individuals who can bring forward credible, proven allegations, not just recitations of what was heard, what was passed on, what was read in reports, or what was disclosed by Taliban prisoners themselves. That is what the evidence is so far. We have not seen a single scintilla of proof.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, here is what one authority said about protecting whistleblowers:

--we want to ensure that those public servants who wish to report unethical or illegal behaviour they witness in government can do so without suffering retribution.

Who said that? It was the Conservative Prime Minister in 2006.

Why has he broken his promise of protecting whistleblowers and why did he fail to treat these allegations of torture seriously when first informed about them?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Here is a quote for the hon. member, who is always so reasoned and pointed, Mr. Speaker. This is from a colleague of the individual who gave evidence last week. Paul Chapin, a former diplomat, said, “I think that what set me back is how serious the allegations are and how flimsy the evidence [is].” He went on to say, “It would have been rather more reassuring had he been able to provide some of the detail that would give credibility to these serious allegations”.

These are not partisan comments. These are from an individual who worked in the professional public service of Canada. These are serious allegations. It requires serious evidence to back it up, not just taking someone's word for it.

* * *

[Translation]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the number of supporters who want to ensure success in Copenhagen is growing. In addition to China, the United States and Russia, which are reviewing their strategies, now Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel want to enter into an ambitious agreement in December to address climate change. As calls for leadership are increasing, Ottawa remains silent.

Is the Minister of the Environment not beginning to feel a little lonely, given that the oil companies are his only allies in Copenhagen?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada aspires to see an agreement in Copenhagen, which is why I was in Copenhagen last week as one of 20 ministers drawn together by the chair of the Copenhagen process to try to lend form and substance to what will happen at the convention. This morning I met with representatives from the European Union, the Government of Spain and the Government of Sweden.

We will continue to be a constructive player at the table. We will, however, search out something that is superior to Kyoto and that suits our industrial needs, our climate and our geography as Canadians.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot go to Copenhagen empty-handed. Équiterre and the Pembina Institute are calling on parliamentarians to support the Bloc Québécois motion demanding that Canada take a constructive approach. Quebeckers want strict reduction targets that will help prevent irreversible global warming.

Whose interests will the Minister of the Environment be defending in Copenhagen, those of big oil or those of Quebec?

(1440)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the essential challenge at Copenhagen is to arrive at an international treaty that will put an international framework in place. The issue at Copenhagen is not Canada's domestic plan. It is how we will replace Kyoto with a new agreement at Copenhagen, an international agreement to which the United States, China, India, Brazil and the other major emerging economies are prepared to agree. That is the challenge at hand and that is why we have been meeting over the course of the last year.

We have tough negotiators at the table. These are tough negotiations, among the most difficult our country has ever been involved in. We will search out a solution that is in Canada's best interests, unlike the previous government.

* * *

[Translation]

Forestry Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance cut off hope for everyone who was left out of his last budget by saying that he did not intend to release additional funds to cope with the economic crisis. After spending $10 billion on the automobile industry in Ontario, the Conservative government is telling Quebec forestry workers to fend for themselves because there is no more money.

How does the Minister of Finance explain his refusal to give Quebec's forestry workers what he gave Ontario's automobile workers?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I must remind my colleague that the softwood lumber agreement was introduced to protect the Canadian forestry industry and, of course, Quebec's industry. The U.S. domestic market absorbs the entire U.S. softwood lumber production. We will continue to work to support the Canadian and Quebec forestry industry in order to allow them to continue to export the softwood lumber produced in the regions of Quebec and the rest of the country.

The automobile industry does not have such an agreement. It is a free market. We will continue to support Quebec's forestry industry.

* * *

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance measures proposed by the Conservative government, like the assistance for industrial sectors in crisis, are designed to meet Ontario's needs. In Quebec, the unions and unemployed groups are clear. The proposed measures do not do the job.

Rather than speeding up the looting of the employment insurance fund, as proposed in the last economic update, will the Minister of Finance propose a comprehensive reform of employment insurance in order to improve the system and increase accessibility?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, we have done a great deal to help workers throughout Canada and that includes Quebec workers. We have the targeted initiative for older workers, but the Bloc did not support it. We extended the benefit period by five to twenty weeks, particularly for those who have worked for a number of years. We are trying to help these people in need but the Bloc is opposed.

* * *

[English]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last year, on March 13, Parliament passed a critical resolution on Afghanistan that committed the Conservatives to “a policy of greater transparency” with respect to taking and transferring detainees. The events of last week clearly demonstrate that the Conservatives have a policy of cover-up. We call on them to conduct an independent public inquiry into this serious issue.

What are the Conservatives waiting for?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have been completely transparent. We have had quarterly reports. We have answered questions in the House. Ministers have appeared before committees. We continue to cooperate with ongoing investigations. We provide information daily in question period.

What the hon. member is forgetting is that, unlike his government, we have made substantial efforts to improve the situation in Afghanistan. We have empowered officials to go into prisons. We have given our armed forces the necessary equipment it needs to do its job.

I will put our record up against his failed record any day.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it has come to light that dozens more detainees have been transferred, contrary to the Conservatives' previous assertions. We also know about the numerous reports sent up the chain of command about the treatment of detainees. All this was kept from Canadians until the last five days. It only became public thanks to the courage of a senior respected public servant.

Instead of choosing character assassination, why will the Conservative government not come clean and tell Canadians the truth?

(1445)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have provided the truth but unfortunately the hon. member does not want to accept the truth. We have had quarterly reports. We have responded to the House. We have responded to parliamentary committees. We have responded to ongoing investigations and we will continue to do so.

What is important though is to suggest that having an individual make remarks that are not credible and unsubstantiated does not somehow require further examination. That is what we have done. We know that other individuals, including Mr. Mulroney and other professional public servants, will appear before committees to give evidence. In fact, I think they are anxious to do so.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the only Canadian serving in Afghanistan who has been smeared by a member of Parliament is Richard Colvin, and the member of Parliament who smeared him is the Minister of National Defence. That is the sad fact that we are having to cope with.

Would the minister please table before the House all of the briefing notes that he received as a minister and the briefing notes that the Prime Minister of Canada received with respect to the treatment of Afghan citizens by Afghan correctional services?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we know the hon. member is not an expert by any means on what happens in Afghan prisons but he can teach lessons on how to smear.

The hon. member will know that Canada has made substantial investments in improving the human rights situation in Afghanistan. I mentioned $132 million of investments and that included $7 million over four years to support the work of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission; $5.5 million to improve conditions in Afghan detention centres and human rights training in prisons; and $99 million for training, mentoring and equipping the Afghan national army and police.

That is action. His--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the period in question is between January 2006 and the fall of 2007. I asked the minister a simple question.

Is he now prepared, in the interest of transparency, to give the House of Commons all the information provided to him as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of National Defence, as well as that held by the Prime Minister of Canada with regard to this very important question? I do not wish to cause any offence.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, here is what we will do. I will do him one better. We will look at all the documents that will be placed before the parliamentary committee, going back beyond the time that we took office. We will see what his government's record was and how it stacks up against the efforts that we have made to improve the conditions in Afghan prisons.

We will look at all of that evidence and then we will see where conditions were improved, when actual investments were made and when the real work was done to improve the situation in Afghanistan, not the Liberals' lame effort.

* * *

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect that when a serious crime is committed in this country, the individual responsible for the crime faces an appropriate sentence. However, for far too long in this country, individuals convicted of murder have been eligible to apply for early parole.

What message does this send to the families of murder victims when the rights of criminals are being placed ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens?

Could the Minister of Public Safety please remind members of this House why this government's faint hope legislation would help the victims of crime in this country?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that those who commit murder must face serious consequences when they do so, which is why our government introduced legislation in this House, Bill C-36, which is being debated today in the House of Commons. This legislation would put an end to the loophole for lifers. Under this legislation, criminals who commit first or second degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole.

We are supporting families who do not want to be victimized all over again at Parole Board hearings, and we stand by the victims.

The Liberals and the NDP have not made clear where they stand on this legislation. Canadians support it. We call on them to support it too.

* * *

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, with the Copenhagen climate change conference starting in just two weeks, Canadians are left either confused or disturbed by the government's position.

Last week, concerned high school students from Mississauga organized a phone-in to the Prime Minister's Office to seek answers. The PMO's response: “Leave us alone. Stop calling”.

Hanging up on our youth is not the way to go. Will the government apologize to these students and have the decency to respond? After all, it is Canada's youth who will bear the cost of the government's inaction on climate change.

(1450)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office contacted the school in question on November 12 to find out more about this issue but has not heard anything back. The call in question is therefore not confirmed.

The Prime Minister always enjoys hearing from students. In fact, he just visited St. Joe's high school in my constituency where he worked with students on strategies to keep young people off tobacco. I would like the entire House to give a rousing applause to the students of St. Joe's for fighting tobacco use.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the government feels safe ignoring young Canadians who cannot vote but why is it ignoring the majority who do? A poll released today indicates that more than three-quarters of Canadians are embarrassed by Canada's lack of climate change leadership; from 86% in Quebec to 65% in Alberta.

Canadians are looking for leadership and action on climate change but so far they have only experienced obstruction and delay.

When will the Prime Minister stop fiddling while the Arctic melts, ignoring Canadians, and take real action on climate change?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say if the hon. member is disturbed but she certainly is confused. I would remind her that in excess of 83% of the Canadian electorate does not want to see her party running the Government of Canada.

We will continue to do what we are doing at the international level. We will, in a constructive way, continue to pursue an international treaty. We will continue to pursue continental policies with our major trading partners on the continent. We will continue as well to develop domestic policies that are integrated with both an international and a domestic framework.

* * *

[Translation]

Foreign Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on his return from Saudi Arabia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that the case of Nathalie Morin, the young woman from Quebec who is being held overseas with her children by an abusive husband, is a “family dispute” that should be settled in accordance with Saudi law.

Yet experts invited to testify before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade said that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that the Government of Canada protect Canadians abroad.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs finally decide to plead the case of Nathalie Morin and her children to the Saudi authorities?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, this government works very hard to protect Canadians overseas. We are working with our consul officials, with the Saudi officials and with everyone to resolve this case, and we will continue to do so.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Nathalie Morin's abusive husband has demanded $300,000 U.S. to divorce Nathalie and let her return to Canada with her children.

Foreign Affairs says that this is a legitimate request under Saudi law, but this ransom demand is a violation of human rights.

When will this government focus on its main responsibility, which is to help Nathalie Morin and her children escape her abusive husband's clutches?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said on many occasions that he would like to resolve this question. However, our priority is to ensure the well-being of the children while Nathalie and her husband resolve their dispute.

I would remind the House that Canada has twice facilitated Nathalie's return to Canada and both times she voluntarily returned to Saudi Arabia against our best advice. However, we will continue to offer our assistance.

* * *

Israel

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, until now, no Canadian Prime Minister has ever sought to turn the broad support of Israel into an issue of partisan politics.

Shamefully, the minister is singling out Canadian Jews for a special message that is based on distortion, innuendo, half-truths and fiction.

Real leadership is about bringing people together. As was asked in the McCarthy hearing 55 years ago, does the Conservative Prime Minister have no sense of decency?

(1455)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition was accusing the Jewish democratic State of Israel of war crimes, our Prime Minister had the decency to defend that state's right of self-protection.

The Prime Minister had the decency to defund the Palestinian Authority upon the election of Hamas. That was opposed by that party.

The Prime Minister had the decency to ensure that Canada was the first country in the world to withdraw from the hateful Durban process which, initially, was opposed by members of Parliament on that side.

Yes, the Prime Minister has represented this country's fundamental decency on the world stage.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, those people over there just do not get it.

The Conservative government's use of ten percenters has come into question repeatedly over the last four years. It has waged personal attacks and has spread outrageous partisan propaganda. Now it has gone too far by falsely accusing Liberal members, including me, of anti-Semitism.

The abuse of this privilege must stop. Will the government support the Leader of the Opposition's proposal to limit ten percenters to a member's own riding?

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. I do not think that question is in order because it deals with a matter that is not a ministerial responsibility, but rather one of the Board of Internal Economy. We will move on to the next question.

* * *

Tax Harmonization

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, in the debate in the Ontario legislature, Conservative members walked out after the Liberal government refused to hold public hearings on the HST.

Their gesture was a little hollow since it is their federal cousins who are forcing this tax onto families struggling with the recession. Tens of thousands of Canadians, including some of the government's own party members, are making it clear that this tax is just wrong.

Will the government hold the public hearings that its Ontario cousins and, indeed, the finance minister's wife, are calling for?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again I will repeat for probably the 12th time that it is well within the jurisdiction of both the Province of Ontario and the Province of British Columbia, which have chosen to harmonize their sales tax, as was done back in the 1990s. They are following the same lead those provinces have taken.

I would suggest that the member take that up with her provincial colleagues.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance may not have noticed, but Canada is a northern country, and winter is fast approaching. Heating bills are going to rise quickly, especially with the Conservatives' proposed harmonized sales tax.

The federal government is reaping what it sowed. Northern Ontarians are realizing that the $4.3 billion the federal government has put on the table will not give them anything.

Why are the Conservatives turning their backs on northern Ontario?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member's party keeps bringing up tax cuts, talking about taxes as if that party actually cared about what Canadians pay in taxes.

We have been in the House and watched members of the NDP sit throughout debates and argue against tax cuts for Canadians and, in the end, vote against them. In fact, they have voted against almost every one of the tax cuts we have put forward to provide Canadians with more money to make their own decisions.

* * *

Government Accountability

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were reminded of the Liberal Party's legacy last week when another person associated with the sponsorship scandal was sentenced to prison.

During the Liberals' time in government, taxpayer money was lost to dishonest people while political masters watched.

Would the Minister of Public Works and Government Services please remind the House of our values in government compared with the previous Liberal government?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, with the Liberal sponsorship scandal, we unfortunately saw white collar criminals steal from Canadian taxpayers. Our Conservative government was elected to change how things are done in Ottawa, and we are delivering the goods. One of the individuals involved in the scandal, Mr. Gosselin, received a two-year prison sentence, but the Liberal opposition is delaying our crime legislation. This means that Mr. Gosselin will be eligible for release after serving one-sixth of his sentence. While the opposition is dragging its feet and talking out of both sides of its mouth, we are delivering the goods and taking care of Canadian taxpayers.

* * *

(1500)

Government Contracts

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, according to the former leader of the ADQ, Senator Housakos had some questionable financing methods. Senator Housakos has even gone as far as to sue journalists to deny that he was responsible for the May 20, 2009, event that was attended by board members of Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated.

And yet, the Prime Minister himself congratulated Mr. Housakos for his organizational work on that event. Will he ask Elections Canada to investigate this event?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer is once again raising a question with no facts on the table. If he has any facts he would like to present before the House or, even more so, outside the House, we would certainly welcome him doing so.

* * *

[Translation]

Loans and Grants

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the federal government refuses to transfer the money from its new loans and grants program to the Government of Quebec. But in June 2008, the current political lieutenant for Quebec confirmed that Quebec could withdraw from the new program that will replace the millennium scholarships. He said that the government respects Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Why is the government getting in the way of the Quebec government, which has chosen to target its least fortunate students?

[English]