Debates of Nov. 24th, 2009

Joe Volpe Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Madam Speaker, like so many other Canadians, I have been following this debate, not only in the House over the course of the last several hours, but over the course of the last several months. All of us are interested in establishing and maintaining the reputation of the country as one that respects the rule of law and has mechanisms in place in order to enforce it and maintain that observance.

We think that the observance of the rule of law as it emanates from legislative bodies like this one is really a hallmark of our civil society. It is one that renders us a truly compassionate and humanitarian society, because it means that we care for each other's well-being and that we take the measures necessary to ensure that that well-being is respected and nurtured by all citizens.

The second thing that has attracted me to this debate is of course the claims that the government is putting forward regarding this particular bill. As a partisan individual but also as a sincere Canadian, I have been looking at the argument that we need to have a tough on crime agenda. There is not anybody I know who does not want to be tough on crime. What everybody wants, though, is an expression of the mechanisms that are in place to ensure that we monitor behaviour, observe the law and observe the mechanisms in order to capture those individuals who fall outside those basic human requirements of observance.

One individual on the street today told me to say the following. We have legislation because we want to keep in check the fact that less than 1% of the population that does not agree with the conventions that we think make us civil with each other. I add that we need to be able to have the rules in place so that we can identify what it is that differentiates that less than 1% from the rest. I take that particular issue here. I realize that those figures were used grosso modo in order to project a view.

The government members have a tendency to use this expression very loosely and largely. Every time there is a difficulty in the House with legislation and the parliamentary agenda, out comes the rabbit called the crime and justice agenda. They do not move on it very quickly. These kinds of agenda items and proposals could easily be moved through the House if they were sincere about moving the agenda along and having an intelligent debate.

Through the questions of all opposition members, and I regret to say but not government members, I see a desire to get information so that we can make the appropriate decisions on behalf of Canadians who have entrusted us with being scrupulous about the kinds of conventions that we establish as Canadian law, the kinds of conventions that we indicate are reflective of Canadian values and society and the kinds of conventions that we put down for law enforcement and maintenance, not only in terms of punishment, but in terms of modifying behaviour.

Over the course of this last hour, I have been taken aback that government members have said that we shall not have the information we think we need in order to make the appropriate decision. They have told us to trust them. This is an open society and an open Parliament. Some would say that it is an adversarial environment, but the antagonism inherent in our parliamentary system is designed to ferret out the truth. If the government decides that it will keep the truth away from the prying eyes of the official opposition and other opposition parties, then it is diminishing the value of Parliament and its trust in democracy.

The hon. member for Halifax, who is a new member in the House, said that she thinks she is entitled to have information in order to make an intelligent decision. It is almost shameful that she would have to say it, but I applaud her for doing it. What did she ask for? I noted her questions. She kept saying “we have” or “we need”. I was not sure whether she was using the royal we on behalf of the government or the opposition.

Of course the royal we, the government, already has all the information that the member for Halifax wants shared with all committee members, that she wants shared by all parliamentarians. The royal we has that information and unfortunately, the royal we, the government, is withholding that information from the prying eyes of opposition members. What is it afraid of?

I noted that with great eloquence, my colleague from Mississauga South said, “Look, just answer the following questions”. They have been asked in committee as well. For example, how often has this faint hope clause been utilized in the last 10 years? Surely the government has that information. Surely the information gives the basis, the premise upon which the government is basing Bill C-36, and they may well be right, but at least share them with us.

We are thinking men and women and we can make an analysis on behalf of Canadians, the way all parliamentarians are expected to do so. We need to know how many times and how many people apply at the very first opportunity to have section 745 applied to them. How many times has that happened? Surely that is not offensive information. Surely that should not compromise national security. Surely that will not compromise the value of fairness that all Canadians expect to be shared among Canadians.

We need them to tell us how many times this first request has been granted. Surely the information is available. We are not flying by the seat of our pants, collectively. The government might be, but surely members of Parliament are not in the habit of doing that. At least it has not been my practice. From what I have seen in the last 21 years in this place, members of Parliament want to know the facts. They want to apply the facts and they want to have those facts tested against the scrutiny of other people's criticisms. That is why we get elected to this place. We do it not for ourselves. We do it for all those Canadians who are either in the seats or in front of the television, or reading and watching the criticisms as they develop in the debate.

I sometimes wonder whether the government is actually interested in debate. Certainly it does not appear to have an interest in sharing facts that it has already collected, so when colleagues here wonder why we are not privy to the same information that the government says is absolutely crucial in order to understand the impact of these bills, such as Bill C-36, I think that is an offence against parliamentarians. It is an offence against Parliament and it denigrates the concept of democracy.

Why? It is because all those who believe in democracy are not afraid of sharing the facts, because the facts give us an opportunity to rally around what we will define as truth, and that truth is that which encapsulates all of those Canadian values that are held up as a standard around the world. We do not give ourselves an opportunity to do that and we allow the government, in its own rather retrograde way, to say, “We make the decisions. To heck with the rest of you”.

That is not right. It is not parliamentary. It is not democratic.

Why will it not give us some of the basic facts that it already has? For example, it wants to paint everybody with the same brush. Why not give us the gender and the ages of all of those people who might be eligible for application of section 745?

We are not talking about those who are going to be given the faint hope. The process is very elaborate. It is very rarely applied. Why scare everybody into thinking that the process itself is wrong and therefore everybody who is in jail already is absolutely condemned to be there forever?

We believe in punishment. We do not believe that any crime should go unpunished. None of us in the opposition, from what I can tell, would suggest that the laws should be scoffed at. No, what we need to do is have an understanding of the balance between retribution and reform, between final punishment and an opportunity to change behaviour, but we want to make an intelligent decision. We need to know, for example, what the recidivism rate is of those who apply under this section.

The government has that information. Why will it not share it? Why is it so privileged that it cannot justify its own legislation with the facts? The government is afraid that people will actually think that it might be wrong, and that can only happen if there is a proper debate. I do not think the government should shut it down.

The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie

Order, please.

The hon. member will have a period of five minutes for questions and comments.

Mark Warawa Langley, BC

Madam Speaker, this week marks the solemn anniversary of the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, also known as Holodomor.

Approximately 10 million Ukrainians died from starvation and disease between 1932 and 1933, due to the genocidal policies of Joseph Stalin and the former Soviet Union. At the peak of the famine, 25,000 people were dying from hunger each day, with children making up to one-third of those who perished.

The unimaginable suffering of millions of Ukrainians was one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.

Since 2003 Canada has joined with the country of Ukraine to remember the genocide.

I invite all members in the House to join me and the Ukrainian ambassador tonight at 6 p.m. in room 200 of the West Block to pay our respects to those who died during Holodomor.

Sukh Dhaliwal Newton—North Delta, BC

Madam Speaker, this Friday Canadians will be celebrating Eid al-Adha. In Newton—North Delta there will be a food collection in the spirit of giving and sacrifice so central to the real meaning of this day.

The prayers that will take place at the Surrey Jamia Masjid, the Grand Taj Banquet Hall, and the Crystal Banquet Hall and other locations on Friday represent more than just a gathering of those who share faith. It is also a celebration of true community spirit.

I commend the efforts of all of my constituents who give so much of themselves to make the celebrations of this day such a success this year and every year.

I urge all members of the House here today to join me in wishing all Canadians a very happy Eid al-Adha.

Richard Nadeau Gatineau, QC

Madam Speaker, Le Carrefour de Gatineau, a composite school, is celebrating its 35th anniversary. As part of the celebrations, students will see the results of a project to green the yard in front of their school. The people behind this ambitious project, Lise Lorrain-Janvier, a social work technician, and Maxime Bruchési, a student at the school, have spent nearly two years working on it, with the help of volunteers and friends.

Le Carrefour is a dynamic school where every teacher and every member of the administration is committed to equipping young people for adulthood. It is a school where innovative projects and initiatives are encouraged and supported by the whole school community.

The Bloc Québécois joins me in congratulating the members of the administration, the teachers, the volunteers and the students and wishing them a happy 35th anniversary.

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, Kapyong Barracks is a former military base in Winnipeg that has sat idle and empty since 2004.

In spite of the base being prime real estate and in spite of a terrible shortage of affordable housing, 350 permanent married quarters there have been maintained and heated for five long winters and are sitting empty, likely the largest waste of urban landscape in the country.

Under treaty land entitlement provisions, first nations have a legal first option to purchase properties that are declared surplus by the federal government. At the very least, the government must consult with first nations before surplus property is sold.

Private developers are salivating over this prime property, but I call upon the Government of Canada to uphold the honour of the Crown and to stop the delaying tactics and legal appeals designed to deny Treaty No. 1 first nations their legal right to access this important economic development opportunity. This land should be developed by the first nations that are signatory to Treaty No. 1, and it should happen without delay, foot-dragging and stalling by the federal government.

Randy Hoback Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate, on behalf of all members of the House, an honoured servant of the people of Prince Albert.

On September 23 of this year, Prince Albert Fire Chief Les Karpluk was chosen Fire Chief of the Year by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs.

Les, a firefighter for the past 27 years, has served as Prince Albert's fire chief since 2006.

Local civic and union leaders have credited Les' leadership in founding the fire mentorship program, a program in which underprivileged youth are partnered with firefighters to teach them the values of teamwork, trust, safety and family. This is just one example of Les' passionate commitment to improving the lives of the people of Prince Albert.

In receiving this award, Les commented that he feels like the Stanley Cup champion of fire chiefs.

On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate Les on bringing home his Stanley Cup.

Brian Murphy Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, as members of Parliament, we often battle and occasionally agree. As individuals, we often give great speeches and sometimes act with human kindness, but rarely do we act in a selfless fashion.

Rare then was it for a member to reach back over 90 years to a graveyard in England, requesting repatriation of Canadian to a Conservative riding far away from his Toronto constituency. However, that is what the member for York South—Weston did.

The member lobbied hard and got cooperation from all sources so that on November 8, he and I, and the members for Saint John and Fundy Royal, witnessed the reburial of Gladys Winifred Fowler in Hammondvale, New Brunswick.

The daughter of a deceased New Brunswick MP, George Fowler, she died in London in 1917 of a heart ailment. Her father was then serving Canada in the World War I. Her coffin lay unnoticed in a catacomb in London for 92 years until it was discovered by undertaker Barry Smith.

Efforts to repatriate Fowler's remains sparked interest all over Canada and the world. The member for York South—Weston was at the forefront of those efforts.

Bravo to that member, a great comrade, a great parliamentarian and a great Canadian.

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Élaine Hémond, a former journalist, resident of the Quebec City area and founder of the Groupe Femmes, Politique et Démocratie, has been calling on women to become more involved in politics and public life. She is known in her community as a determined and passionate woman, a visionary who brings people together. It was because of the efforts of her group that a school to inform and help women who want to get into politics was founded.

We have seen clear gains in terms of the representation of women in the most recent municipal elections. Of all these victories by women, the Bloc Québécois would particularly like to mention that of one of its former fellow members, Caroline Saint-Hilaire, whose determination, passion and integrity helped her to win the office of mayor of Longueuil, the fifth largest city in Quebec.

A number of challenges await her in her mandate and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois join me in wishing her good luck.

Congratulations also to Élaine Hémond, who in her own way has helped to ensure that more and more women run for office.

Rod Bruinooge Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to protecting Canadians, particularly our children, from crimes being committed in today's technological environment.

Child pornography is an appalling crime and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Today, the Minister of Justice announced legislation to make it mandatory for Internet service providers to report any tips they receive regarding incidents of Internet child pornography.

While we recognize the efforts of major Internet service providers at voluntarily reporting, this legislation will strengthen our ability to protect children from sexual exploitation.

Canadians can count on the government and the Prime Minister to stand up for the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens.

Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to negatively stereotype Atlantic Canadians and to attack the unemployed.

The Prime Minister said Atlantic Canadians have a “can't-do attitude” and “a culture of defeat”.

Then the human resources minister said she did not want to “make it lucrative for”—the unemployed—“to stay at home and get paid for it”.

Now the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's refers to “all those no-good bastards sitting on the sidewalk in Halifax that can't get work”.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order, please.

I do not care if it is a quote or not, but members cannot do directly what they cannot do indirectly. We can find many quotes that contain all kinds of unparliamentary expressions that cannot be used in the House. I caution the hon. member to refrain from the use of unparliamentary language.

Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS

I agree, Mr. Speaker, it is a despicable word to use anywhere to describe Atlantic Canadians who are suffering.

There is an unemployment rate of 9.3% in Atlantic Canada. Not only is the member attacking the unemployed, but when he says “sitting on the street”, he is attacking the homeless, many of whom suffer from mental health issues, including addiction.

The ill and destitute need our compassion and our help, but this government cut literacy funding and has done nothing to help the homeless.

When will the Conservatives stop attacking the people who need help the most? When will they stop kicking people when they are down?