Very much.
Evidence of meeting #67 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #67 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Okay.
What about you, Mr. Turk? Do you believe that all students should pay the same fees and have the same quality of service and the same equivalent service wherever they are in the country?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
I think all Canadians should have reasonable access to post-secondary education.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
That's what I'm answering.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
It depends on the programs.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
For the same programs, wherever they are in the country, should they be treated the same? If they're in Alberta, should they pay a different amount for the same quality of education?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
That's not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to say.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Exactly, and that's my point. We know clearly that education and health care are matters for the provincial government insofar as delivery is concerned.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
But we also know that since the Massey commission in 1951—
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
—without the significant contribution of the federal government to post-secondary education, the ability to have reasonably equivalent post-secondary education for all Canadians is impossible.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
In fact, we know today that the cost is not anywhere near the same depending on where you go in the country. We clearly know as well that delivery is not the same as providing funds. The provinces have the absolute jurisdiction to deal with delivery of health care and to deal with the delivery of education.
We are funding partners in that as a federal government, and of course we have to do that.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
Your decisions about funding have a dramatic impact, both on health care and on education decisions at the provincial level.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
They certainly do, and that's why we have promised to continue with the transfer of funds.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
As well, with regard to post-secondary education, the federal government does have responsibility for funding research—
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
—and that's an aspect of the worry for the federal government of which we've been critical.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Of course, we're doing a very good job on that.
I wanted to mention, in relation to what the NDP said before, that I don't remember anybody promising that we would continue with 6% transfers year over year indefinitely. I certainly promised to oppose the NDP every step of the way in whatever they did, but I haven't promised that.
I wanted to comment in relation to Mr. Braun. Do you have anything else to say about the organization you were part of? You mentioned fraud. I'm kind of nervous, as a lawyer, about some of the things you've said. Do you have anything further to say about that? You did say that you clearly indicated that you support the government's position.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Give Mr. Braun the time, then. I'm always cutting him off and I feel bad.
Mr. Braun.
4:50 p.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think everyone has the right to be nervous about what was happening in a human rights organization where you could not get information.
We did not control when, for example, the Deloitte report would be released. As members of the board, we wanted it to be out as soon as possible. I personally wanted the SIRCO report out as well.
Transparency is absolutely crucial. The facts must come out, and people should be able to judge them. This is what is so essential. Unless you have an organization that can show that it uses funds responsibly and is effective and can bring those areas of expertise to genuinely promote human rights and democracy, one cannot justify that, because it's not a private organization. We are responsible to the taxpayers, and unless we meet that duty of care, it's very difficult to justify, in the 21st century, that kind of expenditure.
This is why, very reluctantly, after struggling for three years, I had to come to the conclusion that the government made the only viable decision in this particular case.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We often hear the government say that the previous government, a Conservative government, introduced omnibus bills and so it is reasonable for them to be introducing one today. I recall, for one thing, that it was a minority government, and for another thing, that it was the government that was found guilty of contempt of Parliament. Sometimes we need to be careful when we refer to a previous government.
The present government has a majority. So why is it presenting us with an omnibus bill? The fact that was done previously does not mean it is proper to do it now. In the media, including the Financial Post, everyone is saying that this bill is not appropriate, that it should be severed and examined in depth by different committees.
Mr. Jackson, obviously I agree with you that this should be studied at the justice committee, but what is of concern, because we did mention it, is the fact that it's unconstitutional. Can you explain to me what the impact is on the legal side of it?
4:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of British-Columbia, As an Individual
Certainly.
Section 7 of the charter provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with fundamental principles of justice.
The courts have consistently found that a person who is on parole and who has his parole suspended and is returned to prison is thereby jeopardized in terms of his qualified right to liberty. It's not a complete right to liberty. The courts accept that it's a qualified right, but it engages section 7 of the Constitution.
The courts have gone on to ask what the necessary process is, in accordance with fundamental principles of justice, to justify the deprivation of that qualified liberty. The courts have found consistently that it requires a hearing in which the person is present to address the issues of breach of conditions, to provide the board with further information regarding their life under parole, to challenge any incorrect statements made by the parole officer's report, and to enable the board—and this is an important point in the interest of public safety—to fairly and fully decide what is necessary to deal with the risk of that individual in the community. That is a constitutional right to a hearing.
What the bill does is abrogate that right. Thereafter, these reviews will be done by a paper review. The board is now also contemplating moving to a single member conducting this review by changing the regulations. You'll have one member of the board reviewing the case without the presence of the offender and making a potential decision to revoke parole.
I've given examples of individuals who have been out in the community for 20 years without reoffending who, because of concerns about bizarre behaviour and problems in dealing with their parole officer, were in fact suspended and recommended for revocation. In the hearing that I personally attended, that offender would have been sent back to prison because he was suffering from Alzheimer's, potentially to serve many more years in prison. That's the argument.
Perhaps I can finish by saying that there is no justification under section 1 of the charter to infringe upon that right based upon saving $1.6 million a year.