Debates of May 17th, 2007

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the question and I would not mind getting into a debate with him some day on the cuts that took place and on the that things we are doing. However, I hope everything that is being done is being done in the best interests of Canadian society. I trust it is, but I am not going there today. We are talking about Bill C-10.

All I am saying is that as part of the justice system, we must provide tools for our courts to allow them to move more toward penalties that Canadian society would expect for the kinds of crimes criminals commit. We will work on all kinds of aspects of preventing crime, and we should at every chance we get. The debates on the cuts will take place and they should take place.

When he compares us to the states, I have been in many of the penitentiaries in the states, visiting and finding out what is going on. They have some penitentiaries that are releasing inmates who are having no recidivism. They are run in a manner that we would not even consider in Canada because it seems to be too draconic.

Maybe our prison system needs to be looked at when we release them. What are we doing in the penitentiaries other than letting the inmates call the shots?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I followed the logic and the desire of my hon. colleague, the member for Wild Rose, to be simplistic, but it does not seem to follow in terms of crime.

His party has insisted on continuing a war on drugs when we know does not work. It just creates more crime, more criminals, more shootings and more trouble in the homes and the neighbourhoods of this nations. An enormous percentage of the population makes choices about what kinds of substances they indulge in and we make crimes against some of them. We make it criminal for some of those things, so we create crime.

Does the hon. member agree with me that we should look at our laws to see if they are working to reduce crime or to eliminate it? When we take those choices, then we can also look at how tough we can enforce the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Wild Rose has approximately 30 seconds for his reply.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds is a tough amount of time to answer a question like that.

I am pleased we are continuing to work on the war on drugs. I have attended at least seven funerals of students of mine who died because they were involved in drugs. It is an activity that needs to be stopped. I do not know how we stop it, but it has to be stopped. If a person starts saying that legalizing it makes it better, that is absolute nonsense. I will not even go there.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

There you go, you lose your simplistic argument.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I knew I would get a reaction like that from an NDP. After all, if we would legalize everything that is immoral or evil against society, then it would not be used. I guess that is what he is thinking.

I will use my last three seconds to defend the war on drugs, and I hope we become victorious in that one.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague from Wild Rose will listen to what I have to say to him because I want to start by pointing out that my intention is not to say that he is a simplistic member. I do not believe he is, for a number of reasons.

I have had the opportunity to see the member for Wild Rose at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and he is a reflection of many people in Canada: people are asking serious questions about crime and how to put a stop to it.

I would never dream of telling the member for Wild Rose for whom I have enormous respect, that he is a simplistic person and has simplistic solutions. We are dealing with the extremely complex problem of crime here. My colleague and I do not look at things the same way when it comes to fighting crime.

In the few minutes I am allotted, I will try to show that the way to fight crime is not to increase minimum sentences. I know that I will not show this to the satisfaction of the member for Wild Rose, but I hope that some in this House will understand.

I was a lawyer for 25 years. For the last 15 years, I worked exclusively in criminal law, as a criminal defence lawyer. I have seen virtually all the amendments that members have adopted in the House of Commons in the last 15 years, to amend the Criminal Code. Because I have been here only since 2004, I had nothing to do with the amendments to the Criminal Code made by this House. We criminal lawyers, however, worked with those major changes to the Criminal Code.

I want to point out to my colleague from Wild Rose and all his colleagues in the Conservative Party that from 1991 to 2000—I am not going back very far, and I have the same figures as my colleague has—crime dropped by nearly 26% in Canada. Crime has fallen and is still falling.

But even better, the number of violent crimes—homicide, attempted murder, assault, assault with a weapon, sexual assault, kidnapping and robbery—fell year over year between 1992 and 2004. In 1992, there were about 1084 violent crimes, the ones I have just listed, per 100,000 population in Canada. But in 2004 there were only 946. That is a drop of 13%.

Violent crime fell by 13%, but crime overall fell by 25%. Quebec and Canada are safe countries. These are good places to live. So where is the problem?

There is a fundamental principle, one that has been stated by the Supreme Court of Canada. I hope that the 308 members in this House respect that institution. The Supreme Court of Canada has said, and reiterated, that when sentence is to be passed, one of the essential factors is the individualization of sentences. What that means, in words that are easy to understand, is that when a person comes before the court, the judge must impose a sentence that fits the person standing before the judge. I know that, unfortunately, these are not words that the member from Wild Rose and a majority of the Conservative Party members want to hear. They should go and read the Supreme Court’s decisions. I am not the one who wrote them. Personally, I have enormous respect for the Supreme Court and what it has said, which I repeat: the sentence must be individualized and must fit the individual.

What that means is that when an individual receives a sentence, we must tell that person or make him or her understand that the crime is serious and that society condemns that crime. However, in the sentence that the judge is about to render, an important factor must be considered: the possible rehabilitation of the individual. On that point, once again, I address myself to the member for Wild Rose and his colleagues in the Conservative party. Following recent amendments, the court must take into account the impact of the crime on the victim. In English, that is known as an impact statement. The victims come into the court and give testimony to explain the impact of the crime on them.

I would say to the member for Wild Rose and his colleagues in the Conservative party that since this measure came into force less than 10% of victims come before the court. It is not because we do not want to hear them; it is because, very often, they do not want to have any more to do with the justice system. Why is that? There are a lot of questions to be asked.

In the Bloc Québécois, we think that introducing minimum prison sentences is not the way to solve the problem. The member for Wild Rose and his colleagues in the Conservative party should realize that perhaps the problem lies not at the entrance to the court or prison but at the exit. What we are saying is that an individual who receives a sentence must serve time in prison and, if he or she serves a prison sentence, that person should be eligible for parole. Could someone be paroled too quickly? That is a debate that we should have soon in this House. However, we will not solve this problem by tying the hands of judges with minimum sentences. That is false.

Once again, I address the member for Wild Rose. He was present at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when the former justice minister came to testify. We asked him questions. We asked him if there were studies; whether any investigations had shown that increasing minimum prison sentences had reduced crime. The answer is no. It is no.

Therefore, we cannot vote in favour of a bill that does not solve the problem. I will try to explain to the member for Wild Rose and his colleagues in the Conservative party what will happen if this bill is adopted. We will have an accused person, who initially faces a minimum prison sentence of five years, for example.

So on his lawyer’s advice, he will plead not guilty, choose trial by jury, and ask for a preliminary hearing in order to drag out the proceedings as long as possible. Then he will try to plea bargain.

I invite the hon. member for Wild Rose to come to some court houses with me, whether in Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. Anyone who has done any criminal law will tell him that plea bargaining goes on, and the Bar came and told us that Bill C-10 will only cause it to increase.

This means that people will come before the judge, talk to the crown attorney, and ask him to withdraw a charge in exchange for them not dragging out the proceedings forever. We have seen it on many occasions.

I believe that the hon. member for Wild Rose and several of his colleagues were present here in the House when the Supreme Court of Canada determined that a minimum sentence of seven years in prison for importing narcotics was cruel and unusual punishment. I did not make up the Charter. However, we have had a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982, and it is applied.

What I am trying to say, not only to the hon. member for Wild Rose but many of his colleagues as well, is that we are not getting at the root of the problem. Increasing minimum prison sentences will just jam the courts with legal procedures. We even have some figures. The hon. member for Wild Rose will agree with me on this because we saw figures in committee showing that we will have to spend nearly $22 million a year just to deal with the additional inmates in the prison system.

If they want to build prisons, they can build them, but that will not solve the crime problem. There are deep-seated reasons for crime. We do not want to get into this debate right now, but there are deep-seated reasons for delinquency and violence. I hope that the hon. member for Wild Rose and his colleagues are familiar with them. It is poverty. That much we know.

As I was studying this situation, a question occurred to me. If the hon. member Wild Rose is so much in favour of Bill C-10, why are crimes committed with hunting weapons not included? They are not in the bill. We have a problem, though, because 35% of the homicides in Canada are committed with hunting weapons. So little holes are starting to appear in this, and soon little holes become big holes.

This bill will not solve the problem. What I mean—and I want the hon. member for Wild Rose to be very aware of this—is that this bill tries to condemn people who walk around with revolvers shooting at anyone at all in the streets. On this point, I totally agree with him. We need to get rid of that. But what is going to happen? Instead of committing armed robbery with revolvers, people will do it now with a 12, 410, 22 or 303 calibre weapon.

This is what I have to say to the hon. member for Wild Rose. This aspect is not in the bill. I put the question to the minister. If the member for Wild Rose was at that committee meeting—like his colleagues, he did not miss many—he knows that I asked the minister. The minister replied that it was not necessary because it could lead to the imprisonment of aboriginal and Inuit people. How ridiculous. We have a problem here. We are in the process of creating a second justice system, and that is unacceptable.

I would add that there are three times more homicides in the United States than in Canada, and four times more than in Quebec. There is a real problem here. This bill does not solve the problem of violent crime. That is what I want the members opposite to understand.

The Bloc Québécois believes that it is perhaps the parole system that poses a problem. I leave it to the hon. member for Wild Rose to pass along this message, because he knows the Minister of Justice very well.

I would like to return to what the member for Wild Rose said in response to my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party. Perhaps judges must be given instructions. In my opinion—at least, I hope this will be the case—there will always be courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to review, study and analyze the appropriateness of a sentence, and to confirm if it was handed down in accordance with the sentencing rules governing the courts. That is what I would like the members opposite to understand, as well as those who are about to vote in favour of a bill that not only is incomplete and fails to solve the problem of violent crime, but will only exacerbate the existing backlogs in our court rooms. If this bill passes, there will be more backlogs. Criminal defence lawyers will make a pile of money. I can guarantee it.

What I find regrettable as well as that huge investments are also planned for the prisons. The hon. member for Wild Rose has visited a number of penitentiaries. I too have been inside on a number of occasions to visit clients, unfortunately. Penitentiaries are schools for crime. No one in this House can convince me otherwise. Programs need to be set up to provide help to people who want to take control of their lives.

Throughout my career, I asked my clients questions, as did others when they were inside. What I asked is whether they would have thought twice about committing such a crime, had they known there was a minimum three year jail time for it. They said no. When a person has made up his mind to commit a crime, he will do anything to make sure he does. We must stop holding on to this belief that crime will be reduced if prison time is increased. It is a false belief.

What we must do is to work as quickly as possible at solving the problems that are the causes. What must be done in particular is to start thinking seriously that there may be a problem at time of release. What I mean by that is that people may be getting out a bit too soon. On this point , I agree with the hon. member for Wild Rose, who shares that opinion and has often expressed it in committee. Inmates are getting out too soon. They get three years jail time and are out on the street in six months. That may be one part of the problem, but it is not going to be solved by tying the judges' hands and telling them they have to impose this or that minimum sentence. On the contrary.

Mr. Normandeau, a Université de Montréal criminologist who has examined most of the files at the Montreal Palais de Justice, reports that the result of having minimum penalties was that lawyers plea bargained to get their clients charged with offences not carrying a minimum sentence. So what will happen next?

It is not difficult to figure out. They will go to court and say to the crown attorney: “Withdraw this charge and I will plead guilty to a slightly more serious charge, armed robbery”. They will then be given a two-year sentence and the problem will be solved.

In closing, I invite the member for Wild Rose and his colleagues in the Conservative Party to think twice about a bill that does not solve the problem of crime. Probably the best thing to do is to admit that they made a mistake, withdraw the bill and to do what it takes to find other means of dealing with crime.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I should be honoured because I felt that the entire speech was dedicated to the member for Wild Rose. Although I appreciate the member's speech and his opinion, I could not disagree with him more. I am encouraged more than ever to support these kinds of legislation and I will continue to do so.

The member constantly insists, as do other members, that poverty is the major cause of crime and that if we did not have poverty there would be no crimes.

I would like to remind the member that in all the crime statistics from the dirty thirties, the poorest time on the North American continent, that was when crime was the lowest in the history of the North American continent.

I will not say that poverty does not contribute to crime because it probably does. However, on my tour throughout the country visiting all the penitentiaries, when I asked the inmates how they ended up in prison, I would say that close to 70% to 75% of the inmates said that it was because they drank alcohol and got drunk a lot. They said that if it had not been for booze they would not be there.

Most of the guards and the wardens agreed that our prisons would be quite empty if it were not for booze. Evidently booze is a major cause of crime. What does the member suggest we do about that?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say to the member for Wild Rosethat I respect his opinion. I respect what he said because he is talking about real, everyday life. He is a worldly man and I know that he has been in this House since 1993. He is experienced. However, we do not have the same perspective and I respect that.

Yet, I would say to the hon. member that the best sentence—and I can speak about this out of experience—is the one that our client accepts and that he is willing to serve. I know that what I am saying is difficult to accept.

This is what I mean. When we tell a client that he has committed a crime while under the influence of alcohol, we explain that the judge has no choice but to impose a sentence. Let us take, for example, impaired driving causing bodily harm. Until the accused recognizes that he has a problem with alcohol, there is nothing we can do. We could put him away for centuries, but that will not solve the problem. He must come to the realization that he has a problem, he must accept it and take steps to deal with it. Then, rehabilitation can begin.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for his speech. I have a few points to raise.

We, the Liberals, intend to vote against Bill C-10 at third reading stage because we are against the escalating minimum sentences as proposed by the government, with the support of the NDP.

The Bloc sat in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights throughout all the meetings for consideration at second reading stage, and the experts were all but unanimous that, generally speaking, minimum sentences are not effective. Nonetheless, under very specific circumstances, this could be acceptable, but escalating minimum sentences should never be implemented. Since 2003, some 25 U.S. states have experimented with this type of program and have cancelled it.

I am still rather stunned to see that the NDP, after hearing all these expert witnesses, has decided despite everything to form an alliance with the Conservatives—such a regressive party and government—and support this bill and the amendments the government reinstated at report stage. What does the hon. member think about that?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple answer. I can understand the Conservatives because this is part of their platform. I respect that. I am trying to get them to change their minds and to explain this to them. However, I cannot understand the NDP. The only explanation I can come up with is that they are quite simply playing politics. Often those who play politics do not ask too many questions. Nonetheless, I am utterly convinced that the NDP members will vote in favour of this bill even though they are fundamentally against it. I highly recommend to them that they call in sick and not come to the House because, with all due respect, I would have a hard time understanding the New Democrats thereafter.

I spoke to them. I did everything I could to make them understand that it does not make any sense to pass such a bill, unless they are getting ready to join the Conservative Party, which I doubt. Either that, or they are playing more politics. In a matter as important as fighting crime, we should avoid playing politics, which only serves a small group and will truly deny many people their rights.

That is all I can say. With all due respect to my NDP colleagues, I would invite them to reconsider their position. That being said, I understand the Conservatives. I tried to explain things to them at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights several times, but I did not succeed.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech, thankfully, because I have heard many members from his party speak to this issue, he at least mentioned victims. He talked about victims' impact statements and about victims being involved in this. He said that victims' statements should be part of sentencing, and that would be good, but that only a limited number of victims got involved in the victims' impact statement process.

I might suggest that the reason for that is the limited time they see the person who committed a crime against them getting. They may not want to be involved in sitting across the table with the person who victimized them so that the person could get out early and victimize them again.

He also said, in answer to the question asked by the member for Wild Rose, that the best sentence was the sentence that the client accepts. I love it that we are judging the sentences on how well the criminal likes them and that we should tailor the sentence to fit the individual. Again, we should set sentences based on what the perpetrator should say.

He went on to say that perhaps we should look at the parole system in closing off the end of it so that if people were not getting out early we could probably accomplish what we are trying to accomplish by putting them in for longer

I am not certain how opening or closing either end of this works but I will just quickly get to how we protect the victim. One of the greatest ways is to have the person incarcerated at the time when they might have committed the crime and then the crime would not occur at all. What we are suggesting by mandatory minimums is that people are actually in jail rather than out perpetrating crimes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there might have been a communication problem somewhere. I have a lot of respect for the interpreters, so it cannot have been a bad translation.

I will try to speak slowly. We respect the victims. Anyone who takes the time to listen to me will understand that.

Recently, victim impact statements were introduced. Victims can go to court to explain things in their own words. That is important.

I hope the members will listen carefully to all of what I have to say. I never said, and I will never say, that we have to impose a sentence at the request of a rapist, an individual who committed armed robbery or a murderer. With all due respect to my colleague, that is not what I said.

I am talking about a sentence that will be accepted by the individual. If I tell my client that he will get three years in jail, that that is to be his sentence, he will be prepared for a three-year sentence and will serve out those three years in jail. But if he gets a minimum sentence that he was not expecting, that is dangerous because basically, it means he is going to crime school—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time is up.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today in this House about Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

This bill has been brought back to the House with significant changes after being reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. But behind the scenes, an unholy alliance has developed between the reactionary minority Conservative government and the NDP. Together, these two parties put back a series of regressive provisions, ruining the good work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I think that the newly amended bill is simply not good legislation.

However, I am happy that this bill has shed some light on the debate on mandatory minimum penalties.

So I am proud to speak, and I invite my fellow members to follow the lead of the Liberals and vote against the bill as newly amended.

The bill the government initially introduced proposed heavier minimum sentences for repeat offences, despite the views expressed by experts on the fight against crime. In addition, the bill even went so far as to add offences unrelated to the crime in question to the previous convictions.

It is important to remind this House why the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so substantially amended the initial bill. The opposition members on the committee were very reluctant to introduce escalating minimum sentences depending on the number of previous convictions.

In undertaking this tack, the committee members were simply agreeing with most of the expert evidence they heard. In the opinion of all the experts, and it is perhaps rather surprising, there is no proof that minimum terms of imprisonment deter offenders who commit serious crimes.

In certain cases, in California, for example, the method seems to have actually been counterproductive. The annual rate of serious crime has risen since this type of sentencing was introduced. This is the conclusion of the recent report by a commission set up to study the California correctional system.

In January 2005, the Little Hoover Commission submitted to the governor of California its report on what it called “California's corrections crisis”. The report highlights the major failure of the Californian “three strikes and you're out” system. It raises serious questions about the Californian model of sentencing, which there is called “determinate sentencing”. Here in Canada, it is called “minimum mandatory penalties”. In other words, its determinate sentence is the U.S. equivalent of the mandatory minimums that the Conservative government wishes to not implement, but to make even harsher and escalating here in Canada.

The report of the Little Hoover Commission of California is clear:

Despite the rhetoric, thirty years of “tough on crime” politics has not made the state safer. Quite the opposite...

California has one of the highest recidivism rates in the nation. Furthermore, Governor Schwarzenegger himself described the California prison system as a powder keg.

Is it not absurd that at the very moment that Americans are trying to fix their flawed system, Canada, under the Conservative minority retrograde government, is trying to copy the American's old and utterly proven to be inefficient model?

The American model of escalating minimum mandatory sentences is a failed model. Why in God's name, for heaven's sake, would Canadians want to follow a failed model? We want to follow models of excellence. The American model of determinate sentencing, and in particular escalating determinate sentencing, which is the equivalent of the Canadian mandatory minimum sentencing or penalties, is a failed model. In fact, since 2003, some 25 American states have eliminated their lengthy minimum mandatory penalties and their escalator penalties.

Criticisms of mandatory minimum sentencing are based on very sound arguments. It has more than its share of drawbacks. Often, and because of the excessively serious consequences it can have, what happens is charges are withdrawn or pleas are modified to get the charges changed and diminished. Equally often, the threat of a mandatory minimum sentence will discourage an accused person from pleading guilty, which obviously results in greater costs and delays for the system.

As well, this type of measure can also make a jury hesitate to convict, not because of the accused's actual guilt or innocence, because the sentence strikes the jury as being unjustly harsh, given the crime committed, given the accused, given the victim and given the real and proven impact on the victim and the community.

Also, it is known that mandatory minimum sentencing seems, as evidenced by the Australian and American experiences, to hit harder at members of certain ethnocultural communities, blacks and aboriginals. That certainly is not an outcome that Canada should be seeking.

Paradoxically, the increase in mandatory minimum sentences suggested in the newly amended bill would have cost Canada's justice system an exorbitant amount of money. Does this government realize that, by proposing to increase the number and length of minimum sentences and decrease the number of conditional sentences, it would have added a huge number of inmates to our already overcrowded penitentiaries, according to its own Minister of Public Safety?

According to Neil Boyd of Simon Fraser University, Canada would have to build no fewer than 23 new prisons to house all these new inmates. At $82,000 a year per inmate, the bill this government initially introduced would have cost Canadian taxpayers an additional $220 million to $245 million over five years.

In addition, this new obsession with sending people to prison systematically will obviously lead to other additional costs, because it is reasonable to assume that, with this attitude, appeals and lengthy trials will become increasingly common. Mandatory minimum sentences are therefore not the best way of dealing with crime in Canada. They restrict judges' discretionary power to look at the particular circumstances of a case. We should use mandatory minimum sentences very sparingly to target specific offences and, above all, we should limit them to first offences. That is what Bill C-82, introduced under the former Liberal government, sought to do.

The whole point of minimum sentencing is its effect on an individual committing a first offence, taking into consideration the impact on the victim of that offence and on the community where the offence took place. It is designed to take the person guilty of serious wrongdoing out of his or her community for awhile in order to prevent that person from committing other crimes, while at the same time ensuring the community is not put at risk again. In such cases, this kind of sentencing serves its purpose very well.

The problem with escalating minimum mandatory sentencing, proposed in the newly amended version of Bill C-10, was that they applied to repeat offenders. What was initially proposed would have forbidden judges, in the case of a recidivist, to tailor an appropriate sentence that took into account the criminal, himself or herself, the particular circumstances and nature of the new crime, the impact on the victim and the community and the background situation and the possibility of rehabilitation.

In the case of a repeat offence, a judge needs to be able to consider all these factors in order to determine an appropriate sentence. With escalating minimum sentences, this is impossible. With this bill, as it has been amended at report stage by the government with the collusion of the NDP, it will now be impossible.

The newly amended bill shows that the government wants to bring its so-called crime fighting strategy into line with the repressive approach favoured in the United States by the very right wing. The Conservative Party is proposing to emulate a model that does not work.

I might add that the NDP's support for this style of justice is baffling, at the very least. Once again the NDP is sacrificing its progressive roots for short term political gain and being the enabler of the right wing agenda of the Prime Minister.

Let us look at a few facts. The difference in rates of serious offences between our two countries is astonishing. For example, according to Statistics Canada, and that is not a left wing organization, the rates for robberies are 59% higher in the United States than in Canada. What about the rates for aggravated assault? They are 85% higher in the United States than in Canada. What about the murder rates? The murder rates are 275% higher south of our border than they are in Canada.

I am sure my hon. colleagues will be interested to learn that a Calgary resident is 840% less likely to be the victim of murder than a resident of Dallas. If we want to compare the degree of safety of our two capital cities, a resident of Washington, D.C. is 2,700% more likely than his or her Ottawa counterpart to be the victim of a serious crime.

I do not know where the government wants to lead us with its copycat, tough on crime strategy, but one thing is certain. These numbers show—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine will have seven minutes at the end of question period, but now we will move on to statements by members.

Science Fair

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to recognize the achievements of Barrie students who are participating in the Canada-wide science fair in Truro, Nova Scotia.

I am proud to stand today and state that of the 459 students competing in this national competition, five are from Barrie.

These remarkable whiz kids include Cameron Armstrong who will be presenting his project on the effects of carbon dioxide on global warning.

Matt Shwed has used his love of physics to create a project called “Cosmic radiation”.

Alexandra Milak created a project called “Forget me not” which tests the emotional memory of Alzheimer's patients.

Luke Regier has a project called “Blowing down the walls of Jericho” that conducts tests to determine the best ways to get volume and bass in sound and music.

Sergio Morales created a project called “Insect immigration to Canada” which explores the relationship between insects, fruit and pesticides.

These talented students have worked hard and I, along with all Barrie residents, wish them best of luck at the Canada-wide science fair.

Court Challenges Program

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Conservatives' threat, the Liberal members and the other opposition members have formed an official languages advisory committee to take control of the work and to continue to respect the country's linguistic minorities. We showed respect by listening to representatives of the court challenges program and members of the SOS Montfort committee, including Gisèle Lalonde.

Ms. Lalonde clearly summed up the situation by stating that the elimination of the court challenges program is outrageous. The connection is clear. Mike Harris' Conservatives tried to violate the rights of minority language communities by threatening to close the Montfort hospital. Now, the same party has eliminated the court challenges program, which helped all communities, including those in Madawaska—Restigouche.

When will the Conservatives respect the right of minorities to ensure their rights are respected? They must listen to the people now and reinstitute the court challenges program today.

The Conservative Government

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to criticize the current government, which is trampling on democracy and has no respect whatsoever for Quebec voters.

The Conservatives are calling all the shots in the committees. They even went as far as cancelling the Standing Committee on Official Languages. They have appointed unilingual anglophones to positions that require bilingualism. They have reduced French requirements for senior military officers. They have made it impossible for minorities to go to court to defend their rights.

They have no respect for the unanimous demands of Quebec's National Assembly and they believe that giving Quebec fewer seats in this House is fair to the Quebec nation. They do not even honour majority votes in this House. How many times do we have to remind them that they are a minority government?

The Bloc Québécois will continue to take responsible action in the best interest of Quebec and will always demand that democracy be respected.

Canadian Heritage

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives strip the capacity of the federal government, Canada's heritage and culture are key casualties.

Heritage buildings hold special places in the history and life of our communities. The Work Point Officer's Mess, a good example, the oldest wooden building in the Victoria area, was taken down despite pleas to the Conservative minister about its value to the community.

Victoria's heritage tax incentive program stimulates the rehabilitation of heritage buildings into hundreds of units of rental housing downtown. Yet, the federal government actively undermines the program by charging GST on the increased value to land and buildings.

Culture is a defining element of Victoria with its local arts and festivals, yet federal support is now mired in partisan politics.

I call on the government to do its part and stop leaving municipalities to struggle alone in preserving Canadian heritage and culture.

Landmines

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while Jane Taber of The Globe and Mail did not find the reception I hosted with Mines Action Canada on cluster bomb awareness compelling, the 60 members of Parliament plus their staff from all parties who attended the event may argue otherwise.

In fact, the international community, comprised of more than 46 states including Canada, may also argue otherwise. More important, innocent civilians who have been socially, economically and personally affected by these weapons may argue that Ms. Taber just does not get it.

I would like to thank Mines Action Canada for all its hard work and dedication toward a vital cause, as well as a special thank you to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade for her immeasurable support and leadership toward a cause that affects the lives of thousands of innocent civilians every day.

I commend the Canadian government for its leadership in Oslo and look forward to its continued leadership in Lima next week.

Greenvisions

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a new charity in my riding called Greenvisions. Greenvisions is dedicated to lobbying for more parks and green spaces in Brampton, especially in the new subdivisions of Gore and Castlemore.

The green spaces and environmentally sensitive land in the Castlemore area are vital to future generations. There are deer, fox, and many other animals and plants that depend on this sensitive land for survival.

According to Greenvisions, in just six years from 2001-07, the ratio of park land to developed land in Brampton has decreased by almost 20%. This is why during the last election the Liberal Party committed to expanding the protection of national parks.

Personally, I am also strongly committed to protecting wildlife habitat to maintain a high quality of life for my constituents. I strongly urge all residents of Brampton to take part in protecting our green spaces.

Biotech Competition

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ted Paranjothy, a grade 12 student at Fort Richmond Collegiate in Winnipeg.

This incredible 17-year-old has won a triple crown in high school science, achieving first place in regional, national and international biotech competitions. His project researches a potential alternative to chemotherapy by killing cancer cells without harming cells themselves.

He hopes that one day his research will be, in his words, a commercially available and cost efficient therapeutic alternative to conventional chemotherapy.

At such a young age, Ted has already accomplished much. He is an example to every Canadian and demonstrates what the youth of Canada have to offer our country.

I was able to personally thank him when he received his award at the Chateau Laurier earlier this week. Congratulations Ted. He makes us all proud.

Aness Dominique

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, May 20 to 25 is Aboriginal Awareness Week and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Aness Dominique. He was baptized Ernest by a priest so that he would have a French name and not an aboriginal one. In the Inuit alphabet, there is no letter “r”. His family and friends were not able to pronounce his name, so his grandmother renamed him Aness.

A painter for 20 years, he has dedicated himself to raising awareness of his culture's roots. His works highlight the oral tradition that has been lost over the years. It is clear that this artist embodies the vitality of aboriginal culture.

My colleagues and I salute Mr. Dominique's efforts to advance aboriginal culture, and congratulate him for his presence on the national and international stage.

Archbishop of Ottawa

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week we welcomed Ottawa's 10th bishop in 160 years. In that time Ottawa has had 66 mayors and Canada has had 37 prime ministers.

Pope Benedict XVI named His Grace Terrence Prendergast of the Society of Jesus. Our new archbishop is an exemplary teacher and spiritual father.

Our new archbishop will minister to half a million Christians. He will also be an inspiration to this capital city and to parliamentarians of all faiths.

At a time of social upheaval, the Church must instruct the faithful, minister to the needy, and strengthen the family as an anchor for hope for future generations.

I know that His Grace will have the strength to follow the advice of Saint Paul: “—preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction”.

We offer these best wishes to our new Father: Ad multos et faustissimos annos.