House of Commons Hansard #53 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was life.

Topics

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Diane Ablonczy Calgary—Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, the family and friends of Irene Thorpe of Vancouver have now suffered two devastating blows. The first was her senseless death when she was killed by a speeding street racer. The second blow came Monday, when a judge decided that the man convicted will remain free to live and work as before.

This man is a guest in Canada. The law says his criminality makes him inadmissible to stay in our country. Does the government intend to apply the law and remove this culprit from Canada?

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bourassa
Québec

Liberal

Denis Coderre Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. The answer is very simple. Under the Immigration Act, we expect that sentences will be commuted and then the act will be enforced, allowing for removal.

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Diane Ablonczy Calgary—Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new immigration law says that engaging in acts of violence and endangering the lives of persons in Canada will result in inadmissibility to live here. It also says someone is inadmissible who is convicted of a crime that can get 10 years in jail.

The man who ran down Irene Thorpe was convicted of criminal negligence causing death. This crime can draw a life sentence. Therefore, the person responsible for Irene's death is inadmissible to Canada. Will he be removed as the law requires?

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bourassa
Québec

Liberal

Denis Coderre Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I think that the translation was not adequate. What is being said is that, according to the Immigration Act, before a removal order can be carried out, a sentence must be commuted, the individual must fully serve their sentence, and then the act can be enforced.

We shall enforce the act as set out by the department.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I put to him last week, the Minister of National Defence was unable to explain why the Quebec City dimensional metrology reference laboratory was being closed and moved to Gatineau.

Is he now able to defend this completely unjustifiable decision, which is causing the loss of high tech jobs in Quebec City?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Markham
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, as part of a broad plan to improve efficiencies in the Canadian Forces calibration program, two underused laboratories were merged in Gatineau.

The decision to move the laboratory was made based on consultations with representatives from my department and specialists. The answer is that it is more efficient.

I can say that not one of the MD1 employees who worked in Sainte-Foy has ended up unemployed as a result of this merger. Therefore, it has been a great success in terms of both efficiency and—

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Québec.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are being told by the employees who are affected by this decision made on the sly, without consulting employees or political or socioeconomic stakeholders in the Quebec City area.

Will the minister tell us how could he have allowed this decision to be made?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Markham
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, as I said several times, one of my major objectives is to increase efficiency in my department for the benefit of taxpayers.

However, at the same time, in this case, there were extensive consultations and five out of five employees are extremely satisfied with their current jobs.

Justice
Oral Question Period

February 5th, 2003 / 2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, last week the Manitoba Court of Appeal ordered house arrest, overturning a two year sentence in prison for a man convicted of dangerous driving killing two women.

Canadians are outraged by the courts no longer treating these crimes seriously. However, the fault lies with the Liberal government which opened prison doors for criminals with the introduction of conditional sentences in 1996.

Will the minister commit today to change the law to restrict the use of conditional sentences to non-violent crimes?

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, conditional sentencing has been in place for quite some time. It has been used as well by the courts.

As I said yesterday, we have been discussing the question of sentencing as a whole, and to be more precise, the question of conditional sentencing at the last meeting with my provincial and territorial colleagues. We would like to tell the House as well that the justice committee has the mandate to review the question of conditional sentencing.

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, the death of innocent people requires a clear denunciation by the justice minister. Instead, the minister looks for consensus, conducts more discussions and shuffles things off to committees but does nothing to step up to the plate and stand up for victims of crime.

How can the minister ask Canadians to accept that living at home instead of two years in prison is an appropriate sentence for killing two innocent Canadian women?

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a sad event, but the question that he is asking me today is about conditional sentencing. That has been developed with the legal community. It has been used as well by the courts. It has been used well and has a good purpose. We are reviewing it. To be more precise, as I said, the justice committee is looking into it at this very moment.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Paddy Torsney Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, as a world model for federalism, Canada and Canadians have worked with pride through the Forum of Federations to enhance these systems of government.

Last week the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs signed a memorandum of understanding with Mexico's Secretary of the Interior, Santiago Creel, to cooperate on federalism.

Could the minister's parliamentary secretary tell the House what this MOU will mean for Canadians and for Mexicans?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Richmond
B.C.

Liberal

Joe Peschisolido Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has worked very closely with the forum. This is the first time that Canada has signed a memorandum of understanding on federalism with another country.

Mexico is working very diligently on this active reform program and it is important for Canada to enhance and work with Mexico in this process. The areas of cooperation in this field include transparency and accountability, intergovernmental affairs and intergovernmental relations. Through this agreement, Canada will work very closely with its friends in Mexico.