Debates of May 27th, 2003

Income Tax Act

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to explain what happened in this whole situation. Of course, the government has been taking and continues to take this issue seriously.

Since the SARS outbreak began over a month ago, Health Canada has worked tirelessly and cooperatively with front line health care workers, provincial authorities and key stakeholders in an effort to control and contain SARS, which is not necessarily an easy task.

Beginning on March 15, Health Canada's Emergency Operations Centre has been a crucial point of coordination between Health Canada and players globally, nationally and locally.

The minister and officials at Health Canada began working with the World Health Organization as soon as SARS was identified and have stayed in very close contact every since.

On March 18, to assist airport staff to identify ill travellers, Health Canada sent officials to Vancouver International and Pearson Airports and on April 1, the department stepped up its efforts regarding the travelling public by providing information for departing passengers, people in flight as well as arriving passengers. By May 8, special equipment was being tested in Toronto's Pearson Airport to ensure we are identifying as many ways as possible to stop the spread by travellers.

Soon after hearing about the first case of SARS in Canada, Health Canada deployed six infectious disease and epidemiological experts to assist Toronto's public health unit and the Ontario Ministry of Health with the investigation of SARS cases. An additional eight experts were sent to Toronto during the week of April 1. An outbreak investigation team in Ottawa is in constant contact with the Toronto team.

As you know, managing a disease outbreak that is national in scope calls for national guidelines and Health Canada provided this expertise and advice to ensure that all parts of the country were equally protected and benefiting from the experiences of other countries and other parts of Canada. Health Canada developed, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, guidelines for infection control and for public health control measures in a variety of settings.

Health Canada has worked diligently with its partners, other government departments, federal, provincial, and territorial partners, the Centre for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.

Health Canada's National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg has worked tirelessly to find the cause of SARS as well as a diagnostic test. Our research to do this is taking place in collaboration with labs throughout the world.

Health Canada established a toll-free, public information line where callers can receive information on SARS and talk with health professionals.

In early April, the WHO said “Canada is doing an exemplary job and much of what has been going on in Canada, including the system of notifying airline passengers and of screening airline passengers, has been shared with other countries as an example of best practices”.

Let me repeat that, from the very beginning, Health Canada officials have worked around the clock with their provincial, territorial and international partners to investigate the cases, to reduce further transmission and to find the cause.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this simply is an indication of how unprepared the government was for SARS and how it has not even learned from its past mistakes. A couple of weeks ago during that debate in the House, the question was put directly to the minister. The government is still not prepared to deal with any future outbreaks. It has not learned anything from its past mistakes.

One of the things we have suggested is that we should have a centre for disease control, similar to the one in the United States of America. In fact, some of the U.S. officials are up here helping us deal with it and have found that the Government of Canada, in terms of emergency preparedness for situations like this, has dedicated less money to it for the next three years than what it would otherwise have dedicated to it. It is trying to do more with less but again it has no plan for the future--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us find out just how much and for how much less. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that the minister asked the Dean of Medicine at the University of Toronto to chair the committee to draw lessons from our experience that was unfamiliar to many, to see how we could improve our approach. I should add that there was communication with the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta to learn from their experience and to see how we could improve our situation here in Canada.

Pretending that nothing is wrong is not realistic and it is my pleasure to share this with the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed withdrawn. The House will now go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering votes under justice in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004. I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Justice in the main estimates, Mr. Kilger in the chair)

Supply

[The Chair]

Order, please. House in committee of the whole on all votes under Justice in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.

I would like to make a brief statement before we begin this evening's proceedings. Earlier, slightly late this afternoon, a motion was put and agreed to by unanimous consent and I wish to share it with those who are here this evening participating. It is somewhat different than the regulations by which we were guided in the last debate of this nature a few weeks ago on the subject of Health. It is an exact duplicate of what the orders of business were on June 4, 2002. Let me share this with you in case some of us have not had an opportunity to be made aware of this agreement made earlier, as I say, less than two hours ago.

The motion reads:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, when the House is in Committee of the Whole later today pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), time be allotted to the recognized parties in the House in periods of 20 minutes as follows:

(a) the first period to the Liberal Party, the second, to the Canadian Alliance, the third, to the Bloc Quebecois, the fourth, to the Progressive Conservative Party, and the fifth, to the New Democratic Party, and subsequent periods shall be allocated to the parties in proportion to their representation in the House; and

(b) within each 20-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the minister's answer does not exceed the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

This is what the Chair will be guided by this evening. Again, as a matter of information, just a very short period ago I received correspondence from our Speaker on the subject of the rotation for these proceedings. The matter has been referred to the modernization committee, which I chair, but for this evening I have laid out for you what the procedure will be.

Without any further ado, let me proceed to the first round which is allocated to the governing party. I look to the hon. Minister of Justice.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, this is the second time that I have the opportunity to present the estimates for the Department of Justice. I must say that I still find this quite an interesting exercise. Every time, colleagues and members of Parliament have had some constructive input to offer.

I am pleased to present the spending estimates of the Department of Justice Canada to the House.

As I just said, this is the second time I appear before you to deal with the estimates. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight our current priorities and to discuss the latest achievements of the Department of Justice. I would also like to go over some of the challenges we are facing.

First, as we have seen today, one of the priorities of my department is the reform of the cannabis legislation, which I have tabled as the cannabis reform bill.

I want to be clear from the beginning that we are not legalizing marijuana and I have no plans to do so. Marijuana remains a controlled substance and offenders will continue to be punished by law.

What we are changing is the way we prosecute certain offences of possession through the use of alternative penalties.

The bill I introduced earlier today amends the legal provisions with respect to the possession of small amounts of marihuana, which will become a ticketing offence instead of leading to criminal prosecutions.

While introducing these new legal provisions, the Government of Canada will continue to proactively implement its renewed drug strategy to discourage young people from using drugs and to go after traffickers in order to reduce both the demand and supply for illegal drugs.

Through the renewed Canada's Drug Strategy, we will review the legislation to take into consideration the modern viewpoints of Canadians. The strategy seeks to ensure that the provisions concerning possession offences are more consistently enforced and that the penalties fit the seriousness of the crime.

In order to promote health, the use of marihuana must be discouraged and cannabis possession will remain illegal in Canada. However, the new measures reflect the opinion of the majority of Canadians who no longer accept the permanent stigma of a criminal record or a prison sentence that the people found guilty of possessing small amounts of cannabis have to bear.

The debate over modernizing our marijuana laws has been on and off the public agenda for three decades now. The time has come to act. We need strong, enforceable laws that make sense for Canadians and make sense internationally, laws that will send a strong message to our young people, a message saying that marijuana is harmful and will remain illegal.

This reform will address the current lack of consistency in the enforcement of cannabis possession offences across the country and ensure that enforcement resources are focused on where they are most needed by allowing police to enforce the law, but without the complications of going before the courts for minor offences.

The decision to reform the law was not taken lightly. It came as the result of an enormous amount of research, consultation and debate. Cannabis consumption is a complex issue and is first and foremost a health matter. However, one thing is clear, the time has come for us to reform our laws in this area.

The House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs recommended that cannabis be decriminalized. The Senate special committee on illegal drugs recommended that the production and sale of cannabis be legalized.

Recent polling indicates that a majority of Canadians believe that convictions for possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use should not result in criminal penalties.

Again I want to be clear that the government has no plans to legalize the possession of this drug but clearly the current laws do not serve the public good.

However, the commercial growing of marijuana is no doubt a serious indictable offence that has serious and negative consequences on society. Commercial growers generate huge profits for criminal organizations and other stakeholders in this trade.

These growers are everywhere in cities and in houses rented in the suburbs, among other places, and often the owners are not aware of these illegal activities.

Marijuana growers resort to water and electricity meter jumping, which means they rob public utilities and pose a serious threat of fire.

Several law enforcement agencies have found very sophisticated traps designed to endanger the lives of competitors, police officers and firefighters. We must obviously protect the lives of women and men who represent our first line of defence.

I believe that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which was recently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, will effectively serve as a deterrent. Indeed, it would amend section 247 of the Criminal Code regarding the placing of traps that are likely to cause death. The amendment would provide that, if a trap is used for the purpose of committing another indictable offence, the term of imprisonment would go from five to ten years.

If bodily harm is caused to a person, the term of imprisonment would be 14 years and, if the person dies, the maximum penalty would be life imprisonment, whether the place was used for the purpose of committing an indictable offence or not.

Bill C-32 would also ensure that our laws keep pace with the rapid evolution of the Internet. The amendments in the bill would allow citizens and businesses to take reasonable steps to protect their computer systems and the valuable information that they contain against computer hackers and sly electronic communications that might contain viruses.

The amendments to the Divorce Act contained in Bill C-22 address a top priority of Canadians, ensuring that the best interests of the child remain paramount in decisions made following their parent's divorce or separation. I understand that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights expects to resume hearings on C-22 shortly.

Canadians have already stated clearly that changes to the law are not enough. Improvements must also be made to services, such as mediation and education. Canadians have also demanded a simpler, more efficient court system to accommodate the needs of parents and families struggling with separation and divorce.

In December we responded by proposing the child centre family justice strategy. Together with the provinces, territories and non-government organizations, we have embarked on an ambitious and multi-faceted program of change that includes increased funding for family justice services, expansion of successful initiatives, such as unified family courts, and legislative amendments, such as Bill C-22.

The Department of Justice will make substantial investments in this strategy. In December I announced $163 million over five years to modernize the family justice system in Canada.

Now, another very important issue raised by Bill C-20.

This bill deals with the protection of children and other vulnerable persons. Protecting children is obviously a high priority for Canadians, and the government is listening to them.

Bill C-20, which was introduced recently, provides better protection for children against all forms of exploitation. It reflects the broad consultations and close cooperation with the provinces, the territories, non-governmental organizations and the general public.

The proposed reforms are designed to give children better protection against all forms of exploitation, including sexual abuse and child pornography, and to meet the needs of children and other vulnerable persons, such as victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, more effectively.

Canada's criminal laws against sexual abuse of children, including child pornography, are among the strictest in the world. Bill C-20 will go even further in strengthening our prohibitions with regard to child pornography. It also proposes creating a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation for those who are between 14 and 18, which will require the courts to examine the nature and the circumstances of the relationship, including the age difference.

Another purpose of Bill C-20 is to make it easier for young victims and witnesses to testify. It proposes to strengthen their ability to provide a clear, complete and accurate description of the events while ensuring that the rights of the accused will be protected and respected.

Another topic that I would like to talk about concerns the protection of Canada's capital markets. I believe that improving the fairness of our system extends well beyond matters of liability and into our capital market. Recent scandals involving corporate malfeasance in the United States have spurred officials in my department to review Canadian laws. I hope to table a bill on this matter in the very near future.

My department will be investing resources and playing a significant role in the integrated enforcement teams that will be investigating and prosecuting the most serious corporate frauds and market illegalities. Justice officials will partner with their peers in finance, industry and the office of the Solicitor General in this coordinated approach.

The other important topic I would like to talk about now is the criminal liability of corporations. Improving fairness in our justice system is indeed an ongoing priority.

The Department of Justice has been working very hard to draft new legislative provisions on corporate criminal liability taking into account the recommendations made by the many commissions and studies on the Westray mine disaster. A series of amendments to the Criminal Code would make business executives more responsible for the safety of their employees.

Another important topic I would like to raise here is access to justice; as we have said, this has been an ongoing priority of my department, which wants to ensure that Canadians, no matter where they live, can use the official language of their choice in all their dealings with federal legislation. This is the whole issue of official languages.

We have made great strides in that respect, working closely with our governmental and non-governmental partners in the provinces and territories, and I am confident we can still improve access to justice in both official languages.

Under the government's action plan on official languages, my department will invest $27 million over the next five years to meet its obligations under the Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act and the Federal Court's decision on the Contraventions Act.

Another $18.5 million will also be invested in a fund in support of access to justice in both official languages. Together, these initiatives represent a $45.5 million investment in the area of access to justice in both official languages.

Legal aid is another significant component of the access to justice. The government is strongly committed to ensuring that economically disadvantaged Canadians have equitable access to criminal legal aid. I am pleased to report significant progress on initiating criminal legal aid renewal.

The recent federal budget announced increases to the criminal legal aid base fund and committed additional funds for innovative programs developed and implemented by the provinces and territories. Federal funding for criminal legal aid will increase by $89 million in the new criminal legal aid agreement. Of this amount, $83 million will go directly to the provinces and territories.

Over the next three years the government will invest $379.2 million in legal aid. These funds will help ensure that economically disadvantaged Canadians have access to justice.

Now let me deal with another important topic, crime prevention. To work effectively, our justice system must be relevant to all Canadians. It must be directly connected to and be an integral and familiar part of every community.

I am convinced that a relevant system must help citizens recommend, develop and implement effective solutions to community problems. Even though such solutions may go beyond the regular limits of case law, often they are powerful engines of social change.

The national crime prevention strategy has proven to be especially successful at improving the relevance of Canada's justice system. This strategy involves providing financial support for innovative local projects that reduce crime and victimization, and target issues of local concern.

For example, in Surrey, British Columbia, a literacy project would enable disadvantaged Canadians to acquire new skills and jobs. In Fort McPherson, a summer camp program would help instill a new sense of pride in young people at risk. In Ontario, a partnership project with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police would help combat auto theft by educating youth about the negative consequences of that act.

These projects are just a few current examples of our collaborative approach to crime prevention, an approach that has succeeded in enlisting an increasing number of Canadians in the fight against crime. These projects also establish vital links between Canadians and their system of justice. I am pleased to say that over the next three years the national crime prevention strategy will invest $225 million to make our communities safer.

In conclusion, while I am pleased with the accomplishments of my department, I recognize that much work remains to be done to create a system that is fair, accessible and relevant to all. We must broaden our collaboration with the provinces, territories, and with individual Canadians to improve our justice system, prevent crime, and reduce the effect of victimization.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, we too are concerned about a fair and accessible justice system.

This morning in committee we dealt with Bill C-32. I was amazed that in Bill C-32 where a probation order expires and restitution has been ordered, a victim is told that he must get a civil order to enforce restitution ordered by a criminal court. Under our law the criminal court loses jurisdiction over the enforcement of its own order. Therefore, if there is a six month probation period and restitution has been asked to be paid within three months, if that is not paid and the Crown does not proceed within that period of time all the victim has is the right to go to a civil order.

If we could imagine an elderly woman in North Winnipeg who has a restitution order against a street gang member and she receives a judgment in her name against a street gang member, what are the odds of that poor woman in terms of not just enforcing that order but indeed in protecting her safety?

Why does the minister think victims should be left out on their own instead of receiving the protection of the criminal courts?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, essentially what the member is referring to is a bill that we are very proud of, Bill C-32. I referred to that bill in my opening remarks. The bill deals with deadly traps and the use of traps by criminal organizations and within the place where they commit crimes as well. We believe that it was important to proceed with the renewal of the legislation on that side, change the sentencing, and create some offences as well.

With regard to the matter that the member just referred to, that would happen essentially when, for example, conditional sentencing that has been fixed by the court has expired. That is what is in the bill.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, that then begs a question. That is what we find in the bill. We find a provision that does not help victims. I am asking the minister to look at the bill. Can we not say that if a restitution order is unpaid, regardless of the probation period or the conditions expiring, the courts could have criminal jurisdiction, so that it is the court and the police that then go enforce the restitution order on behalf of the victim?

Why should we make criminal justice difficult on the victim? Why can we not assist the victim through the criminal court in the effective way it used to be? This is a new process that has changed in the last seven or eight years, brought under a Liberal administration that has left victims out to hang by themselves.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, the member should read Bill C-32. It is clear to me that the situation that he is referring to is when the court has no more jurisdiction on a case. A victim could then take that judgment and refer it to a civil court without going through any further process. That has been asked for by the victims and has been made available for the victims. In other words, we are not talking about a status quo here. We are talking about improving the system.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, I do not think the minister gets it. This victim now gets a judgment in his or her name.

Imagine that I am a little old man in north Winnipeg. A street gang has broken my fence. A police officer has caught them. I get a restitution order for $200 or $300. The gang members are put on probation for six months. The expiry of the probation order occurs. The restitution has not been paid. I now get a judgment in my name. The gang members get a copy of the judgment in my name. Does the minister not think that when I get paid a friendly visit by my local street gang members, I am going to say “Look, I do not want to proceed any further”? That is exactly what is going to happen.

The criminal courts and the police should be there to protect. Why do we not simply allow the criminal courts to enforce the judgment they way it used to be prior to 1995, so that the victims do not have to be in the courts to advance their interests? The police and the criminal courts should say that this is an order of the court and it must be respected. The obligation is to the court, not to the individual victim to be collecting that bill.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do not know what the member is talking about. My understanding of the situation is that we are talking about additional tools. This tool has been asked for by victims groups. As long as the criminal courts have jurisdiction, they are in a position to enforce the judgment. If they lose jurisdiction, then the judgment would be used in order to enforce it in civil court without going through the court process.

For example, if at the time that the criminal court has jurisdiction and the person on the other side does not have money to meet the judgment, then the victim has a judgment that is good for a long period of time. It can be enforced in the civil court without going through the court system.

This has been asked for by victims' groups. We are not talking about the status quo. We are talking about an effective tool that should be seen as adding onto the existing system.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, I will tell you how it could be an effective tool. There is a six month probation order. The order expires and the restitution has not been paid. The victim goes to the police and tells them the restitution has not been paid. The police officer lays a breach of probation. It goes back to the sentencing judge and the sentencing judge says, “Look, we gave you a period of time to pay and you have not paid. Come up with an excuse”. Instead, this minister wants to give them a hollow civil judgment that does nothing for the victim, so I want the minister to consider that.

I want to move on to the other issue and that is the issue of traps for our firefighters. We know that our firefighters and other emergency personnel, including police officers, are subjected to traps. When they go into grow ops there are shotguns and crossbows rigged to go off. The minister says, “We want to send out a strong message that this is not a good thing”.

Well, we all agree it is not a good thing, but what does the minister do in typical Liberal fashion? He proposes increasing the maximum sentences. He knows that the courts do not follow those maximum sentences. The courts will continue to go on imposing whatever sentence they want to impose. If the minister really wants to protect our firefighters and our emergency personnel, he should mandate minimum prison sentences. For someone who sets a trap, we do not raise the maximum penalty to 14 years and see the courts still giving a suspended sentence. What we do is we say that if someone puts a trap into place the minimum sentence is two or three years.

If the minister cares about our firefighters and cares about our emergency personnel, he should put some teeth into the law. The minister knows that the courts will not respond. This is nothing but window dressing for political purposes. He should put real teeth into the law and put mandatory prison sentences into place. Why will the minister not do that?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, obviously the member is referring to the question of the mandatory minimum sentencing. We know very well what the situation is here in Canada and the view that we have taken in the past. We tend not to use that notion of mandatory minimum sentencing. What we prefer to do is fix a maximum and give the courts the discretion to decide based on the facts of each and every case, depending on each and every circumstance as well. We do believe that the Criminal Code, the overall legislation we have in place, has proven in the past to work very well.

Having said that, instead of trying to change the old notion or the old philosophy that we put in place here in terms of dealing with criminal law, the member should recognize what we did in that piece of legislation. It was something that was requested by many professional organizations across Canada. We have changed the penalties in terms of the use of traps. We have created new offences as well. Of course when a trap causes death, we are talking about a life sentence. It is a major step.

The question of traps is exactly in line with the policy that the Solicitor General and I have tabled today in order to be tougher on that side, tougher against organized crime and with those involved in marijuana grow ops. If the hon. member has read the bill that we have tabled today, he will see that there are some aggravating circumstances that could be used, of which we can make a demonstration.

Essentially the bill and the policy we have tabled today go in the very same direction and that direction is to be tougher on crime.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, the minister has said that he wants to see tougher measures on crime but he discounts the idea of mandatory prison sentences, which is not an unknown concept in our law. If we look at the murder sections, for example, there is a minimum sentence before someone is eligible for parole. In second degree murder it is 10 years and in first degree murder it is 25 years, so we have mandatory prison sentences imposed in our Criminal Code.

We have the same thing in our firearms sections. If someone uses a firearm in the course of a robbery there is a mandatory prison sentence, because the message we want to send out to the criminals who use firearms in that fashion is that they go to prison if they use a firearm in the course of a robbery.

But for our firefighters who in the course of their jobs go out to protect our lives and go into a trap, get an arrow through their chest or a shotgun blast to the head, what is the answer? The answer is, “We do not want to do mandatory prison sentences”.

Yes, victims have asked for these kinds of laws, but they want effective laws and effective sentences. An effective sentence is a mandatory prison sentence that sends a message to criminals and to judges that anyone committing that type of crime will go to prison. Why does the minister not want to protect our firefighters and emergency personnel with the same kind of protection that a 7-Eleven clerk gets when somebody goes into the 7-Eleven with a shotgun and robs the place? There is a mandatory minimum sentence. Why is the same thing not here if he cares about firefighters and police officers?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, one must take into consideration that Bill C-32 has been developed with professional organizations. One he is referring to is the firefighters. We have been in discussions with those organizations. As a matter of fact, on the day we tabled Bill C-32 I was standing here in the lobby and talking to the media with a representative of the firefighters. They recognize that this bill is a very important component and will help them do their work.

When we are talking about the provisions or the penalty scheme that we have put in place, I would ask that we just have a look at exactly what we are doing with Bill C-32.

Let us start. Anyone who sets a trap or allows one to remain in a place could face imprisonment for a maximum of five years. If a person is injured it is a maximum of 10 years. If anyone sets a trap in a place used for a criminal purpose or allows one to remain in such a place, it would be a maximum of 10 years. If a trap that is set or left in a place used for criminal purpose causes injury to a person, it would be a maximum of 14 years. If a trap causes death to a person, it would be a maximum of life imprisonment.

This is a very nice piece of legislation. The government is very proud of what it is doing in Bill C-32. As I said, it is going exactly in the very same direction as the policy we tabled today, which is to be tougher on crime.

But we know what those members would like to do. We are living in our Canadian society with our Canadian values, but on the other side of the House they essentially would like to put in place a legal system that would not give the court system or justices across the country any room to manoeuvre. I believe we have a very good court system. We have very good judges and I would like to give them occasion to decide based on the case, based on the circumstances of each and every case before them.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, it is no surprise, then, that two-thirds of Canadians think our judicial system is influenced by politics and they have lost faith in it. It was two-thirds in a recent poll.

On the maximum sentences the minister has pointed out in this context, presently we have maximum sentences for manslaughter as well. We have life imprisonment as a maximum. Yet we see courts consistently giving conditional sentences, house arrest, for manslaughter. People who kill children get house arrest. If we want to send out a message, let us make sure that the criminals hear the message and that judges realize this Parliament takes that crime seriously.

I agree that the bill is going in the right direction in recognizing this particular offence, but we can do better. If the minister asked the firefighters and the emergency personnel if they had a choice between raising the maximums to 14 years without a minimum and raising the maximums as well as putting in appropriate minimum prison sentences, is he suggesting that the volunteer sector, the emergency personnel sector and the firefighters would reject that? Is that what he is saying? That is simply not correct from what I know of what the firefighters and emergency personnel and police officers have been telling me.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, let us have a look at the two points that have been raised. The first point is the question of what we call the mandatory minimum sentencing. Essentially that has been used on a large scale in other jurisdictions in other countries. What we see now is that there are studies going on demonstrating that maybe it is not the best system to put in place.

As I said, I believe we have a fantastic court system here in Canada. We have very good judges as well. They have a good reputation and are highly respected not only here but all over the world. What I said was that it is important to give them the chance to proceed with a full assessment of the situation in order to impose the penalties based on the circumstances and the facts of the case they have before them.

The other point the member has alluded to is essentially the notion of conditional sentencing. It is something that actually has been working for more than four years. The member knows very well, because he is a member of the committee, that it is under review by the justice committee.

It has been used by the courts and it is used when an offender is deemed not to pose a risk to the public. Of course, if it has been used it is because the courts find it an interesting way to deal with offenders who do not represent a risk to the public. Having said that, let me say that we are reviewing the situation at this point in time and I am waiting to see the report that will come out of the justice committee.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will start with an issue that the minister did not mention even though it was there in the first session of the 37th Parliament and again in the second session, and I am talking about Bill C-10B on cruelty to animals.

When we started looking at this issue, the goal was to impose stiffer penalties; of course, the Bloc Quebecois agreed that something had to be done to protect animals against cruelty. These provisions were to be removed from where they are in the Criminal Code and included in a new part V.1.

However, there is a problem with the new part. The government has forgotten to explicitly include the defences provided for the animal industry, including researchers and all those who deal with animals, like hunters, ranchers, farmers, those who are there to protect animals from cruelty. These people came to testify that it was indeed necessary to impose stiffer penalties and to enforce legislative provisions with regard to cruelty to animals, but that the animal industry should not be jeopardized by these efforts.

During the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we brought forward an amendment to stand by those who act in a responsible manner and want to protect the animals, just like the Bloc Quebecois, without hurting the animal industry. We asked that all the defences provided for in section 429 be made explicitly available. We were told that these rights are protected, that the farmers, the researchers and all the animal industry were implicitly protected.

Strangely enough, when we asked for these defences to be explicitly included, we were referred to section 8 providing for the rights based on the common law. We were told that this provision allowed defences implicitly. But they did listen to my request. Section 8 is explicit,and yet, the defences allowed under section 8 are implicit.

I want to ask this of the minister. It would not take away anything if you do not want to hurt the animal industry. Why not include the defences laid out in section 429, which were part, of course, of the property provisions, in the new part V.1?

Those who seek to protect animals have even told us, “We are willing to go along with this. We do not want to hurt those in the animal industry who meet the standards and do everything right. Why not include this explicitly?” That is my question to the minister.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my hon. colleague's remarks in reference to an important bill that aims to modernize legislation that has not been updated in a very long time.

First, what is important is that the legitimate trade practices in existence today—and I think everyone agrees here—are not affected and will be not harmed by the bill.

My hon. colleague talked, essentially, about something called a common law defence, found in section 8. This section applies essentially to this case. To come back and repeat what section 8 says would be, at the very least, redundant.

That being said, I would just like to mention something else. In a bill there are certain concepts of law. It is important when looking at a bill to keep in mind the case law. We explained the test to be applied to cases dealing with cruelty to animals. That case, which my colleague must be very familiar with, was the Quebec court of appeal case of Regina v. Ménard. The decision was rendered by Mr. Justice Lamer. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to review the court's analysis.

Mr. Justice Lamer stated that any suffering inflicted needlessly was prohibited. He expressly rejected the notion that the pain inflicted be substantial. He also clearly stated that assessing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury involved two steps.That is the critical test,

First the lawfulness of the purpose for which the pain was inflicted must be examined. If the purpose is illegal, the inquiry ends there. On the other hand, if the purpose is legitimate, there is a second issue to examine, namely whether or not the means used to achieve the purpose are reasonable under the circumstances including the purpose itself, social priorities and available means.

I believe that is a very telling test that offers maximum protection against what the member has just mentioned.

That being said, I would just like to say in conclusion that the bill is now in the other place. It is not yet back in the House of Commons, but we expect that there will be some amendments. That is what I have been given to understand.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do not know what amendments the Senate will want to propose. However, we find it deplorable that the minister tells us that everything is based on section 8, on the common law defence and that it would be redundant to put in explicit defences.

I find this difficult to understand and I will tell the House why. If defences, which are already set out in section 429, under property, were redundant, why did the legislator already set them out in section 429? The reason is that there are great differences. They are not there for nothing and they are not redundant.

By agreeing with the amendments that we proposed, by explicitly putting in these defences, the government would probably get the unanimous consent of the House to pass the bill. How can it be said that it is redundant? This was already set out in section 429, under property. As the saying goes:

You cannot be too careful.

All this is intended to reassure the animal industry, researchers, hunters, and breeders. Imagine. That is a lot of people. They came—as I remember since I was on the Justice Committee— one after the other to testify and to let us know that they were in favour of protecting animals from cruelty, as we in the Bloc Quebecois are.

As for what you have said about Regina v. Ménard, it is obvious that everything is based on the fact that there are two criteria for assessing legitimacy, according to industry standards. We must go beyond that, however, because this is a structural change. A new section has been created. I would like to hear from the minister's own mouth that the purpose is not to hurt the animal industry but to protect animals from cruelty.

Why not subscribe to the old adage You cannot be too careful ? It is wrong to say that this is redundant. It is already in one section, and by adding it to section 5.1 the entire animal industry will be reassured and at the same time you will have the support of the Bloc Quebecois on a bill such as this, since you will have retained the amendment relating to animal cruelty.

I think that it would be sending out a good signal to all Canadians and Quebeckers if we were to say that animals must be respected, that there must be no cruelty toward them. If the bill is accepted by all political parties, both opposition and government, I cannot see where there is any redundancy.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, first, the bill is presently in the Senate. I have no control over the other House. All I can do right now is anticipate amendments.

However, I can certainly say, as Minister of Justice, that before going ahead with certain amendments, we must be extremely careful not to change the tests provided in the bill which, as my colleague mentioned, are aimed at protecting the legitimate industry while protecting the animals also, since that is the purpose of this bill.

That being said, my colleague just said, You cannot be too careful. You know, I am always very reluctant to be redundant in drafting legislation. When you take the time to repeat an existing provision in a bill, the courts will immediately wonder what the legislator meant by that. Was it done to change the way this provision was interpreted in the past or was it done to add a totally different kind of protection?

In any bill, we must be careful when deciding to make changes.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will change the subject. As you know, this was provided for under section 429. I am finding it difficult to follow the minister's logic on this.

Let us now look at a critically important issue in this place for more than seven years. I am talking about the amendment of the Young Offenders Act.

The Court of Appeal has rendered an opinion concerning the new Bill C-7 concerning young offenders and the legislation that has come into force. The problem was raised by the Court of Appeal, but the Bloc Quebecois has been doing so for years. All we were asking for was the opportunity to opt out with compensation.

The government did not appeal the opinion of the Court of Appeal of Quebec. All our young people can thank it for that. The problem is in applying such a complex piece of legislation. We must not forget that the ultimate goal of Bill C-7, with its two unconstitutional provisions, is to do exactly what Quebec is doing and does best: rehabilitation and reintegration of our youth.

What I am telling the minister is, with nearly $1 billion earmarked for the implementation of a very complex piece of legislation, the Young Offenders Act being properly enforced and Quebec's success with reintegration, imagine what could be achieved with the $1 billion that will have to go to other things.

In Quebec, we could ask to keep going as we are. The other provinces will eventually catch up to Quebec in this regard. What we have is working well. What your new bill is seeking to do, we are already doing under the old act. Of this $1 billion, 25% , or $250 million, will go to Quebec; this money will be directed to our young people, to achieve what other provinces are hoping to achieve. They can implement it, but why not allow Quebec to opt out and give it the necessary funding to rehabilitate our youth?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, first, concerning not Bill C-7 but the new legislation, there has been a lot of discussion. As my colleague just pointed out, it is based mostly on the Quebec legislation which puts a lot of emphasis on social reintegration. It was felt that young offenders deserved another chance, and we support those principles.

Of course, there is a substantial difference in the fact that we, on this side of the House, believe that the penalties must fit the seriousness of the crime. That is not necessarily what has happened in the past in Quebec. So, the penalties now fit the seriousness of the crime.

Having said that, I want to point out that, when the issue was referred by the Quebec government to the Quebec Appeal Court, some points were raised. The first one had to do with jurisdiction. The constitutionality of some of the provisions laid out in the bill was also addressed.

I am content. We have not appealed this decision because, essentially, it is easy to see that the decision confirms clearly, cleanly and precisely the Canadian government's jurisdiction in this area.

Second, two sections, two elements of the law, were declared invalid. That is a question of presumption, presumption as to adult sentencing and presumption concerning the issue of publication. This presumption is now squarely on the shoulders of youth. We decided not to appeal because we believed that we could reach the same goals, that is the goals set by the legislators, without necessarily using these two presumptions.

That said, since our hon. friend referred to the funds allocated to implementation and enforcement, I should say that when the law was being drafted, there was always tremendous collaboration among the provincial, territorial and federal governments.

In order to ensure the smooth introduction of the reform and ensure that, together, we could test new ways of doing things and new practices, a fund was set up for the youth justice renewal initiative. I will just point out that from 1999 to 2002-03, this fund contained a little over $6 million that was available to the Government of Quebec, which was led at that time by the friends and colleagues of my hon. colleague, that is, the Parti Quebecois.

I would simply like to point out that the Government of Quebec never accepted any of this money. That $6 million was lost to organizations working at ground level, who could have used it to create all kinds of programs that would have helped Quebec youth. It is outrageous.