House of Commons Hansard #106 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

I know my colleagues across the way are not interested in hearing other arguments. They want to have their trick work and these shenanigans carry on tonight, but the point is they do not want to hear the other side of the story. We have heard from their side a number of times on their position on this matter.

The point is there is no mechanism in Standing Order 81(4)(a) for this committee to report, unlike the fact that there is a mechanism of that sort in the process for committees generally that review the estimates. Those committees report. This committee does not. To report, we would have to have votes. There is no mechanism and it is not appropriate in this case.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

The Chair

Order. I will suspend the proceedings to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:02 p.m.)

The House resumed at 10:20 p.m.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

The Chair

Order. The situation is as follows. Having ruled that the motion of the hon. member for Crowfoot is in order, the Chair has called for debate. That has been challenged by the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond who wishes to appeal that ruling.

I refer hon. members to page 776 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states:

Members may appeal a ruling of the Chairman of Committees of the Whole to the Speaker... After the Chairman has made a ruling, a Member may rise on a point of order and appeal the ruling to the Speaker. Such an appeal is not subject to debate. The Chairman immediately leaves the Chair at the Table, the Mace is placed back on the Table, and the Speaker resumes the Chair. The Chairman stands in front of the Speaker's Chair and reports the incident and the ruling which has been appealed to the Speaker. The Speaker may hear from other Members on the matter before ruling.

Marleau and Montpetit states:

(In the absence of the Speaker, the Chairman may take the Chair and decide the appeal to his or her own ruling.)

In my view, that would not be appropriate in the circumstances. I have therefore contacted the Speaker who will be here as soon as he can to hear the hon. member's appeal. Accordingly, I will suspend proceedings until the Speaker arrives.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:22 p.m.)

The House resumed at 10:45 p.m.

The Speaker resumed the Chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to report an appeal to you of the decision of the chair of committee of the whole. The situation is as follows.

Having ruled that a motion of the hon. member for Crowfoot was in order, the chair called for a debate. That decision was challenged by the hon. member for Delta--South Richmond, who argued that the committee should proceed immediately to vote on the motion. I respectfully submit the matter to your adjudication in accordance with procedures described on page 776 of Marleau and Montpetit.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair will take the matter under advisement and return to the House when I am ready to render a decision on the matter.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:46 p.m.)

The House resumed at 11:06 p.m.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now prepared to rule on the appeal of the chair's decision taken earlier this evening in the committee of the whole.

The issue before us is whether the motion moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot is subject to debate when the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond has asked that the committee proceed immediately to vote on that motion.

Standing Order 101(1) states:

The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in Committees of the Whole so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

These are the only exceptions, nor can your Speaker find any provision that would suggest proceeding differently either in the special order adopted earlier today to govern this debate or in the terms of Standing Order 81(4) under which this debate is being held.

Similarly, Marleau and Montpetit at page 779 states clearly:

When an amendment is moved, debate must proceed on the amendment until it is disposed of.

In this case, the committee of the whole is meeting pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the main estimates under Justice. The hon. member for Crowfoot has proposed a motion to reduce vote 1 for the Department of Justice by $100 million. That motion is indeed debatable.

Accordingly, the ruling of the chair of the committee of the whole is sustained. I do now leave the chair so the debate in committee of the whole may resume.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I could just have a clarification, it seems to me that in times past you have always suggested to the House that a committee is the master of its own fate.

In that particular instance under discussion there was a motion put and a question was called on that motion. I do not understand why the question could not have been put at that time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member knows that he was here and of course I was not. He knows the chairman of the committee of the whole House made a ruling and the ruling was that the question should not be put because he was of the view that the standing orders, as I have indicated, required that the motion be debated and that a motion to curtail debate in the committee of the whole was not admissible.

The ruling, as I understand it, was appealed to the Chair, and I have now given a ruling indicating why I think the chairman of the committee of the whole House was correct.

That is the end of the matter because there is no appeal for my decision, sadly, but that is the fact, and so I know the hon. member must agree with me.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning your decision but I am trying to understand it.

There was a question put to the chair, a motion made to the chair and it was asked then that a vote be taken and the chair was challenged. I am not sure that I understand the rationale of the chair in refusing that legitimate request.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Perhaps I can assist the hon. member. This procedure is unusual in that we do not often sit in committee of the whole House, and the situation in committees of the whole is somewhat different from standing committees of the House because in standing committees there are appeals of the ruling of the chair to the committee and there are votes then in the committee on the appeal. In committee of the whole House the appeal is to the Speaker. The Speaker was found and came in to hear the appeal. I heard the appeal and I say this, again citing from Marleau and Montpetit on page 776:

As with all Speaker's rulings, after it has been delivered by the Speaker, there is no appeal and no discussion is allowed. Only on rare occasions has a Chairman's ruling been overturned. Since the Committee has not risen and reported progress, as soon as the appeal proceedings have been completed, the Speaker leaves the Chair, the Mace is removed from the Table and the Committee of the Whole resumes its deliberations.

I am quite prepared to leave the chair and let the committee of the whole resume its deliberations if that is agreeable to all hon. members.

House in committee of the whole to resume consideration of all votes under Justice in the main estimates, Mr. Kilger in the chair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

The Chair

Order, please. On a point of order, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Chair, could you please tell us how much time we have left from the five-hour period alloted to this debate?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

The Chair

Approximately 45 minutes. The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Liberal

Yolande Thibeault Liberal Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Chair, before I address the House, could you tell me how much time I have left?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Chair, before the committee suspended, the Canadian Alliance still had time left in its presentation.

Mr. Chair, you suspended, you took counsel and you left the chamber. We wanted a ruling right at that moment and we wanted the ability to continue on with our time. We looked forward to having the opposition question the minister on a evening that was set apart for that.

We would ask for the Canadian Alliance time back.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

The Chair

I believe I addressed that matter earlier, but once again, as the member moved amendment that was debatable, respectfully, that ends his intervention.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Liberal

Yolande Thibeault Liberal Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Chair, thank you for these few minutes. As I was saying when I was interrupted two hours ago, I want to quote from a paper on the cost of crime in Canada; the document was prepared last year by the Research and Statistics Division of the Department of Justice.

It is quite an interesting paper, because it outlines the context in which the government is investing in the fight against crime.

For example, it tells us that crime costs Canadians approximately $59 billion a year. That includes the actual expenditures of the federal, provincial and territorial governments, a total of $12 billion, and the cost of our security and insurance systems, which comes to $7.5 billion. However, the main component of those costs, $39 billion, goes to victims and pays for health services, compensation for damaged property and loss of production.

Aside from the financial burden, which is heavy enough by itself, there is the terrible loss of life. When we try to evaluate the cost of crime, we must take into account the devastating effects of crime on individuals, communities and society as a whole in Canada.

Crime and the fear of crime deprive us of our liberty, diminish our quality of life and undermine our communities' morale. That is why the government will continue to improve the security of the streets and homes in Canada.

Even though it is reassuring to know that our country is safer than it was 10 years ago, we are still determined to reduce crime. During his speech earlier tonight, the minister talked about the National Crime Prevention Strategy and the efforts that are being made to involve Canadians in the fight against crime and to favour, in terms of crime prevention, the adoption of an approach based on cooperation.

I can only support such an objective, and I would like to seize the opportunity to elaborate on the subject. The national strategy was launched nearly five years ago to help communities fight the root causes and the risk factors of crime and victimization.

Clearly, the traditional methods used to fight crime such as arrests, prosecutions, the incarceration of offenders, are useful. However, in order to prevent crime effectively, we need to fight the causes of crime as vigorously as we react to criminal acts. If we do that, we will be able, as the government has done, to establish a balanced public security program.

This means that no effort must be spared on the front lines. The goal is to improve the quality of life of individuals, families and communities and to promote positive attitudes or behaviour for individuals within their communities by influencing family life, life in general, education, employment, housing and recreation.

Communities share, perhaps, a number of challenges related to public security, but each has its own unique problems and must find the solutions best suited to its needs. One size does not fit all.

There is no miracle cure. Crime prevention through social development in its current form is a long-term tried but true process.

The national strategy is based on the principle that the surest way to reduce crime is to focus on the factors that put individuals at risk: factors like family violence, drug abuse and poverty.

No community in Canada is unaffected by these problems, which threaten us all, particularly youth. By targeting the risk factors for crime and victimization, and by cooperating with local communities, the national strategy helps Canadians develop effective solutions to specific problems.

With this in mind, communities were invited to develop solutions for the problems they face, and they responded to this invitation. Since its launch in 1998, the national strategy has supported over 3,200 projects in some 780 communities, of all shapes and sizes, across Canada, that are dealing with problems related to crime and victimization.

The purpose of the national strategy, through such programs, is to support these communities by establishing effective and innovative crime-prevention initiatives. The government is also committed, with regard to assessment and research of the strategy, to determine and demonstrate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the viability of the overall initiative, as well as the projects it supports. The results of this work clearly show that the national strategy is reaching its objectives.

When the resources for the second phase of the national strategy were approved in 1998, a mid-term evaluation was requested. This evaluation was carried out in 2001 and a global evaluation was completed in November 2002. Beside these evaluations and the ones that were initiated after the expansion of the initiative two years ago, a number of studies were carried out in order to examine certain aspects of the national strategy.

I do not have enough time to give all the details of these studies, but I would like to mention some of the conclusions.

A study on the impact of these projects revealed that more than half—63 % to be precise—of the financed projects selected for the study had been maintained beyond the period financing had been provided under the national strategy. The high level of viability of the projects was attributed to the success of the community initiatives, the vitality of the partnerships created for the initial implementation of the project and the ability of the organizations to obtain permanent support from new sources.

The viability issue is of paramount importance. The purpose of the national strategy is still to initiate effective practices that will keep growing within society and in future.

For example, I would like to talk about the Healthy Families project—or Familles saines—that was initiated in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. Last November, with the help of the national strategy, the government of that province announced that it was implementing the program and that it would expand the selection, the evaluation and the family support for all the young parents of the province.

More recently, that is, last week, the Ontario government announced a $1.2 million investment to expand an online information service for battered women and their children.

In London, Ontario, an initiative known as Shelternet started up last year thanks primarily to the efforts of the national strategy and to a $50,000 grant.

In Quebec, a diagnostic tool for the analysis of resistance and risk factors in the educational setting, which had been initially supported by the national strategy, has also been supported by the Quebec government.

These success stories say much about the quality of these projects. They are also eloquent testimony to the merit of the partnerships on which they were built.

Since the activities of the national strategy are based in part on partnerships, and in an effort to better understand the roles and contributions of partnerships in the funding of the strategy, a study on this important issue was done in the spring of 2002.

Among other findings, the study showed that partnerships in the national strategy were firmly committed to help both public and private partners to reduce crime and victimization.

This means that the national strategy has been quite successful in building partnerships with organizations that previously felt that crime prevention was not part of their mandate or their activities.

The national strategy has been very successful in promoting crime prevention through social development. In fact, given its widespread adoption in communities across Canada, the distinctions between traditional and non-traditional partners are disappearing.

Finally, in insisting on the notion that partnerships be a key element of funding that is offered through the national strategy, almost all project sponsors have agreed to continue seeking out these types of partnerships in the future. And these are not empty promises.

As part of a study of projects from 1998-2000, the national crime prevention centre determined that for every dollar invested in a project, the strategy mobilized between $1.50 and $2.40 in funding from partners.

These conclusions were strengthened by the preliminary results from the general assessment over the last four years of the second stage of the national strategy. The results indicate that there is a growing interest in communities across Canada in reducing crime by dealing with the underlying causes. In reality, the projects allow for goals to be attained, for targets set by the national strategy to be supported, for innovative approaches to be developed, and for tools and resources to be produced and, as we mentioned, for community efforts to be sustained.

Generally speaking, the conclusions reveal that the national strategy is working as a pan-Canadian initiative. Beyond our borders, the Canadian model of crime prevention is being held up as an example. Canada is considered a leader in the international community for having managed to take a balanced approach to crime reduction.

Everything seems to indicate that the government has succeeded in promoting a proactive and long-term approach to crime prevention through social development. Knowing that this approach is progressive, which we suppose goes without saying, in the context of efforts being made to eliminate the individual social and economic factors that lead some people to commit crimes and others to be victimized by crime, how do these results really describe what is happening in our communities?

What is happening at the local level and what are the various projects achieving?

Right here, in Ottawa, the review of a community-based life skills program for children 6 to 12 years old who are living in social housing for the very needy showed that the number of calls to the police and the number of charges laid by the police has dropped by 50%. The program has also helped to improve the social behaviour of the participants and to increase their overall school success rate.

In the Northwest Territories, a cultural learning project outside the community which helps young aboriginals 6 to 12 years old to learn social skills is already yielding great results; the attendance rate has increased, the number of cases opened by the RCMP has decreased, and the relationship between RCMP officers and young aboriginals has improved.

These projects were developed to try and solve local problems, but, after reviewing them, the national strategy will try to duplicate them to guide the efforts being made in other communities throughout Canada facing the same issues. The blunt fact is that no community is totally immune from the problems these projects are trying to address.

Look at the problem with intimidation and violence in schools. I find it hard to accept that many places in Canada have not given this issue serious consideration. Whether they are students, parents or teachers, Canadians are worried about the violence and fights in classrooms and schoolyards.

In Whitby, Ontario, the national strategy supported the Durham District School Board in its “Together We Light the Way“ project. This local school intervention project was designed to help children, teachers and parents to respect their peers, their role-models and more importantly, to respect themselves. The project was launched as a pilot project in 1998 and its success has been remarkable. In one school, the number of fights decreased by more than 40%. In another institution, the project worked so well that not one case of intimidation was reported for several months in a row.

Even the students recognized the success of the program. They openly talked about controlling their emotions, increased security in the hallways and schoolyards, about learning respect for others and the importance of succeeding at school.

Of the hundred or so projects funded by the national strategy to deal with intimidation, this one will be used in schools in Nova Scotia and Manitoba.

Intimidation, which is a precursor to delinquency, should no longer be considered a normal phase of growth. The national strategy helps communities and schools together with students, parents, teachers and others, to focus on community initiatives to combat intimidation.

We are delighted with and encouraged by the results so far.

I have many more examples, but I see that my time has run out. I would like to conclude by saying that all this was made possible by the help from the National Crime Prevention Strategy.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Chair, I am delighted to see so many people tonight to listen to us. This debate must be very popular. I have several questions, but I will unfortunately have to proceed quickly. There are so many points I would like to raise.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

There are 20 minutes left.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC

The Justice minister says we still have 20 minutes, but that is not enough. There are so many things I wanted to talk about.

Here is my first question. In part III of the main estimates for 2003-04, the Report on Plans and Priorities, we can read on page 22, under the heading “Legal Aid Program”, and I quote:

The governmnent has annouced in the recent Budget that it would increase its funding support for legal aid to the provinces and territories.

Yet, in the table right above this quotation, we can see that the planned spending for 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 remains stable at $126.4 million. Therefore, how it is possible to explain that in the last Speech from the Throne, it was said that the government would increase its financial support and that for the next three fiscal years, the numbers remain unchanged, that is, there is a reduction given that this is not in constant dollars?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 p.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Mr. Chair, I appreciate our colleague's question. As he knows, legal aid is an important issue which is directly linked to the justice system as a whole as well as to access to justice.

As soon as I became Justice Minister, I had the opportunity to discuss this with my colleagues during federal-provincial meetings. As we know, there are some well-known difficulties in the legal aid system in all provinces.

Over the last two years, our main budget for transfers to provinces in terms of legal aid was $82 million. Because of specific requests or demands, we increased our contribution by $20 million over the last two years, therefore increasing the total government contribution to $102 million.

Since legal aid does not come under our jurisdiction, although the Canadian government does play a role in crime-related legal aid, we have agreed with all the provinces, during the discussions we had, to join forces in order to renew the legal aid system, and to share our different ways of doing things and our best practices.

I also told all my colleagues that we would obtain additional budgets to increase our participation in legal aid. As I said earlier tonight, the basic amount for our contribution to legal aid is $82 million. In the last budget, an additional amount of $89 million was provided over a two-year period, increasing our annual contribution to $126.4 million over the next two years.