Debates of Feb. 4th, 2002

Games of La Francophonie

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is now receiving representations regarding the Games of La Francophonie to be held in Rivière-du-Loup.

We have policies in place to do these studies in order to determine the amount of the support we can provide. We are now studying the problem.

The Environment

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after already closing 75% of local weather offices, Environment Canada has now indicated that several of its 14 remaining weather centres will close.

Has the Liberal government not learned anything from the Walkerton inquiry? Has it not learned that cuts to environmental services affect lives?

Weather centres keep Canadians informed about dangerous weather: freezing rain warnings; marine weather warnings; flood warnings in places like the Red River Valley.

We cannot replace the specialized knowledge of local weather centres from a weather desk thousands of miles away. Why is the government putting lives at risk by closing more weather centres?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the decisions with respect to weather offices and forecasting offices have not been made by the government.

I can assure the hon. member and the House that as in the past we will continue to base our policies on resources available, on common sense and on potential efficiency gains to make sure we get the best protection for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Canadian Parliamentary Delegation

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the fascinating report of a Canadian parliamentary delegation to Thailand from November 13 to 18, 2001.

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the 22nd General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization, for which Canada has observer status, held in Bangkok, Thailand.

Citizenship Act

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-428, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill would correct a long-standing injustice in the Citizenship Act which has disallowed Canadian citizenship to certain individuals who seek and deserve this privilege.

My bill would be exclusive to those individuals who fall within the parameters of losing their citizenship through no fault of their own as a consequence of their parents taking out citizenship in another country.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to move that all questions relating to the privilege motion on the order paper be put immediately without further debate.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Petitions

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by more than 650 concerned constituents from the riding of Cambridge.

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of parliament that it is unethical to use human embryos for stem cell research. Adult stem cell research holds great potential but does not pose serious ethical questions.

Therefore the petitioners pray and request that parliament take steps to ban human embryo research and to allow federal tax dollars only for promising ethical research that does not destroy human life.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from constituents in the county of Antigonish, communities like Heatherton, Afton and Bayfield. The petitioners call upon the government to draw attention to the issue of coercion within the medical practice which directly contravenes deeply held ethical standards of some in the medical profession, particularly nurses.

They urge the government in this petition to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion and unjust discrimination against those health care workers because of refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their conscience and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions totalling approximately 100 petitioners in the province of Ontario. Pursuant to the standing orders, they bring to the attention of the House the unethical nature of taking embryonic stem cells for the purpose of research and call upon parliament to ban human embryo research and direct Canadian Institutes of Health Research to support and fund only promising ethical research that does not involve the destruction of human life.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, and of the amendment.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm, on a point of order.

Points of Order

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I tried earlier to bring this matter to your attention, but you asked me to do it later.

On January 30, I raised this question in the House, pointing at the discrepancy between the English and the French wording of the Senate amendment before us today.

In French, it says:

Toutes les sanctions applicables, à l'exception du placement sous garde qui sont justifiées dans les circonstances, doivent faire l'objet d'un examen—

This is a requirement. In English, it says “should be”. This is a suggestion. There is a significant difference between the two.

On January 31, in response to my question, the Deputy Speaker of the House said that he had checked the texts from the Senate and that there was no mistake, namely that the French version said “doivent faire l'objet d'un examen” whereas the English version said “should be” and that was as far as the Chair's responsibility went.

I walked across to the Minister of Justice, who told me to seek a decision by the Supreme Court on this matter. But we have to decide. In addition, closure was invoked on the bill, and we will be forced to vote on this amendment tonight.

I would like you to shed some light on whether the French version or the English version will prevail eventually, since the aboriginals themselves are wondering. I checked with English-speaking lawyers and they told me that, indeed, there was a problem as far as any future interpretation of this text is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, before the vote, could you shed some light on this issue for us and for the House, especially since the government has invoked closure and seems determined to expedite this matter. I would like us to be able to make an informed decision.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, in support of the Bloc Quebecois member.

I believe there is a straightforward solution to all of this. I am quite surprised that the government House leader has not returned to the House with some solution to this.

As has been pointed out, there is a very substantial difference in the wording of the text of the amendment. In the English text, the term discretionary would allow a judge to imply that the issue of a person's aboriginal descent would be a factor to be considered. In the French version of the text it would be obligatory for judges to go through that discretionary exercise before meting out a sentence. This is something that goes to the very root of what would be expected in terms of drafting and professionalism and to avoid this issue having to make its way through the courts, as was suggested by my colleague.

Why on earth would we recognize that there is a flaw in this particular drafting, simply let it go by the wayside and suggest somehow that we would leave it up to the courts to fix this? I would suggest there should always be consistency in the drafting and interpretation. We hope the government would react to this quickly so that the vote tonight would be on a text that reflects the same intent from the Senate and from this place.

[The Speaker]

I appreciate the fact that hon. members have raised this matter once again. It is perhaps an indication that it is a serious one.

I hope the comments made by the hon. Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees of the whole House when he was here, when the matter was first raised by the member for Berthier—Montcalm, will be applicable at this time.

In my opinion, they are.

I could cite the authority of Marleau and Montpetit on this point at page 674 where it states:

It is not for the Speaker of the House of Commons to rule as to the procedural regularity of proceedings in the Senate and of the amendments it makes to bills.

That citation in my view is important, direct and applicable in this case.

I can perhaps make a suggestion for the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm and the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. They can consult the law clerk and parliamentary counsel and perhaps find other explanations with respect to these amendments.

The Chair has taken some steps to ensure the procedural regularity of things within the powers of the Speaker of the House of Commons in these circumstances. I have a feeling that if hon. members consult they might get, if not complete, at least increased satisfaction.

I will leave the matter there but I am afraid I am powerless to intervene in this matter.

The amendment was passed by the Senate and it is the amendment which is now being considered by the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, and of the amendment.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous challenge to enter into a meaningful debate with the government side at the best of times, but when one's speech is interrupted by question period and the audience substantially changes it is even doubly difficult to carry on a meaningful debate.

In the remaining time I have, I will restate what I said before. Hopefully the people here will respond, think about what I have said and then vote accordingly.

The basic issue is that if the Senate brought an amendment to the House stating that sentencing for aboriginals ought to be 50% higher, those members would object. I believe every member on this side would also object because we believe in equality for Canadian citizens under the law and that there should not be a more stringent sentencing law for aboriginals based on their race.

This one is exactly the same except it is a different group. Instead of aboriginals being given a higher sentence, it is non-aboriginals being given a higher sentence. This is fundamentally wrong. As I said in my previous intervention, on all counts this is wrong.

We, as members of parliament, must exercise our right to vote against things that are wrong, and this is one of them. I have appealed before and I repeat that appeal to the members of parliament here to exercise their authority as elected members to look at this amendment and to use their own heads to decide to vote against it because it is wrong, and to go down in history as having helped prevent the Liberal Party of Canada from being named the Liberal racist party of Canada because they have given assent to a law that entrenches racism into the sentencing law for youth and specifically for aboriginal youth.

This is the plea I am making to members. In view of the fact that I cannot give my whole speech over again, I will simply reiterate that this is of utmost importance. I believe it is a false assumption to think that people in the Senate are incapable of ever making a mistake. They are ordinary humanoids like we are here. It is a false assumption to think that the government cannot ever make a mistake when it brings in legislation.

Instead of trying to solve the problem by bringing in the big mallet, time allocation, when the opposition strenuously talks against and opposes a bill or a motion, such as the one we have here, the government would be well advised to simply listen to the arguments and to do what is right. In this particular case, we need to vote against the amendment. If the bill goes back, so what.

I remember a long time ago seeing a little placard stating, “If you do not have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it again?” This is one of those cases. This is not being done right. It will take more time of the House of Commons, parliamentarians and committees to fix it if we were to pass it now than if we were to simply get it right now. I urge all members to consider carefully doing that.

I wish we could put away this idea of the whipped vote this time. I do not think members who vote against a bill should be punished by their party or that we must have another election. That is absurd.

The vote today is not about whether there should be an election. The vote is about entrenching a racist policy into sentencing in our youth law. The answer to that question is no, we should not.

The answer to the question of whether we should have an election is probably also no. There are two reasons to vote against the bill. I urge the Prime Minister, the House leader and the whip on that side to give the members over there a free vote so they can, in this particular instance, vote the correct way, do what is right and, without any serious consequences, make it possible for us to have a better law in Canada than what we are getting.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Elk Island if he could give us his opinion in response to the Minister of Justice's comments earlier, in which he told us that the government was flexible because it kept some 160 amendments.

I would also like to know his position regarding the Bloc Quebecois' amendment, which reads as follows:

That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a second time and concurred in, since it does not in any way take into consideration the distinct character of Quebec and the Quebec model for implementation of the Young Offenders Act.

Does the member and his party respect the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois and do they respect the fact that Quebec has a system that is the envy of other provinces because our youth crime rate is the lowest in Canada? And, based on the unanimous resolution passed by the National Assembly of Quebec, which asked that Quebec be exempted from the bill, could the member please tell us if he would respect Quebec's request, and that of the National Assembly, to opt out of Bill C-7?