Debates of March 23rd, 2011

Maria Mourani Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you and my colleagues that we will support Bill C-620 in principle, so that it can be studied in committee. It is highly unlikely that the Standing Committee on Public Safety will study this bill, but we will pretend it is business as usual. We want to study this bill in committee, although we do have some reservations about some of the proposed clauses. However, we are open to studying these clauses and hearing from some expert witnesses to determine how relevant they are.

This bill contains four components, which I will discuss. The first has to do with violent crimes. This bill would allow a direct or indirect victim to make an oral, written or recorded statement at a parole hearing and would require the board to take this statement into account. We believe that that would strengthen the fundamental principle of ensuring that victims are represented. This step can not only help the victim heal, but can also help the board conduct a detailed and fair analysis of the situation.

Before discussing the second component of this bill, I would like to say that I had experience with this law when I was a parole officer. I was often faced with the famous provision that is presented in Bill C-620.

Now for the second component. Under the current law, parole is automatic after two-thirds of a sentence has been served. However, in certain cases, the National Parole Board may decide to deny parole after two-thirds of the sentence, based on a recommendation from a multidisciplinary team. This is known as the detention provision. At present, the board can issue an order denying the statutory release of an offender if it believes the offender cannot be integrated into the community and will, if released before sentence expiry, commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person, commit a sexual offence involving a child, or commit a drug offence.

This order is reviewed every year, and the board is required to meet with the inmate almost every year. A detention order is an exceptional measure. In my entire career, the only place I had to implement a detention order was at the Regional Mental Health Centre, where inmates who are not serving a life sentence, but a determinate sentence, pose an obvious risk because of their multiple mental health or deviance problems. I saw all kinds of cases.

Some individuals unfortunately cannot be released because of the severity of their problems and because an analysis of the risk and of their conduct in detention and outside shows that they would likely commit a very serious offence, putting in danger the lives of children or causing serious harm to people.

Keeping someone in detention is a measure that is carefully considered and applied to the most dangerous offenders.

Quite often, they are inmates who will not have worked very much on their risk factors, for all sorts of reasons and not necessarily because they do not want to, but quite simply because they are too consumed by their criminality.

A good example of this is pedophiles who have traits of sadism. Yes, that exists. I have seen it. This type of pedophile is extremely dangerous and unfortunately cannot be rehabilitated. They nonetheless get fixed sentences whether we like it or not. It would not be an issue if the person were serving a life sentence. Nonetheless, when it comes to fixed sentences, this needs to be managed.

Holding a detention review hearing for these people after just one year is rather optimistic. When the assessment is made, the risk of danger to the public is so high that it is unlikely to decrease after a year. Therefore, going from one year to two seems reasonable to me. That allows the offender to work on or keep working on his risk factors and it also gives the board some time to see whether the offender has made any improvements.

I think that when people are kept in prison it is generally because they cannot be rehabilitated. The current legislation requires sometimes very dangerous offenders to be released after two-thirds of their sentence. When the risk of danger to the public is assessed, it is not possible to say whether that man or woman will reoffend within the first 24 hours, 48 hours or seven days. We know there is a risk of recidivism, but with the information available, we are unable to say whether the offender will reoffend as soon as he is released or a few days after his release. In that case, we cannot detain the offender.

If risk can be assessed in this way, then the offender can be detained. The ridiculous thing about the current legislation is that parole after two-thirds of the sentence is automatic when it should be conditional, as the Bloc Québécois has been calling for and as is the case for full parole after one-third of the sentence.

Detention is a procedure that helps keep automatic parole in check when the board establishes, through recommendations from a multidisciplinary team, that the offender would commit a very dangerous offence very soon after being released.

In fact, this provision of the bill would not even be needed if, under the current law, statutory release were conditional, not automatic, after two-thirds of the sentence. Given the current law, I think that it is reasonable to go from one to two years.

The third component of this law would allow the board to pass relevant information about the offender on to victims. The Bloc is not opposed to this measure, which, I believe, could be crucial to the victim's safety. For example, the victim should know when the offender is released from prison and if they could bump into one another at the convenience store. This needs to be examined closely because it would be inappropriate to share certain information. I think it is important that this be studied in committee to determine, in collaboration with experts, what information could and could not be passed on.

Our party feels that the fourth component is rather disturbing. We are neither for nor against it. We simply feel it needs to be studied. I am talking about the provision that would increase the wait time from two to four years between hearings when parole is denied. This is not a question of statutory release, but of other types of parole, be it complete freedom or day parole.

We agree with the provisions on violent crime, but this particular provision really needs to be studied further.

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-620, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole review and victim impact statement).

I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his initiative and hard work in drafting a piece of legislation that is well-founded, important, and sound.

Essentially, the New Democratic Party's position will be to support this bill at second reading. We look forward to examining it in more detail in committee. New Democrats support expanding the rights of victims. We will examine this bill to ensure that the proposals are, in fact, crafted in such a way that the goal can be achieved. Reading the bill at face value as it is currently written is well on its way to achieving that goal.

This bill would do three things. First, it would increase the period within which the National Parole Board must provide a further review of parole in the case of offenders serving sentences for offences involving violence. This would increase to four years the length of time that the National Parole Board must provide a further review of parole from the current two years.

Second, it would increase the period within which the National Parole Board must provide a further review of statutory release for offenders who cause death or serious harm to others. This bill would increase the review to two years from the current one year.

Third, this bill would create a right for victims to present victim impact statements at National Parole Board hearings and would amend the act to ensure that in the event a victim cannot or chooses not to attend a parole hearing, the victim may use any commonly available form of audio or video format to make a statement, in addition to a written statement. It would also allow victims increased access to offender documents related to an upcoming parole hearing.

In short, the latter provision in particular would give victims a greater role in the criminal justice system. It would allow them to know what progress their offender have made. To be informed of exactly what is going on with that offender is a long overdue and important provision.

The fact that this bill recognizes that victims want to play a role in the parole process, want information about what is going on with their offender, and want to participate and have their voices heard if they so choose, is thoughtful and sensitive. The fact that this bill would provide for victims to send victim impact statements to parole hearings if they are uncomfortable being in the presence of their offender or because it is economically prohibitive for them to attend is sensitive, and a wise and thoughtful improvement to the law.

I want to talk a bit about the importance in our justice system of making sure that the voices of victims are heard. Steve Sullivan, the former victims ombudsman, testified in the public safety committee in which I participated. We heard some very important information from Mr. Sullivan about what victims really want. They want information, they want to participate, and they want to know that their voices are heard in the process. It is crucial to the healing of victims and for justice that the impacts on victims are actually part of the process in the beginning, the middle, and the end.

Hearing the voices of victims is a crucial part of preventing recidivism. Offenders must know the impacts of their actions and the harm they cause. In order for offenders to have a better chance of not reoffending, having to accept responsibility for their actions is an important part of offenders healing and not reoffending.

We all know that restorative justice provisions give closure to victims knowing that the offenders have heard them and, when it is successful, that offenders take responsibility for the harm they have caused. It can actually work to heal the damage caused in many circumstances.

I also want to talk about what else we heard Mr. Sullivan say because he spoke on behalf of victims who have given him a lot of input. He told us as parliamentarians that victims also want better programs in prison, not because they are trying to coddle offenders but because it is important for them to know that while in prison, the offender is getting the kind of programming that will make him or her less likely to reoffend. Victims are afraid. Once victimized, they are afraid it will happen to them again. So victims have a stake in the criminal justice system in a way that many people do not.

According to Mr. Sullivan, victims want to know that the offender in prison has received programming. They want to know that the offender is receiving rehabilitation measures. They want to know that others will not be victimized by the same offender, and that they themselves will not be victimized again. Victims want to know about an offender's progress in prison and about the offender's attitude in prison. They want to know whether or not offenders have accepted responsibility for their behaviour.

Victims care that offenders get treatment for addictions and mental illness. Up to now the government has refused to acknowledge that aspect of what victims want. I want to encourage the government to pay attention to victims' expressions in that regard and start putting resources into those areas because that is what victims want in this country.

I want to give the House a couple of quotes from Mr. Sullivan. He said:

By focusing solely on sending people to prison longer, we're not serving the majority of victims of crime out there. We have to broaden our perspective of meeting victims’ needs and sentencing might be part of that, but it’s a very small part for most victims.

Mr. Sullivan was saying that a government that pursues a narrow policy of simply elongating sentences is not actually listening to victims and providing the comprehensive services that victims need. Victims need healing services. They need counselling services. They want information. They want input. They want their voices to be heard and they want to know that the government puts resources into making offenders accountable for their actions and helping offenders actually recover and not reoffend.

Mr. Sullivan said:

I'm sure the committee has had debates about the value of the government's bills and their approach. I'm not here to speak about that...That's a debate you'll have in Parliament.

He also said:

It should not be considered as a way to meet the needs of victims. I spent the entire day today with victims groups and with victim service providers yesterday, and that didn't come up at all as a way to meet the real needs. Every day we hear from victims, asking how we get those issues solved. That's just not part of the equation in most cases.

I want to talk about a couple of constituents in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, whom I met with recently, Norm Au and Iliaz Ali. These two Canadians live near the Nanaimo sky train station. They are community block watch participants and are routinely victims of crime. Near the Nanaimo sky train station is a neighbourhood that is victimized regularly by drug dealing, prostitution, vandalism, and theft.

These brave constituents come out of their neighbourhoods, watch their neighbourhoods, and try to protect and support each other. They phone the police when they see crimes being committed. What these people need and have asked for is better community policing at sky train stations. They want to see more community policing generally and better signage. They want to know that when they call the police and are observing a crime in progress, there will be an immediate response.

These are the kind of provisions that victims in this country really want to see.

Once those people have committed a crime and they have gone to jail, it is after the horse has been let out of the barn. These people want crime prevention and community policing. That is what the government needs to be doing.

The New Democrats are calling on the government for more community policing, more crime prevention resources, and more programs to deal with mental illness and addictions in our communities, which we all know are some of the major root causes of criminal behaviour. We will not make progress in our efforts to reduce crime in this country if we do not start addressing mental illness and addictions.

Even the previous minister of public safety acknowledged there are people in prison who ought not to be there because it is not appropriate as they are sick individuals. Yes, they have committed crimes and should pay for those crimes.

However, we are fooling ourselves if we think that simply locking people up for longer will do anything to reduce crime in this country.

I applaud the hon. member for his bill. The New Democrats will support it.

Dean Allison Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have come to learn in this place that we always need to beware of a member of Parliament who says, “I support this bill in principle, but--”.

I just want to make a couple of quick comments to my colleague, the member for Ajax—Pickering, who tried to somehow liken this bill to having something to do with California or Florida or Newt Gingrich. This has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

This bill has to do with fairness for victims. That is what this bill is all about. I take some offence that my colleague from across the way could suggest that this has something to do with U.S.-style justice in any way. This is really about fairness for victims of violent offenders. It does not get any simpler than that.

Let me just talk about the four things that this bill proposes to do to amend the CCRA.

First, it would amend section 123 to increase the period within which the National Parole Board must provide a further review of parole in the case of offenders serving a sentence for an offence involving violence. This would increase “within four years” from the current “within two years”.

Second, it would amend section 131 to increase the period within which the National Parole Board must provide a further review of statutory release for offenders who cause death or serious harm to another. For example, for an offence involving violence, it would increase “within two years” from the current “within one year”.

Third, it would amend section 140 to ensure the victim's right to present a victim impact statement is enshrined in law, so the National Parole Board must consider it as part of its hearings. It would also amend section 140 to ensure that in the event victims cannot or chooses not to attend a parole hearing, to allow the victims to use any commonly available form of audio or video format to make their statement. As a result, the act would be modernized to account for the proliferation of digital and video formats available today. Having a choice will help ease the parole process on victims and their families.

Fourth, it would amend section 142 to allow victims increased access to offender documents related to an upcoming parole hearing.

Just to be very clear, that is what this bill proposes to do.

I am pleased to rise today to talk to this bill put forward by the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, whom I am proud to call not just a colleague but a friend. The hon. member has always done a great job representing his constituents and he should be commended now for bringing forward a private member's bill that gives a voice to victims of crime.

The short title for Bill C-620 is fairness for victims of violent offenders act. I believe he has struck the right balance in doing just that. In reading over this bill, I am impressed with the positive steps it proposes ensuring that victims of crime have their interests taken into consideration during the process of parole hearings.

What a concept. Let us think about that, that we would actually take into consideration victims of crime. I think this is a very good idea.

This is not to say that the possibility of parole will be infringed upon for those who the system deems to have been rehabilitated. Indeed, one of the cornerstones of our justice system is the belief that criminals can and should be rehabilitated, so that they can re-enter society as productive citizens.

However, to force victims of a violent crime to relive the dramatic effects of the act by requiring them to face the perpetrator of that crime time and time again during parole proceedings is not, I think, what our justice system is about. Our system should not seek to put victims through a process that at the end of the day only causes them further pain and suffering.

For this reason, I applaud Bill C-620 as put forward since it seeks to provide different avenues for victims to participate in the parole process that are less difficult for them on an emotional level. It also seeks to give the National Parole Board greater latitude through lengthening the time in which a mandatory parole review must occur. Of course, this bill is given ever greater credibility since it derives from a sincere desire to have the greater share of the burden shifted from the victim to the perpetrator.

Indeed, as the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale noted in his remarks, the office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has provided the disturbing statistic that under our current system, victims pay 67% of the costs of a crime. Simply put, this is not acceptable.

I do not see how justice is being properly served through our current system that places an inordinate amount of pressure upon the victims of violent crime. Changes need to be made to take into account the traumatic circumstances that the current system demands that victims relive, time and time again.

That is why I feel that one of the most rational aspects of the bill before the House is the part that provides victims the opportunity to supply their remarks in any commonly available media format. This avenue should, without a doubt, be made available to victims should they choose not to attend a parole hearing of the individual already responsible for so much of their physical and mental anguish. This would be in addition to the written statement that the victim, under the bill, would be able to provide and be able to have the National Parole Board legally obliged to consider during the course of the hearing. Most importantly, this option gives victims and their families the choice of avoiding having to relive their experiences by not having to attend the hearing in person.

This in and of itself speaks volumes to the bill's intent of reducing the trauma that victims of violent crimes are forced to go through with each parole hearing. Indeed, the bill goes beyond simply providing new venues for victims and putting new regulations in place for the parole board, but ensures that victims of crime are accorded the dignity they deserve.

I see the bill as an attempt to protect the families who have had their children taken from them by violent and malicious killers. The bill is for the survivors of those violent crimes, for those haunted by memories of assault and those having to live with the knowledge of their families' tormentors remaining unrepentant of their cowardly acts.

In speaking to the bill I tried to imagine what it must have been like for those individuals to have their family members brutally murdered by an unapologetic murderer like David Shearing, to have to face the person who caused so much pain and suffering to their loved ones, to have to relive that experience every two years, with the threat of that person being released into society once again a very serious possibility. That is not fair to victims. That is not what I envision when I hear the talk about balance in our justice system.

The particular individual I just mentioned, David Shearing, was found guilty of the murder of a British Columbia couple who was camping with their daughter and their son-in-law as well as the children in 1982. Shearing shot everyone, save for the two pre-teen girls, whom he kept alive for nearly a week to sexually assault the older daughter before killing them both and burning the bodies of the whole family in an attempt to cover his tracks.

I can barely fathom the pain the family of these victims had to go through during the process that followed, the police reports, the trial hearings--

The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer

I regret to interrupt the member, but the time provided for private members' business has expired.

The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 23, 2011

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the schedule to this letter on the 23rd day of March, 2011 at 5:57 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace,

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Carole Lavallée Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, the announcement you just made regarding Bill C-59 is a great response to the question that the Minister of Foreign Affairs asked today about the Bloc's achievements. That bill is one of the Bloc's achievements. The Bloc Québécois inspired and brought forward the bill to abolish parole after one-sixth of the sentence is served.

During this adjournment debate, I would like to discuss the question I asked on November 25 regarding arts and culture. Several of the people who promote our artists abroad noted that abolishing the programs for artists touring abroad had adversely affected the competitiveness of our artists and the dissemination of Quebec and, obviously, Canadian culture. It was a very bad idea, both from the cultural and economic points of view, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to decide to abolish the programs for cultural tours.

At that time, the minister told me that the real issue was when would the Bloc vote in favour of their budget, which provided unprecedented funds to assist our artists on the international scene. I must say that the minister misled the House because a deputy minister from the Department of Canadian Heritage has officially submitted a document to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, revealing that in 2010-2011 there was a 7% or $27 million cut to the budget for arts and culture. It is therefore completely false to say that the government's budget gives unprecedented funds to help artists on the international scene. It is even a bit ridiculous.

Nevertheless, the Minister of Canadian Heritage always comes back to the same thing: the Bloc voted against the budget. This is untrue. The Bloc Québécois votes in favour of motions when they are good for Quebec and votes against them when they are not. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the 2006 and 2007 budgets when fewer cuts were being made by the Conservative government.

We are raising the issue of the International Exchange for the Performing Arts, CINARS, again this week. The request this organization made to the Department of Canadian Heritage last April for $77,500 in funding for an important arts and culture activity that it holds year after year was refused. In the past, CINARS has always received funding for its activities, which consist of a forum and a training seminar, which began in 1993 and 1999.

The eligibility criteria for the program have not changed over the past few years. Nothing has changed. It is the same program, the same applicant and the same activity. The organization even asked for approximately the same amount of funding—$77,500. Yet, all of a sudden, a new element appeared: a “no”.

Was it the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage or was it the Minister himself who said “no” and vetoed this request for funding that had no reason to be denied, much as the Minister of International Cooperation did before him?

Dean Del Mastro Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly confused, so perhaps I can clear up her confusion. She is often confused on the heritage file but I will do my best to clear it up in the four minutes I have been given.

The government has in fact increased funding to the Department of Canadian Heritage by 18% across the board since it became government. Canada is the only country in the G7 that actually increased funding to arts and culture through the recession. Every other country cut it, except this Conservative government: we increased it.

Where did we increase it? We increased it for the Canada media fund, which I am sure the member is well apprised of, and for the Canada Council and things like cultural spaces. We put money behind all of those things. The member knows this well.

She also knows that she voted against those increases. When Canada and the entire world was combatting the deep recession, rather than voting to support artists, the Bloc voted against the budget. Its members stood side by side and voted against the budget. However, we should not be surprised.

A special legislative committee right now is studying the copyright bill. Witnesses have come in. Folks came from the feature film industry, some of them from the city of Montreal, I believe. They indicated that almost $1 billion, or $971 million, is evaporating and 12,000 jobs.

The member claims to be proud of feature films like Barney's Version, made in Montreal. There may not be another Barney's Version if we do not fix the Copyright Act. However, that member and her party have stood wilfully in the way of updating Canada's copyright law and securing those jobs and the investment in the entertainment software industry, which is huge in Montreal and Quebec. That member stood against updating that act. It is not as if she just votes against increased funding for the arts, but she also votes against the private sector investment that would come into the arts. She is allowing things to be stolen because we cannot update the Copyright Act.

Canada has five of the top ten piracy sites in the world operating within its borders. We want to put an end to that on this side of the House, because we believe that creators deserve to be paid for the work they do. That member does not and neither does her party: they are not supporting it.

It really troubles me when I hear people stand up and say they support the arts, they support creators, they support artists, that they want to help them. Their deeds show exactly the opposite. That member has had a lot of opportunities to stand up and support artists and she has turned a blind eye every single time. Shame on her.

The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Dean Del Mastro Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, of course the member picks and chooses between the numbers.

We have increased funding for arts and culture by 18%. We have also found some administrative savings, things that Canadians will be proud of.

I encourage the member to stand up in Montreal and go to the entertainment software industry, go to the film industry and to the radio stations that are advertising that she is attacking local radio with her stance on ephemeral rights in the copyright bill.

I encourage you to go to them and preach your position to them, because you are contrary to Montreal, you are contrary to Quebec and contrary to artists.

The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer

I will just remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to address his comments through the chair and not directly at other members.

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

Joyce Murray Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the environment.

One of the most difficult and disappointing parts of being a member of Parliament is to see what the current Conservative government has done in presenting a piecemeal, ad hoc, visionless approach, which has taken us backwards on climate change.

Compare that to where Canada was five years ago under a Liberal government. We were poised to have a comprehensive regulatory approach. We were poised to have a price on carbon. Businesses were on board. Funding was in place for programs to help citizens reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. That has all been blown away by the Conservative government's approach.

Clearly, putting a price on carbon allows businesses to plan. It is efficient and the most effective way to go. However, the government has just tabled a budget where almost half of the funding for the clean air agenda is about regulations.

Supposedly the government wants to cut red tape, but instead it has added red tape and wrapped it around the business community. It is as though the government is replacing the windshield wipers and waxing the car when the transmission and the engine are shot and the trunk is full of cement blocks. That is the Conservative government on climate change.

The Liberal Party has a vision in which Canada would accept its responsibility to reduce carbon pollution that is in line with other developed countries with a 1990 baseline. We would create a cap and trade system that would be verifiable and binding with hard caps leading to absolute reductions. Then the market could do the work and bring greenhouse gases down in the most efficient and effective way.

A Liberal government would make the most significant investments in clean energy and energy efficiency in our nation's history. We would become leaders and could export those technologies to other parts of the world.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has rested its plan on obstructing and trying to undermine the actions that other countries have taken, while rubbing the wax on its car and trying to show it off as action on climate change. It has been disappointing and undermines the efforts that companies want to make.

Today is the 22nd anniversary of an environmental event, which is the running aground of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska 22 years ago today.

I want to mention another piecemeal, ad hoc, visionless, backward approach, and that is the government's approach on the oceans. The government has disabled and discarded the long-term moratorium defending our oceans from supertankers.

On the contrary, a Liberal government would take a position of global leadership in protecting our shared ocean heritage and vital coastal communities and their jobs so these kinds of ecological disasters would never harm our shores.

The government is in contempt of Parliament, it has contempt for Canadians and it has contempt for the environment. No wonder parliamentarians can no longer express confidence in the government.

Mark Warawa Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague across the way. She said that she was disappointed and frustrated being in the House. However, she did say that the Liberal Party, of which she is a member, had a vision. What is that vision? Is it from 1993 to 2006, those many years when the Liberal government had the opportunity to get things done? Did it get things done? No, it did not.

Year after year, the commissioner of the environment would give damning reports, stating that Liberals made great announcements, but before the confetti hit the ground, they forgot those promises. They got absolutely nothing done. Greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise. The Liberals made a commitment under Kyoto, which covered 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions and they accomplished nothing.

Canada now has a Conservative government that has a well-deserved reputation for getting things done. Since Copenhagen, we are now part of an international agreement that covers 85% of global greenhouse gas emissions. What a difference. Also, emissions are being reduced.

The member across talked about a carbon tax. In 2008, Canadians said absolutely no to the Liberals idea of a carbon tax. It is not good for the Canadian economy. Once again, we hear the coalition members calling for a carbon tax. The answer from Canadians is clearly no.

What else was she disappointed with? In 2003, she was the minister of B.C.'s water protection. In 2003 there was a Liberal Government and David Anderson was the minister. He believed that it was okay to dump raw sewage into Victoria harbour. At the same time, that member was the B.C. minister responsible for water protection. What did she do? She ignored staff concerns and let the region drop the plans for a treatment plant. She argued that turbulent, deep, cold water off Beacon Hill Park functioned adequately as a natural sewage treatment system.

This government stands against dumping raw sewage into our oceans. We believe we need to protect our water, our land, our economy and Canadians. Therefore, it is not surprising that the member has a different philosophy and she finds herself frustrated because her philosophy is to do nothing. She was part of a regime that did nothing. She is frustrated with a government that is getting things done

We are providing a cleaner environment. Under this government, emission levels are dropping. We are getting it done on every front, even with the home renovations, which is a very important part of the new budget. Do the Liberals support that and many other good things? No, they do not. Therefore, it is not surprising the member would support a contempt motion because she does not appreciate the good work this government is doing.