Debates of Feb. 4th, 2008

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today at second reading of Bill C-26. In this bill, the government is targeting those who produce and distribute illicit drugs by imposing more severe penalties on them. This is part of a major anti-drug strategy with a budget of more than $64 million unveiled a few months ago by the Prime Minister.

Even though the purpose of Bill C-26 seems clear, I think that its ultimate goal, to reduce consumption of illegal drugs, would be better achieved with more subtle measures that would produce truly positive results. That is why it is important to understand this bill, to hold onto the parts of it that have merit and to reveal the problems hidden within it.

First, I would like to point out that the current legislation already includes good tools to fight drugs. Since 1997, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has prohibited the import, export, production, sale, acquisition and possession of drugs and controlled substances, except when regulations permit it for medical purposes. At the time, the legislation created a new offence, production of a controlled substance. It also amended certain penalties in accordance with rulings of the Supreme Court, which had ruled that a minimum seven-year sentence for the import and export of drugs was far too severe.

Under the legislation, trafficking is defined as the selling, giving, administering, transporting, sending or delivering of one of the drugs listed in Schedules I through IV. The legislation also includes precursors of substances listed in Schedules I through V. Precursors are the ingredients used in the production of a controlled substance listed in the schedules.

Now that we know the context of this bill, I would like to focus on a worrisome aspect that I have criticized many times in previous bills and that is minimum sentences. With respect to heavier minimum sentences, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois has never doubted the importance of taking measures to reduce the consumption and production of drugs.

At first glance anyone would say that this bill provides more safety and more means to control drugs. However, before drawing hasty conclusions, the first thing to do before addressing a problem is to understand it in its entirety, grasp its scope and assess its consequences. We have to put things in perspective.

It is important to remind people that Statistics Canada indicated in 2006, before Bill C-26 was put on the table, that Canada's overall national crime rate, based on incidents reported to police, hit its lowest point in over 25 years, driven by a decline in non-violent crime. The crime rate dropped by 3% over the previous year and by 30% since 1991. When we look at the problem as a whole, we see that crime is going down in Canada. This is a major trend that has been observed for many years.

Obviously the Bloc Québécois does not want to minimize the situation. Any tragedy is one tragedy too many and statistics hide the human tragedies that affect families. We have to realize that the current system is producing positive results. We have to avoid giving up these gains by adopting measures whose impact has not been fully examined.

Bill C-26 relies heavily on minimum sentences, and specifically on the supposed deterrent effect of harsher sentences. That has never been clearly proven. Harsher sentences are imposed by our neighbours to the south, who obtain results that are not particularly convincing. I would say that minimum jail sentences are not a greater deterrent than adequate supervision in the community.

However, as a member of a responsible party that does not ignore reality, I have to recognize that drug-related offences have increased slightly.

For example, again according to Statistics Canada, the total number of drug offences rose by 2% in 2006. In fact, the picture of drug use is changing slightly. Cannabis-related offences, such as possession, make up 60% of all drug offences, but were down 4%.

We understand the situation, and we are aware of the issues. Moreover, quite recently, my colleague from Hochelaga and I examined Bill C-428 to consider the best way to combat the emerging problem of methamphetamine use.

We are contributing to the war on drugs, which brings me to a positive aspect of Bill C-26. The bill allows judges, with the consent of the prosecutor, to require offenders to take part in a drug treatment program. If the offender successfully completes the program, he avoids the minimum sentence. I believe that this is a good way to rehabilitate offenders.

I therefore believe that we are going to refer Bill C-26 to committee for a more detailed examination.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we return to the study of Bill C-26, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant will have 13 minutes left to complete her remarks.

The House resumed from January 31, 2008, consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-3.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #32

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 12 lost.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, were you to seek it I think you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservative members present this evening voting yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals in the House who voted nay on the previous question will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote against this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is voting against this motion.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #33

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on November 19, I raised the detainee issue in the House and was informed that there was no basis for my question. I was also informed that the government's policy had not changed and that there was no issue with regard to abuse. The government claimed that if this were an issue, it would immediately stop any transfers.

We know that as of November 5, 2007, there was a change. We were misled by members of the government, including the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Many times in November it was said that if there were any abuses, the House would be informed. Clearly, it was not. Our party repeatedly asked about the transfers. Why? We are in Afghanistan to support the rule of law and to hopefully bring a sense of democracy and human rights to that country.

What is the government's response now to the issue of transfers? We have seen it flip-flop. It says that this is a national security issue and an issue with regard to operational matters. The Americans announce the capture of Taliban prisoners, as do others. It cannot be a security issue for us and not for them.

We believe the transfer issue is at the fundamental core of the failure of the government to show transparency and accountability when it comes to the Afghan issue. Canadians want to know precisely what is going on over there, yet the government continues hiding behind all sorts of issues.

The Prime Minister's director of communications first blamed the military on the change of policy. Then she had to do a back flip the next day and say that the government had been informed. There is nothing the Prime Minister's Office would not be aware of, particularly something like this.

The government is attacking us by questioning our patriotism. No one in the House is more patriotic when it comes to supporting our military. Having been in Afghanistan in April 2006, I can tell the House that our troops are doing a phenomenal job over there. When parliamentarians raise issues for Canadians, we expect the government to be upfront and honest, but that has not taken place.

We were told that these allegations of torture were not credible. Yet as of November 5, 2007, the transfers stopped. They stopped because the military was concerned about the abuses it had seen.

The independent panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan has indicated there is no transparency and accountability with the government. That side of the House does not seem to want to come forward about this.

Canadians want to be informed about decisions. They want to now what is going on over there. We have a right as parliamentarians to know these things. If we have concerns about certain issues, then we need to express those concerns to the Karzai government. It needs to be clear on our concerns. If there are allegations, we want those allegations investigated. We want to ensure the facts are on the table. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case.

An interim report on Afghanistan was provided by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. We only reported on the comments of witnesses. Unfortunately, the government put forth a minority report with no recommendations at the time. We wanted to put forth what we heard. The government has said that it can not do that, yet it talks about transparency and accountability.

I put that to the government. I await the answer from the parliamentary secretary.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that member is the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today he talked about two issues: democracy and human rights in Afghanistan. He quoted what the independent panel had said. He also mentioned that the committee had prepared an interim report on Afghanistan. We needed to listen to witnesses to prepare that comprehensive report. Yet that member talks about the independent panel. Why did the member opposite vote against the motion to call the independent panel in front of the committee? What were those members afraid of hearing? Why are they afraid of listening to Mr. Manley?

The member can stand up and talk about the same report, yet he refused to pass a motion to bring members of the independent panel before the committee where everyone could question them and their evidence would form part of the report. Being the vice-chair, he will be responsible for a one-sided, partisan report, not a comprehensive report in which all Canadians are interested.

Why is he afraid of listening to the independent panel? Why is he afraid of Mr. Manley?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member did not address the issue of the detainees, but I will respond by saying this. Prior to the independent panel submitting its report, at the standing committee I asked that it come before us for parliamentary input. I see no value in asking people to come after the fact. We have all read the report. It was the government members who opposed having Mr. Manley and others come to the committee beforehand to get the input of parliamentarians.

Therefore, it is a bit hypocritical to suggest somehow that after the fact, now that the government says it embraces the broad strokes of the Manley report, it is okay for them to come. It is unacceptable. What is also unacceptable is the government still has refused to talk about the detainee issue. We have put those questions to the government repeatedly in the House of Commons and repeatedly we have been stonewalled by the government. Is that because the government members are not talking to each other, they are not talking to the Chief of the Defence Staff? We are not sure who is making policy over there.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how a vice-chair of a committee of Parliament would not understand the committee is independent of the government. It calls witnesses independent of the government. It reports independent of the government. Then it advises to the government on that point.

That it is how committees of Parliament work, which he should know as a vice-chair. So why would he want a panel that is appointed by the government to address it? Now that the panel has come back he should exercise the democratic right for every Canadian through the committee and call in the panel.

Again, why is he now afraid to call Mr. Manley? What is he worried about? Why did the Liberals not call Mr. Manley? Is it because Mr. Manley was the former Liberal deputy prime minister and they are afraid of what he has said? Otherwise, what would be the reason for the Liberals to refuse to have Mr. Manley come before the committee?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 19, 2007, I had the opportunity to ask a question during question period which dealt with the issue of invasion of privacy or ethnic or religious profiling. There had been some indications that this kind of activity had been going on with Conservative members of Parliament.

It causes some grief for Canadians to know that if they are dealing with their member of Parliament, some of the information they may happen to provide, whether it be in terms of getting passport assistance or maybe some issue with the Canada pension plan, may end up on a political mailing list. There is more information on those forms that in fact Canadians would prefer not be used for some other improper use.

This is what I would consider to be unethical behaviour and quite frankly is inexcusable. I want to amplify simply by reminding members that within the Government of Canada, throughout the various agencies that operate under the auspices of the government, there are privacy rules and they are very important, and probably the one most relevant to members is the electoral list. I can tell members that I visited the Elections Canada website today just to refresh myself on the rules to indicate how serious this is.

It says that the privacy of all the information on the electors list is protected by the Canada Elections Act and by the Privacy Act. The information can be used only for electoral purposes and improper use of the information is an offence. Electronic and procedural safeguards have been put in place to ensure the security of that information because privacy of the individual information is important.

Under the law, the voters list can be shared with the political parties and members of the House of Commons each year, so that they can communicate with their electors, but it only includes names and addresses.

However, the incidence of what we found was that the information being collected from other encounters with people within a member's riding was being collected for alternative uses and in fact improper uses. So I wanted to raise that as an example of how important it is within our system.

I also wanted to relate to the House another example that came across my desk. It is a card, and I have a photocopy of it here, which came from a Conservative member. It is a survey. It asks: “Are you supportive of the federal budget?; Am I [the member of Parliament] on the right track?; Is the Prime Minister on the right track?”.

On the other side, where it has the return address, it says “No postage required”. That is actually written here. Then it also has these boxes to tick off: “Add me to your mailing list; I am interested in learning more about the Conservative Party; I am interested in volunteering”. This is, clearly, for partisan purposes, for party purposes, and not for electoral purposes. It is on an envelope which is clearly going to be distributed without paying postage. Again, this is unethical activity.

There is no question in my mind that there is ample evidence that the Conservative Party has been using information from electors or from residents in their riding for unethical purposes. It is unfortunate and it must stop.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, at times like this, I have to resist the urge to laugh out loud when I hear the pompous Liberals talking about things they think are unethical. It is long past the time when Canadians need a lecture on ethics from members of the Liberal Party.

Particularly with this issue, we first heard this question raised by the member for Thornhill and again by the member for Halton and now my good friend and colleague is raising the same question. All I can say is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party knows no bounds.

When the member for Thornhill first raised this question several months ago in the House, it was then revealed within a day that she herself had been sending out cards to the Jewish community in her riding to celebrate Rosh Hashanah. On the one hand the member for Thornhill was complaining that the government was sending out cards to commemorate special occasions and holidays for various ethnic communities, and the very next day it was discovered that the member was doing exactly the same thing.

Of course this is nothing new. The Liberal Party for years has tried to portray itself as being entitled to do anything and everything because the Liberals felt it was their God-given right to do so. Yet if another party dared do the same thing, dared try to send out commemorative greetings or celebratory greetings to ethnic communities, all of a sudden we are doing something wrong, we are using confidential information.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that all of the lists that we obtained are publicly available, as is the same list available to members opposite.

For the Liberal Party to suggest for one moment that we are doing something unethical is quite frankly, more than just a little amusing.

I recall during the halcyon days of the sponsorship scandal, again a subject that the Liberals do not ever want us to talk about, they tried to portray themselves as the victims of the sponsorship scandal. Canadians certainly saw through that. They understood, if not instinctively, they certainly found out empirically during the Justice Gomery investigation that the Liberals were certainly not the victims, but they were the perpetrators of the largest single political scandal in Canadian history.

As a matter of fact, may I remind members opposite and the Canadian public that there are still $40 million that have not been recovered. Justice Gomery could not investigate it because the terms of reference set by the then Liberal government were so narrow and so restrictive that Justice Gomery could not expand his investigation.

He admitted frustration because he knew there were $40 million gone astray. Somehow that money was missing. He might have suspected it was all part of the same sponsorship scandal where the Liberal Party would be able to funnel taxpayers' money back into the Liberal Party's own bank account to fund elections, but Justice Gomery unfortunately was prevented from examining that point any further because of the restrictions put on by the government of the day.

Let me conclude by saying it is clear to Canadians from coast to coast to coast that the highest level of unethical behaviour ever seen in this country was foisted upon the Canadian public by the Liberal government of the late 1990s and early new millennium.