Debates of Oct. 26th, 2009

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

moved that Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons on the second reading of Senate public Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament).

The Federal Sustainable Development Act requires the government to produce and table a number of reports before the House of Commons. Bill S-216 proposes that the government also table the same reports before the Senate. The bill also proposes to give the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development greater flexibility regarding the timing of the tabling of some of the reports under the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

I am informed that the government agrees with tabling these reports before the Senate and agrees with giving the commissioner that added flexibility. This bill responds to an oversight that occurred during the development of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Mr. Speaker, as you may be aware, the Federal Sustainable Development Act underwent considerable amendment at the committee stage of its development.

The wording for these amendments regarding the tabling of reports was largely borrowed from the existing provisions of the Auditor General Act. Those provisions required the tabling of sustainable development strategies and the reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development before only the House of Commons. This bill will correct that oversight.

The government is pleased to support this bill and believes in the importance of the role of both houses of Parliament. The Federal Sustainable Development Act allows the government to spell out its environmental sustainability priorities more clearly. It requires the development of an overarching federal sustainable development strategy for the first time since sustainable development strategies were introduced in 1995.

This federal strategy will allow departments to align their respective strategies with federal priorities. The Federal Sustainable Development Act requires a draft federal strategy to be put before the Canadian public, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and a standing committee of the House of Commons for review and comment.

The act also establishes a sustainable development advisory council. It is made up of representatives of the provinces and territories and representatives from labour, business, environmental organizations and aboriginal peoples. They will also each comment on the draft federal strategy. Giving the draft strategy to Canadians in this way increases transparency and accountability. It improves federal sustainable development planning and reporting.

The government supports Bill S-216, which proposes to have senators review the draft of the federal sustainable development strategy and all of the other reports required by the Federal Sustainable Development Act. These other reports include the supporting departmental sustainable development strategies. They include triennial progress reports on the federal strategy prepared by the sustainable development office of Environment Canada.

Senate comment on all of these documents will improve the transparency and accountability about which I spoke a moment ago. Further, as a result of amendments made by the Federal Sustainable Development Act to the Auditor General Act, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development will be required to prepare a number of reports. For example, the commissioner must offer a report as to whether the targets and implementation strategies are capable of being assessed.

The commissioner will also assess the fairness of the information contained in the progress report on the government's implementation of the federal strategy. Finally, the commissioner will also continue to audit the departmental sustainable development strategies and report on the extent to which departments and agencies have contributed to meeting the targets set out in the federal sustainable development strategy.

At present, the commissioner can table the results of such enquiries only at certain times. Should Bill S-216 pass, the commissioner would be able to offer more timely reports as Bill S-216 allows greater discretion in this respect.

I am pleased to sponsor Bill S-216 in the House. The government joins me in welcoming Senate review of all the reports I just mentioned and additional flexibility in the commissioner's reporting.

I thank Senator Banks for originating this legislation in the Senate. I have appreciated his assistance and support to me.

I hope that my sponsorship of the bill and the government's support of it will serve as an example of bipartisan cooperation and of the spirit of consensus that represents the best and most noble of parliamentary ideals. I call on all parliamentarians to search out such opportunities for cooperation and consensus wherever possible.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the moving sentiment and his plea for cooperation. He is perhaps asking for a rare and almost unparalleled degree of cooperation. However, I applaud him for the effort.

Notwithstanding the relative merits of the bill, we note in reviewing this private member's bill that it originated in the Senate with an unelected senator. The people of Canada never gave senators the mandate to create legislation. In fact, the people of Canada have never given senators any mandate whatsoever. They are appointed through patronage appointments made by the Prime Minister.

There seems to be a growing number of bills originating in the Senate that are being sponsored by government members thereby giving senators an avenue by which to introduce legislation in the House of Commons.

It was the position of that member's party not that long ago that the unelected Senate should be abolished. There should be, quite frankly, no unelected Senate. It should be a triple-E Senate if anything. Some members on my colleague's side believe there should be no Senate at all.

Does my colleague not find it galling to be sent in here with a prepared speech on behalf of an unelected parliamentarian from the other chamber, which is edging into our valuable private members' time when it--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that no Senate bill will ever be passed without the consent of the House. That is the way Parliament works, and I am sure my friend is enough of a parliamentary scholar to know that. That should alleviate any of his concerns.

Apart from that, my friend's comments perhaps do not respect the spirit that I was trying to address at the end of my speech. I do not take offence to much provided that the ideas involved make sense. If an idea made sense, to tell the truth, I would accept it even if it came from a member of the NDP.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from the NDP, I think this is a very good day. This not only shows the cooperation between the Senate and the House, and the cooperation between two different parties, but it also demonstrates our desire to make sure that, as much as possible, our sustainable development strategy and all our strategies on the environment are absolutely public and transparent. That way, the other place can delve into those and make sure it has full access and can report publicly as well.

Does my colleague agree with that?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Indeed I do, Mr. Speaker. As long as the Senate forms a part of this Parliament, the House is obligated to respect the role that is set out for the Senate in the Constitution.

It is true that we would like the Senate to be more effective and more accountable, but this legislation goes a long way to showing the kind of mutual respect that both Houses, which are constitutionally provided for, should have for one another.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just have to call to the attention of my colleague the contradiction in his position.

His party always says that it is the unelected, obstructive Senate that gets in the way of all the good legislation that the Conservative Party wants to pass, yet now we have this flowery, romantic language about how the Senate is some font of wisdom, the merits of which are so great that we have to abandon our principles about an elected Senate and accept its ideas into our chamber.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his compliment on my prose and my oratory. I am trying to achieve and raise the standards for these in this House.

However, having said that, anyone who takes on the responsibility of representing the people of Canada ought to be open to good ideas from any source, and the fact that a good idea comes from the Senate certainly does not prevent me from supporting it. I hope it will not prevent my friend from supporting it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to the Senate bill, which seeks to amend a statute, a law that was brought in to being by the Liberal Party of Canada in the last Parliament. In fact, my former colleague in the House, John Godfrey, brought to the floor the Federal Sustainable Development Act for the country, which this Senate bill seeks to amend.

It is important to take a few minutes to remind Canadians and to remind the House just what has been happening over the last 15 to 20 years. I am really proud to be the environment and energy critic of a party that did a number of things. First, it brought into being the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, a quasi-independent office, working with the Auditor General, which gave rise to the need for sustainable development strategies in the first place for most of our line departments and a number of agencies, for example, like the RCMP and others, who are obliged on a bi-annual basis to actually prepare a strategy showing how they would get from point A to point B over that two year period of time. I am very proud that our former government created the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I am on record, and our party is on record, as wanting the location of that commissioner's office freed up from the Auditor General's office today. We really are in favour of a more independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reporting directly to the House. In that sense, the bill brought forth by the other place is reinforcing of the need for more independence, more visibility of these reports, and more visibility for the work of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I am also very proud to have been part of the government that brought in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is the foundational statute. It is the architecture upon which we build most of our environmental protections in this country, our regulations. I am also particularly proud to have helped this party in its role as the previous government to bring in the Species at Risk Act, again, a major biodiversity protection initiative brought forward by our government in years past. These are the foundations of what we are doing now as a country, as we look to enhance ecological integrity, environmental integrity, while growing our economy.

Unlike the other side of the House, the Reform-Conservatives have always put forward the view that the environment and the economy are two competing interests. Unfortunately, they are very far behind in contemporary thinking, and in the last four years we have seen that Canada has been put behind, not only in contemporary thinking but in contemporary action.

We see south of the border in the United States in some instances a 15-fold advance, 15 times more investments going into things like renewable energy than we are doing here on a per capita basis. Even the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is investing more in renewable energy than Canada. We are in the unenviable position now of losing the North American competitive race toward a more energy efficient economy, and that of course is there and plain for all Canadians to see.

Nowhere is that more prominent than in the quintessential and difficult issue of climate change. We have had now four years of Reform-Conservative government. It is important to remind the House of a few things around this notion of climate change because it speaks directly to the bil. Climate change forms a huge part of the challenge we are facing in this country that will have to be addressed in any sustainable development strategy brought forward by a federal government.

The problem, of course, is that we come from a position on the other side, in the Reform-Conservative caucus led by the Prime Minister, that is ideologically opposed to a number of notions. First, it is ideologically opposed to the notion that Canada, as a comparatively rich citizen of the world, has an obligation to move first, as one of the annex one countries under climate change treaties, to show the way and to take action domestically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When we do that, we actually enter the race more quickly than we would otherwise.

Now, because we have wasted four years of time under these Reform-Conservatives, the Canadian situation is that we are falling behind our competitors in Europe and falling behind, as I mentioned moments ago, the United States of America, our largest trading ally and perhaps our largest competitor.

What we have seen is an ideological opposition to annex one countries like Canada, wealthier countries, developed countries going first.

The second thing that Canadians are seeing and that we are bucking in the House of Commons is the Reform-Conservatives' ideology that rejects the notion that the world should come together in a multilateral way, that is through organizations like the United Nations where many countries come together. They reject this notion because our Prime Minister was schooled really at the heels of the Republican movement and party in the United States.

It is important factually and for the record to remind Canadians that the Prime Minister gave a keynote speech some nine years ago to the most right wing organization in the United States, the American council, and behind closed doors not knowing he was being caught on tape again said that this group, this council, this most right wing of all think tanks in the United States was his personal inspiration. He went on to say that not only was it his inspiration, not only was its ideology his inspiration but he wanted to import that ideology up here into Canada.

We have seen the systematic importation, infiltration, inculcation, the surreptitious insertion of this kind of ideology right here in the House through the climate change debate.

The reason why it is important for Canadians to know about this is because deep down the Prime Minister is not a multilateralist. He does not believe in the United Nations. I recall when he was leader of the opposition he attacked the Liberal government because we were even considering creating the G20 which it turns out is something he is now embracing. However, the reason he is so opposed is because deep down he is an isolationist. He is on record as saying that if it is not in favour of the United States, it is not something that he would endorse.

Should any Canadian have been surprised last week when the Prime Minister revealed publicly in a speech that he did not, according to him, watch Canadian newscasts but rather spent his time on CNN and Fox News where he has given more interviews than he has to domestic broadcasters?

What we are seeing in this bill is a strengthening of a law that was brought in by a Liberal member to force our country to be more coherent when it comes to dealing with the concept of sustainable development; that is, development that enhances ecological integrity while strengthening our economy and creating jobs, jobs for today, not speculative, fictitious jobs of tomorrow but jobs for today.

That is what the bill from the Senate seeks to do. It seeks to strengthen an existing law brought in by the Liberal Party of Canada.

In closing, it is very important for Canadians to use this opportunity to ask the Reform-Conservatives where their climate change plan is. We heard expert testimony in committee this week that the government has no plan; that it will first hide behind President Obama's skirt by alleging that there is some kind of dialogue while it undermines smog standards for fuels used in the Great Lakes. On the one hand the government is saying that it is pursuing a dialogue and on the other hand a dialogue for climate change on some kind of continental basis. It cannot have it both ways. It must clarify its position.

What the government really has to explain now is why it is not using this particular bill and the law that we gave the country to strengthen our climate change response, so we can win this energy efficient, clean economy competition that we are now involved in. We are falling so far behind after four years of Reform-Conservative rule, is it any wonder that we are losing so much investment to south of the border and other jurisdictions with respect to climate change technologies?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament). Bill S-216 was introduced on January 27 and came before the House on May 14. As I just said, it would amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act in two main ways. First, it would give the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development the opportunity to submit audits of government reports to Parliament more than once a year if he or she wishes to do so.

Under the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is responsible for producing an annual report to be tabled in the House of Commons on a specific date. The report addresses issues that the commissioner wishes to draw to the attention of the House, particularly with respect to the government's progress toward implementing the federal sustainable development strategy. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is also responsible for auditing data in reports that the sustainable development office is required to submit to the minister at least once every three years, reports that are then tabled in Parliament.

By law, the commissioner is currently required to include these audits in his or her annual report. Amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act will enable the commissioner to include the results of these audits in an Auditor General's report.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-216, especially because the environment is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. Recent surveys have shown that more and more Canadians from all over Canada believe that the Government of Canada's performance on the environment has been terrible. Quebeckers seem to have the harshest words to say about the Conservative government. I cannot over-emphasize just how important this issue has become. I have risen in the House several times now to discuss bills.

People are talking about a navigable Arctic passage. That is not something we should ever have had to discuss in this House. The Arctic should have remained frozen solid forever. But because of global warming, people are now talking about developing an Arctic waterway and protecting navigable waters. This is all going to hurt future generations. Bloc members have always risen in the House to speak up for environmental issues, and we will do so again today.

It is good that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development would be able to submit the results of audits more than once a year, since environmental issues are becoming increasingly important to Quebeckers and Canadians.

Second, Bill S-216 states that the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development must now be laid before each House of Parliament. Members are familiar with the Bloc's position regarding the Senate. I will have the opportunity to explain our position and to speak about the money wasted by the Government of Canada on the Senate.

Nevertheless, the work of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is necessary, especially since it is clear that the Conservative government has a far from impressive record when it comes to the environment and sustainable development. International specialized journals have called the oil sands industry the most polluting industry on the planet. So it is important that the Commissioner examine this issue, so that we do not end up being the laughingstock of the world.

The Commissioner wanted greater powers to intervene. In his last report, he indicated that the government’s progress toward providing guidance to departments on greening their operations was unsatisfactory. The Conservatives' targets are non-specific. They reiterate previous objectives, are non-binding, and are open to interpretation. In short, the Conservative government's development strategies are not focused on achieving effective results. The plan is incomplete and does not incorporate the targets.

Even if the government committed itself to becoming a leader in terms of the environment and sustainable development, it lacks the leadership and the will. So, the Commissioner is asking for more and more powers. The Bloc Québécois supports this request, which was the impetus for Bill S-216 before us today.

This brings me to the question of the Senate. The Bloc Québécois has long called for the Senate to be abolished. I would remind the House that in 1996, a Bloc Québécois member, Paul Crête, moved a motion calling on the government to abolish the Senate. We are in favour of abolishing the Senate. Indeed, senators have no democratic legitimacy, since they are not elected. It is practically irrevocable; they are appointed until the age of 75. They have the authority to oppose measures passed by the House of Commons, whose members are elected. In this democracy, unelected officials can oppose the decisions of elected officials. They are not selected based on merit. They are appointed based on purely partisan criteria.

In 1993, Brian Mulroney appointed David Angus, who was the Conservative Party's chief fundraiser and chairman of the PC Canada fund from 1983 to 1993. He is currently a director and chairman emeritus of the Conservative Party of Canada fund. Thus, his appointment was purely partisan.

The Liberals did the same thing. Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette was appointed in 1995. Since 2007, she has been the Quebec lieutenant for the Liberal Party of Canada. She spends practically all of her time on electoral organization. The same is true of Senator Dawson and Senator Fox, two former MPs who were appointed to the Senate in 2005 by Paul Martin. They are actively involved in organization. I find this amusing, because Senator Fox's son is my rival, the Liberal Party candidate in my riding. I see him at all the discussion forums. I have also noted that he spends all of his time playing politics. I also find it amusing that Senator Fox does not have the courage to run against me. I have often challenged him. If he had any courage, he would have left his position in the Senate and faced me in an election, but no, he prefers to sacrifice his son, whom I will easily beat hands down during the next election. That is the Liberals' choice.

Recently, the Conservatives appointed Senator Léo Housakos and Senator Claude Carignan, who are party organizers. This morning, ruefrontenac.com, the site set up by Journal de Montréal employees who are on lock-out, ran a headline that said, “Léo Housakos—Tory insider raises funds for a number of parties in Quebec”. Those parties include Union Montréal, Gérald Tremblay's party, Action démocratique du Québec—we saw that in the news on the weekend—Vision Montréal, when it was controlled by Benoit Labonté, and the Conservative Party of Canada. A senator appointed by the Conservatives is a fundraiser for a number of political parties.

Again, why have a Senate full of political party organizers who are paid by the government to manage election campaigns for each of the parties, the Conservatives or the Liberals? It all depends on the partisan appointments. The Senate is expensive. Why have a second chamber? We are quite capable, here in the House of Commons, of defending the interests of the public. Again, we are legislators elected by the public.

In 2006-07, according to the public accounts, the Senate cost $81 million, essentially to duplicate the work of the House of Commons. That $81 million could have been invested in health or in dealing with greenhouse gases. Many other things could have been done with that money. No province has had an upper chamber since 1968. Quebec did away with its upper chamber a long time ago. It is interesting to note that members of several provincial upper chambers once had to earn their election. At least some provinces elected the members of their upper chamber. Prince Edward Island's legislative council was elected as of 1862, and the Province of Canada's as of 1857.

Even though it was the Senate that introduced this bill, we will vote in favour of it to protect the environment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-216. I will not spend much time talking about the value of granting this change to the law as it would simply make mandatory a practice that already occurs.

I am advised by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development that, as a matter of course, when he delivers his report to the House of Commons he also delivers it to the Senate. We need to be mindful of the fact that if this bill passes, there will be absolutely no change in the practice of the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I wish, instead, to speak to the value of the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development within the Office of the Auditor General. I have nothing but high praise for the Auditor General of Canada. She does laudatory work. It is regrettable that she only has two years left in her mandate. I have had the privilege, since becoming an elected member of Parliament, to spend time with her and I have nothing but high respect for her work. I encourage her to continue in that vein.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reports under the ambit of the Auditor General. There has been a lot of discussion about whether the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development should be separated away. Regardless of whether that happens in the future, I have nothing but praise for the delivery of the functions of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I would like to give particular personal praise to Scott Vaughan, who is a renowned international economist. I had the privilege of working with him when he was working with the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. He was working on the economic and trade impacts connected with the environment and I was working in the enforcement realm.

Since being elected and since Mr. Vaughan being appointed as commissioner, I had the opportunity to meet with him when he delivered his reports to Parliament and when he appeared before the parliamentary committee to deliver his reports. He is a credible, reputable, highly skilled commissioner. I hope he will continue in that position for many years because he has done an absolutely phenomenal job.

It is incumbent upon both Houses, the Senate and the House of Commons, to ensure the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development remains independent and well budgeted to continue in the role that he is doing so well.

I had the opportunity to review, through the parliamentary committee, the reports he has delivered over the past year and I have nothing but high regard. I could bring to the attention of the House the report where the commissioner audited the Government of Canada on how well it was delivering on its promised program to reduce climate change. The report of the commissioner said that it was very difficult to audit because there were no clear triggers or measurables in the program to allow him to audit and say whether it was delivering one way or another.

In the cases where it was clear what the government was doing within those programs, he stated that those measures seemed to be falling down on the job. While it may have been well intentioned, the government does not seem to be delivering the reductions that it stated it was delivering. The government has commented on those and promised, as is the case with the process, to do better, to provide better measures and so forth.

What we need to look at is the whole series of reports by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development since the appointment a couple of decades back. We also need to know why that appointment was made and why that office was created. It was in the spirit and intent of federal governance being done in an open and transparent way.

From that standpoint, I commend the government that created the office and the government for continuing the office. I would encourage the present government to embellish the budget for the commissioner because there are so many critical matters facing us: the growing number of toxins being produced, emitted into the environment and not yet controlled; the challenge of tens of thousands of chemicals not yet regulated; the challenge with water management in Canada and whether the Government of Canada is carrying out its role in that avenue; and whether the Government of Canada is delivering in transboundary ways, which is the function and role of the federal government.

One of the most important roles of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is to receive petitions from citizens across Canada. When they feel that the government is not delivering on its obligations, citizens can file petitions. Those petitions and the results of those investigations are publicly reported and are a good report card on how well the governments at the time are doing.

Whether we need to make it mandatory on the commissioner to report, I would hope that does not introduce a scenario where the Senate might, in any way, interfere with the timely delivery of the reports or the response by the government. However. I would look forward to both houses of Parliament respecting the reports of the commissioner and responding in a far more timely fashion than thus far.

I have the highest regard for the work by the commissioner but, unfortunately, less regard for the governments of the day in delivering and responding on the very credible reports.

I see no reason to go against this bill. I do not see that it adds anything of necessary value. If the Senate feels that perhaps a future commissioner may not look kindly upon reporting to it, the Senate would have some level of security that it too will be able to talk first-hand with the commissioner.

I can say nothing except that it is good news to hear that the Senate values the work of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and would like to have the opportunity to dialogue with the person who holds that office in the same way that the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has that opportunity.

I look forward to the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which will be tabled, I believe, this week, and our committee will have an opportunity to meet face to face with the commissioner.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate at second reading of Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act. The government is happy to support the bill, as a contributor to federal transparency and accountability for sustainable development.

The government believes in sustainable development and is of the view that we have to balance environmental progress and economic progress, that our responsibilities for prosperity are balanced, as well as our responsibilities as stewards of the environment.

While we need a certain amount of prosperity to derive environmental progress, we also know that protecting and sustaining our natural environment is central to this prosperity, to our standard of living, and to the health and well-being of all Canadians. That is why we have taken concrete steps to improve sustainability.

We announced this past March legislation to increase the penalties for polluters, and in April, new regulations for tailpipe emissions.

We have been working with our partners, the Obama administration in the United States, on a clean energy dialogue which will enhance collaboration on the development of clean energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address climate change.

We have introduced grants under the eco-energy retrofit homes program. We have increased them by 25% to help Canadians take more sustainable action in their homes. This program is a chance for Canadians to save money on home renovations that will reduce energy consumption and that will provide for a cleaner environment. It will also cut their energy bills and save them money.

We have put in place a strong comprehensive approach to ensure that our water resources are used wisely, both economically through making investments in regulating and enforcing laws, monitoring, science, cleaning up problem areas, as well as building partnerships to protect our fresh waters.

This government has been clear on its commitment to environmental sustainability through these and other concrete actions. We have also been clear about our commitment to greater accountability in advancing sustainable development. Part of that commitment was evidenced last year when Parliament passed with all-party support the Federal Sustainable Development Act. All parties were able to work together in a show of goodwill and common commitment to environmental sustainability.

The act represents a marked improvement over the previous approach due to sustainable development plans and reporting under the Auditor General Act. That previous process did not make an overarching federal sustainable development strategy. Rather, it only required individual federal departments and agencies to prepare and table individual strategies every three years, in the absence of an overall guidance or set of federal sustainable development goals. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development likened it to trying to assemble a large jigsaw puzzle without the picture on the box. With no idea of what that picture was meant to look like, departments and agencies were left floundering.

The new Federal Sustainable Development Act will improve this process by requiring an overarching federal sustainable development strategy, with complementary departmental strategies. These will be updated every three years to reflect sustainability priorities and to reflect progress made through the implementation of the strategies.

The new act also requires oversight at a number of levels, including by the cabinet. It requires the appointment of a multi-stakeholder sustainable development advisory council made up of a broad cross-section of Canadian society. It includes provincial and territorial representatives, business and labour representatives, aboriginal peoples and environmental groups. It requires the establishment of a sustainable development office within Environment Canada to develop and maintain systems and procedures to monitor progress on the implementation of the federal strategy and report this progress to the Minister of the Environment, to Parliament, and to Canadians.

It also requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to assess and to report on the government's progress toward its sustainable development target and goals and to assess the extent to which individual departments have contributed to meeting the targets set out in the federal sustainable development strategy.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act will clearly increase transparency and accountability and improve federal sustainable development planning and reporting. Bill S-216 offers further improvements to this important piece of legislation.

This government believes strongly in accountability. Improving Senate involvement in the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act will offer further improvement. Allowing the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development greater flexibility in the timing of his or her reports, which will contribute to the timelessness of the information contained in them, is another important accountability tool.

We are pleased to support this bill. We are also pleased that the draft federal sustainable development strategy that is required under the Federal Sustainable Development Act will be brought forward to Canadians shortly for their review and comment. The consultations will include standing committees of both houses of Parliament, this House and the Senate, the multi-stakeholder sustainable development advisory council created by the act, the Canadian public, and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The views of Canadians will be heard and will be taken into consideration as we work together to prepare the final federal sustainable development strategy, which will be tabled in Parliament within the timelines outlined in the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

I began my comments with the need for a balance between a prosperous economy and a clean environment. This government is committed to that balance. It is committed to making sure that we have jobs for Canadians and that our economy is prospering and growing. However, sustainability also requires that we have a cleaner environment.

When the Liberals spoke earlier, it seemed that they were in a bit of a bad mood, but they know that this government is committed to cleaning up the environment. They were in government for 13 years and we saw growing greenhouse gas emissions and growing environmental problems, but those days are over. This government is committed to a sustainable development within Canada and that means jobs for Canadians and a cleaner environment.

We are committed to work with our international partners. I just came back from Copenhagen late last night. We are very involved with our international partners. Canada is a world leader with technologies such as carbon capture and storage. I heard that the world is depending on the United States and Canada to develop those technologies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is a superpower in cleaner energy with those technologies. Our commitment to carbon capture and storage is very important.

We have reduced emissions through stringent tailpipe emission standards, which begins with the 2011 model. Ninety per cent of Canada's electricity will be coming from environmentally clean sources by 2020. There will be a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It is one of the toughest targets in the world. That is part of sustainability. We are committed to a cleaner environment and prosperous jobs for Canadians.

I look forward to all-party support for Bill S-216. The government is proud of its actions and commitments to improve sustainable development in Canada while balancing environmental progress and economic progress. We are glad to support Bill S-216.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House on behalf of the constituents of the great riding of Kenora. I am also pleased to participate in the debate on Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament).

To echo what we have already heard, this government is pleased to have senators review both the draft and final versions of the federal sustainable development strategy. We are very happy for their participation in this process as well as all of the other reports required by the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

As my colleagues previously mentioned, this bill comes in response to an oversight in the original Federal Sustainable Development Act, which, as we have heard, failed to properly include the whole Parliament in its processes.

As the House is aware, similar provisions in the Auditor General Act require the tabling of sustainable development strategies and reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development before the House of Commons. When that language was borrowed for amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the tabling of reports in the Senate was unfortunately lost.

This government believes strongly in accountability. Improving Senate involvement in the Federal Sustainable Development Act and Auditor General Act would offer a further improvement, a concept that we fully endorse.

The government has no issue with the tabling of the reports required by the Federal Sustainable Development Act or the Auditor General Act before the Senate and is pleased to support this bill. That said, let me take a moment to briefly and importantly address what lies at the very core of the actual Federal Sustainable Development Act, and that is sustainable development itself.

Sustainable development is necessary to Canada's economic stability. We see that in the great Kenora riding with the importance of infrastructure projects that help our mills and our residential, commercial and industrial development not just serve its community for its utility and convenience, but also continue to be more environmentally friendly.

This is also to the financial well-being of our country, because economic decisions can carry with them economic ramifications. Development must be undertaken in such a way that does not unduly deplete Canada's rich and diverse natural capital. This approach to sustainable development calls on citizens, industry and governments to participate equally in activities that achieve results without jeopardizing the future of our resources.

In that respect it has been a guiding principle of this government to work in partnership with all parties to ensure our resources are exploited and developed in a manner that harms neither the economy nor the environment. We heard the parliamentary secretary speak of that balance that any government is trying to achieve in this regard. I am pleased to say that this government has repeated that refrain long and large.

Our collaboration with our partners in the United States on clean energy dialogue, for example, has been as much about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the shared environmental fabric of our two nations on this great continent as they have been about protecting the shared economic footing that allows both Canada and the United States to thrive and prosper.

Our strong and comprehensive approach to ensuring our water resources are used wisely has as much to do with ecological gains as it does with economic growth.

Our measures to clean the air Canadians breathe were created with good health in mind, good personal health, good environmental health, good community health, but also good economic health. All of those are factoring heavily in the design of our regulations, for example, the regulations for tailpipe emissions that we introduced just last April.

I mentioned, quite purposely, the three elements, greenhouse gas emissions, water and clean air. More than any others, these three represent the most recent indicators of good environmental sustainability. As members are no doubt aware, our health, well-being and economic security are highly dependent on the quality of the environment.

Reports of smog alerts, blue-green algae growth in our lakes or shrinking ice caps in our north bring attention to changing conditions in the environment. Issues like asthma, cardiovascular disease and water-borne illnesses underline linkages between the environment and human health. Environmental changes such as low water levels, pest infestations and intense storms also have economic impacts on such sectors as agriculture, forestry, tourism and fisheries.

My point here is that there is an interconnectedness between our abilities to be environmentally sustainable and to experience sustainable economic development in general. The two are not mutually exclusive. As far as developing land, cities, businesses and communities go, our government subscribes to the very definition of sustainable development, namely that we will meet current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.

This definition, to which our government has adhered since being elected into office nearly four years ago, recognizes that social, economic and environmental issues are interconnected and that decisions that will ultimately be judged as being successful are the ones that incorporate each of these aspects over the long term for our future generations.

The fact is that sustainability can be used as a means to enhance the health and well-being of Canadians, as a mechanism for preservation of Canada's natural environment, and as a tool to advance Canada's long-term economic competitiveness, be that on a continental or a global plane.

Given the importance of good, smart, sustainable development to our environmental, economic and even personal health, it goes without saying that this government will continue to do what it can to improve sustainable development in Canada.

This includes continuing to work with all of our partners. I think of the opportunity that we have in northwestern Ontario at this very moment to share in resource management and to learn from sound environmental principles from our first nations communities. We have benefited greatly from understanding traditional practices with respect to care of the land, its lakes, its trees, our forests and other important resources.

As well, we need to continue to work closely and consultatively with industry, our communities, citizens, and other levels of government, including the Senate, for the betterment of Canada's economic and environmental landscapes.

The government is pleased to have senators review both the draft and final versions of the federal sustainable development strategy, as well as all other reports required by the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The bill responds to what is largely the result of an oversight, as I have said, within the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which failed to properly include the whole of Parliament in its processes.

This government believes strongly in accountability. Improving Senate involvement in the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act will offer further improvement.

For the purposes of today's discussion, our commitment to sustainable development also and obviously includes supporting Bill S-216.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is pleased to have senators review both the draft and the final versions of the federal sustainable development strategy as well as the other reports required by the federal Sustainable Development Act. The bill responds to what is largely the result of an oversight within the federal Sustainable Development Act, which failed to properly include the whole of Parliament in its processes.

I would like to provide an example of sustainable development so we can better understand exactly what it is we are talking about. My hon. colleague, who spoke previously, described forestry as being sustainable development. In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, we are a model of sustainable forestry for the world. To do forestry in our riding is to conduct science. No one goes in clear-cutting the forest. Each tree that is to be taken down is individually selected based on which trees can give the most of themselves when they are eventually harvested. We also take into consideration the various habitats of the wildlife. We have done this to such an extent that we now grow 30% more lumber than we could possibly harvest.

We are going through a transition right now with the pulp mills no longer providing a market for our various woods, and we see the forestry industry as playing a key role in Canada's emergence as a world superpower with respect to energy. Because we were able to successfully take the energy that is built within the lumber, carbon, and put it into energy sources such as pelletization for the clean production of electricity and for homeowner use of the warm wood source with a carbon neutrality, we are finding new markets and we are able to keep people employed. So we are balancing the environment, taking into consideration both the needs of wildlife and trees and the needs of human beings to have a job and to continue harvesting the forest.

It is interesting to note that a forest that is harvested is a younger forest, and that the newer trees are able to sequester more carbon than the older trees are. Overall, we are helping out the environment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 is an important bill which should engage Canadians.

There are a number of questions that I want to raise. I will be talking briefly about sentencing. I want to talk about judicial discretion. I would like to talk about some of the implications of this legislation vis-à-vis certain offences and the serious questions that Canadians will want to have answered. As a consequence, the Liberal Party is going to be supporting Bill C-42 at second reading, to go to committee in order to hear from experts.

One of those implications will definitely be the cost of implementing changes to the Criminal Code. As members know, although the Parliament of Canada, the Government of Canada, passes legislation amending the Criminal Code, the responsibility to enforce that legislation in most cases falls to the provinces. There is an important element that has to be addressed, and that is that if we pass a law, there must be reasonable certitude that it will be respected and enforced across the land. However, if there is an impediment to that happening, then Parliament has to address that. It is not good enough to pass a law just because the law makes sense. We have to be able to enforce that law.

Today in the media, members will know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been asked specifically to start costing out the provisions in a number of pieces of legislation that have been proposed by the government which will have an impact on our ability to enforce the changes proposed in the legislation.

There are some very serious issues and it is going to be very important that this bill go to committee so that we hear from the experts. We all have an opinion here in this place but we need to go to committee. That is where the resources of outside experts from across the land will be available to inform parliamentarians, and that is why we do this.

Second reading allows us to at least raise some issues that we hope the committee itself will address when committee hearings start, and that is important.

For those who are not aware, the summary of this particular bill reads as follows:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to eliminate the reference, in section 742.1, to serious personal injury offences and to restrict the availability of conditional sentences--

--and that is an important part--

--for all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life and for specified offences, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.

For most people, that will not make any sense whatsoever, so as I was looking at some of the debates so far, I thought it would be important to remind hon. members and Canadians about what conditional sentencing is. When did it come about and why was it there?

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert had a very concise description, and I would simply like to draw on it.

This aspect of conditional sentencing came into being in June of 1994, under then Bill C-41, and it was described as Canada's first comprehensive reform to modernizing sentencing law and procedures since 1892, so it was breaking new ground. It was introduced in the House of Commons, and among its elements was the creation of the concept of a conditional sentence of imprisonment. This meant that sentences of imprisonment of less than two years, if ordered or mandated by a court, could be served in the community under certain conditions and under supervision. This could be done only under statutory conditions such that the court was satisfied that the offender could serve the sentence in the community without endangering the population at large.

Therefore, our system of justice recognized that there were cases where the people who had broken the law and who were subject to imprisonment were, in some cases, not likely to reoffend or to be a risk to society. Often it is said that if one commits a crime there are consequences. One must be responsible and accountable for one's actions and must take one's punishment.

There are cases where someone who, for instance, is convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm to another person and that would prescribe an imprisonment. However, when someone is put in jail, the judges need to look at some other factors. I was looking on the web last night about the various kinds of cases and the conditional sentencing arrangements that were given and this bill would change them.

I want to advise the House of some of these cases. Anything to do with drugs, as far as I am concerned, is very serious and it is something for which I would have a hard time giving a conditional sentence. We must understand that a conditional sentence means not going to jail and living one's life. It is like being on probation. There is a fine line between conditional sentencing and probation. Conditional sentencing usually involves curfews put on people and they cannot leave the house from 6 p.m. until 9 a.m. the next day. It also means that they are only permitted to go to and from work directly, with no stops in between. It also means that they must under prescription check in with someone akin to a probation officer to ensure they are doing all the things under the court order. It is quite restrictive and, in some cases, the length of a conditional sentence may be longer than the period for which they would serve in jail if they were in fact sent to jail for the offence.

There was a case in Alberta recently where 12 men were involved in drug trafficking. One of the persons involved was an 18-year-old with a clean record. He was a bright kid who made a mistake by getting involved with bad people, which happens a lot. He was sentenced to 24 months of conditional sentence and a probation period after that. The court took into account that there may be circumstances under which the person may be less likely to reoffend or get involved in criminal activity if he did not go to jail, which some people have described in this debate as being crime school where one learns how to be a good criminal.

In another case, a 32-year-old New Brunswicker was drinking at a bar and he assaulted a staff member at the bar following an altercation with his girlfriend. He punched the staffer in the bar because the staffer had insulted his girlfriend. Under the law, he should have gone to jail but he was given a conditional sentence.

A Nova Scotia man got one year of conditional sentencing for uttering a death threat but there were other circumstances for justifying giving that conditional sentence.

A Kingston man was given nine months conditional sentence for assault. He has a curfew from 6 p.m. until 9 a.m. the next day, except for going to and from his work.

A woman received a 12 month conditional sentence for punching her husband's girlfriend. She normally would have gone to jail but something happened. She assaulted her husband's girlfriend and she should have gone to jail but the law currently provides that she could get a conditional sentence.

An Edmonton nurse received a 23 month conditional sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm. I do not know the details of the case but it was 23 months of house arrest, although I do not think it is sitting around the house having a good time.

A New Brunswick woman was sentenced to a 12 month conditional sentence plus 3 years probation for concealing the body of her newborn baby who had died. Under the Criminal Code, normally she should have gone to jail but she was given a conditional sentence of 12 months.

A Regina man convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm was given a two year conditional sentence. Another man, who had no hands, was a courier for a drug group. He was given a 12 month conditional sentence plus 2 years probation mainly because he was at risk of being harmed if he was in jail.

Those are the kinds of things that would be covered in Bill C-42 and, if it were to pass as is, all of those people would go to jail. There would be no conditional sentences and no consideration of whether they have family, are the sole bread winners or have a disabled child who needs a father or mother. Those are the kinds of things the judges need to take into consideration.

When I looked at the legislation and read some of the things that would be changed, it drew to my attention that there needs to be some judicial discretion. I believe this is where the Conservatives and the other parties part on justice bills. It has to do with judicial discretion. It has to do with whether we respect the courts and judges to make informed decisions based on criteria and principles.

With regard to sentencing, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, and to show respect for the law and the maintenance of a peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: first, to denounce unlawful conduct; second, to deter the offender and other persons from committing serious offences; third, to separate offenders from society, where necessary; fourth, to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders; fifth, to provide reparations for harm done to victims in the community; and sixth, to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

The need for these things was reinforced in a judgment in the year 2000 from Justice Proulx, who, in his ruling said that the provisions on conditional sentencing:

...were enacted both to reduce reliance on incarceration as a sanction and to increase the use of principles of restorative justice in sentencing.

A conditional sentence should be distinguished from probationary measures. Probation is primarily a rehabilitative sentencing tool. By contrast, Parliament intended conditional sentences to include both punitive and rehabilitative aspects. Therefore, conditional sentences should generally include punitive conditions that are restrictive of the offender's liberty. Conditions such as house arrest should be the norm, not the exception

The Supreme Court of Canada finds that there are circumstances where an offender could have the benefit, first, of some rehabilitation component, but also the punitive component. It is important that we never have any understanding that someone is going to commit a crime and not be responsible for his or her actions.

That issue comes to bear when we look at what is happening in the proposed justice bills that have come before Parliament. We have often heard in this place that if people do the crime, they do the time. It tends to indicate that the philosophy is to treat everybody the same, regardless of the circumstances or conditions.

Members will know that there are some 20 principles and guidelines guiding judges, allowing them the latitude to look at a circumstance and find out what best fits that case. Clearly, for the most serious crimes that is not a problem, but in some of the examples I gave, I found it somewhat problematic.

I also want to point out to members that in a recent survey it was found that 39% of inmates in jail in the province of Ontario suffer from some form of mental illness. Having done a lot of work on fetal alcohol syndrome, I am quite aware that many of the people in our jails suffer from alcohol-related birth defects.

Those are the kinds of things on which judges have some discretion. However, Bill C-42 would make it much more difficult for the justice system to treat people who have problems that are beyond the problems they have.

I certainly hope the committee will look at the costs of implementing these kinds of changes to the law. The estimates that I have already seen and that, hopefully, will be confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will show that the cost of implementing these changes to Bill C-42 would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Over 5,000 people who are currently on conditional sentencing would be in jail.

The magnitude of this is very significant. The issues are significant and I hope all hon. members will bring those to committee so we can get it right.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. If the power is taken out of the judgment of the judges, then decisions we make could eventually lead to the debate of why we have judges at all.

There is no question that people who have a crime committed against them feel very angry, upset and despondent about what happened to them. The fact is that many of those crimes are committed by people who started life with a mental or physical challenge. Whatever the challenges are, we are not walking in their shoes.

There are a million reasons why people resort to crime, which is why it is important that judges have the discretion, through a legal system that allows all the facts and bearings of a case to go before a judge or jury of his peers, to make a complete analysis of what the time should be when fitting the crime.

I hear fiscal Conservatives talk about the financial aspects of everything, but when it comes to this, they are very silent on what the actual costs will be. Why does the member believe the Conservative Party is so reluctant to release financial information on what these particular legislations would eventually cost the taxpayers of Canada?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, it is easy to pass laws but to have them enforced and work within our system is another prerequisite. There is no point in passing laws that will never be enforced. It happens. We have heard time and time again that the provinces are strapped and that the courts and jails are full.

It costs about $300 a day on average for an inmate, which is more than a hotel stay. However, by changing this law, 5,000-plus people would go to jail. It means that certain jails would need to be expanded and new jails built. All kinds of additional people would need to be involved. The costs would be very significant and, beyond the capital cost of prisons, much of the cost would fall on the shoulders of the provincial government.

They have clearly said that they do not have the money to do it. They do not have the people, the probationary officers or the staffing in the system to care for this. Does that not mean that we need to do more in terms of identifying those who will not reoffend? We need to allow them to have conditional sentencing or house arrest with the understanding that it is both punitive as well as rehabilitative, and look for more ways in which we can work on crime prevention.

We need prevention. It has never been in any of these bills and that concerns me because prevention is much cheaper than incarceration.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let it go by that the Conservatives like to consider themselves the law and order party but the reality is that the people who uphold law and order in this country, the RCMP, had their salary increases rolled back on December 23 from 3.5% to 1.5% without notification.

What a slap in the face to those hon. men and women who serve our country and go after the bad guys every day. I would like the hon. member's comments on how he and the police in his riding felt just before Christmas when their salary increases were rolled back arbitrarily by the government.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many people who are involved in the administration and the enforcement of the criminal justice system. Police officers certainly are the front line. We hear year after year how many of them lose their lives in the line of duty, enforcing the laws of Canada. So, I do not disagree with the member. I can, however, enlighten him.

The Department of Justice says that 5,000 more people would be put in jail as a consequence of this and it is estimated that the 5,000 additional inmates would cost the provinces in the range of $250 million to $500 million a year. That is not counting the capital costs. There is no way that the provincial systems currently can accommodate these 5,000 extra inmates. It is also estimated that the capital costs for expanding or building new prisons would be $1.5 billion to $2 billion.

This is the dimension of the problem we have to demonstrate that we will be able to enforce the changes in the law that are currently being presented under Bill C-42.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today during the second reading of Bill C-42, the bill that proposes to limit the use of conditional sentencing for serious offences.

This is an important issue to constituents in my riding of Leeds--Grenville. They take getting tough on criminals very seriously. It is something that I hear constantly when I go around my riding. They are happy that our government has taken a number of initiatives over the last three plus years to get tough on crime.

We have heard from others who seem to have a problem with criminals doing the time for the crime. One could find all kinds of excuses not to support this legislation, but my constituents are happy that the government is finally taking these issues seriously. They are happy that our minister continues to introduce bills and they want to see them pass through Parliament.

My constituents get discouraged when they tune in to find out what is going on in Parliament and find that often these bills are held up by the opposition. Sometimes a bill goes through the House of Commons and then the other place slows down its implementation.

I am happy to rise today to speak in support of this particular bill. My constituents are happy that we have brought this legislation forward.

A conditional sentence is also known as house arrest. House arrest is a relatively new tool in Canadian law and it can be imposed when several conditions are met: first, the offence is not punishable by a mandatory prison sentence; second, the court imposes a sentence of less than two years; third, the court is convinced that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community; fourth, the court must be satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing; and, fifth, the offence meets the following criteria: it is not a serious personal injury offence as in section 752; it is not a terrorism offence; and it is not a criminal organization offence prosecuted by indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

Sentencing judges may decide not to impose a conditional sentence even if all of the conditions are met if they feel that justice will not be served with such a sentence.

Bill C-42 would add new, clear provisions to the conditional sentence sections of the Criminal Code to ensure that conditional sentences are not available to individuals who commit serious violent crimes and serious property crimes.

Bill C-42 would remove some of the sentencing latitude that is now available for some of these offences. It would end conditional sentences for indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life.

This legislation would also apply to indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years where the offences result in bodily harm; involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs; or involve the use of a weapon.

In order to cover serious offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, Bill C-42 seeks to eliminate the use of conditional sentences for: prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house with intent, and arson for fraudulent purposes.

As has been explained, conditional sentences were never intended for very violent or serious crimes but rather for less serious offences. They were designed to be used in cases where offenders would be better served by doing soft time in surroundings where they could be rehabilitated.

Unfortunately, not all sentencing courts have interpreted the availability of conditional sentences in the same manner. Consequently, many, including some provinces and territories, became increasingly concerned with the wide array of offences that resulted in conditional sentencing of imprisonment.

It is not just the courts that are concerned. Citizens, like those I spoke of from my riding of Leeds—Grenville and across Canada, are echoing those concerns. Residents of my riding of Leeds—Grenville, as I said before, continue to talk to me about these issues. They are very important to them.

I am happy to be standing up here today in support of another one of those initiatives. In their eyes the laws are not working properly. We need to look at them and make changes where necessary.

The best way to deal with the ambiguity is through the bill, which provides clear definitions of what crimes are not punishable with a conditional sentence. We attempted to do that months before with Bill C-9 in 2006. That bill was amended by the opposition. Bill C-9, in its original form, proposed a new criterion that would have eliminated the availability of a conditional sentence for offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more, and prosecuted by indictment. This would have caught serious crimes, including designated violent and sexual offences, weapons offences, offences committed against children, and serious property crimes such as fraud and theft over $5,000.

Just last week we were dealing with another bill to do with penalties for serious property and theft crimes over $5,000. I was happy to have spoken on that bill as well.

However, opposition members of the justice committee, when they were dealing with Bill C-9, left it too open and too broad. The opposition voted to amend the legislation to only capture terrorism offences, organized crime offences, and serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code that are punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment.

Because of the changes imposed by the opposition on Bill C-9, it has become clear that the current conditional sentencing regime still fails to categorically make conditional sentences ineligible for many, very serious crimes.

My colleagues in the House might be asking themselves if it is necessary to amend the conditional sentencing regime once again, since the last amendments came into effect on December 1, 2007. The answer to that is a resounding yes. The concept of serious personal injury offences defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code was developed in the context of dangerous offenders. However, the opposition parties borrowed this as a limit on the use of conditional sentences when they modified the government's original proposal in Bill C-9 .

This has resulted in more confusion in sentencing in the eyes of the general public where, for example, people found guilty of such crimes as assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm receive conditional sentences. My constituents want to see a stop put to that. Serious property crimes in which fraud is committed against victims who have no recourse and receive no restitution for their often devastating loss bring the offender a conditional sentence.

We appear to be allowing criminals who do serious harm to others, physically or even monetarily, to serve their time in comfort. Once again, this is something that my constituents find very offensive.

Sentences are supposed reflect our society's abhorrence of the crime. What are we telling our citizens and those who commit crimes, when we send criminals, who wilfully and knowingly do harm to others, away to serve a conditional sentence?

I often speak about this in the House when we bring forward legislation that introduces mandatory prison sentences. When we introduce mandatory prison sentences, we are doing two things. We are attempting to show those who would commit those crimes that there will be a price to pay and that if they commit those crimes, they will serve the time. We are also attempting to use these mandatory prison sentences as a deterrent so that those who are thinking about committing such crimes will think twice before doing so.

Conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases, but they do not need to be restricted when it comes to serious property and serious violent offences. Conditional sentences were created for less serious crimes. It is for this reason that they are not available for offences punishable by a mandatory prison sentence or for offences for which a sentence of two years or more is imposed.

We need to ask ourselves why conditional sentences were created.

Before conditional sentences were created in 1996, offenders who were declared by the courts to pose no threat to society were generally punished with sentences of less than two years in a provincial institution or suspended sentences with probation.

However, probation orders and other alternatives to incarceration placed—and still place—fewer restrictions on freedom and do not allow judges to order that offenders undergo treatment. There is no quick way to convert a probation order into a sentence of detention in the event the offender breaches the conditions of the sentence.

Conditional sentences were therefore created as an alternative to the sentences that could be imposed on this sort of offenders. The courts could quickly convert a conditional sentence into a sentence of detention, set limits on the offender's freedom and require the offender to undergo treatment.

A conditional sentence cannot be accompanied by parole or a sentence reduction.

As I said before, Bill C-42 is something that my constituents and many Canadians look forward to seeing go through this House. Bill C-42 fulfills a 2008 platform commitment made by our party seeking to restrict the availability of conditional sentences of imprisonment to ensure that serious crimes, including serious property offences, are not eligible for house arrest. In addition to the existing criteria limiting the availability of conditional sentences, Bill C-42 would deal with many of the things which I already spoke about.

These amendments are really needed, because the government's previous attempts to prevent the use of conditional sentences for any indictable offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment or more, which we brought forward in Bill C-9, were significantly weakened by opposition amendments to restrict the availability of those conditional sentences only for those 10 years or more offences, which were terrorism offences, something which I learned a lot about when we were dealing with the Anti-terrorism Act in the last Parliament.

The problem with the current law, as a result of the opposition amendment, is that the definition of serious personal injury offences lacks that true, needed clarity. It is really not certain whether particular serious property or serious violent offences such as wilful mischief, endangering life, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence, or serious drug offences would be interpreted as serious personal injury offences and therefore ineligible for a conditional sentence in all cases.

Bill C-42 addresses these flaws by providing a much more consistent and rational approach for the offences which cannot receive a conditional sentence.

Canadian citizens have many questions about this bill. They want to know whether the reform we are bringing forward in this bill will modify the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. This reform does not propose to modify or change the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing contained in the Criminal Code. However, with respect to serious matters, it is going to require the courts to focus on the objectives of denunciation, incapacitation and general deterrence which I spoke about a little earlier.

Some might ask why we want to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences from the conditional sentencing regime, which is section 742.1, when the amendments brought forward by Bill C-9 in the 39th Parliament came into force just 18 months ago. As I said before, the reference to serious personal injury offences in section 742.1, a term originally intended to apply to the dangerous and long-term offender provisions of the Criminal Code, was the result of the efforts by the opposition and its amendment to Bill C-9. The reference to serious personal injury offences in section 742.1 does not clearly establish those limits on the availability of conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes.

Some also want to know if this amendment to the bill covers offences that are prosecuted by summary conviction. This reform focuses on the most serious cases, those cases that Canadians find most offensive, that were eligible for this conditional sentencing. Those cases which are generally indictable offences and carry a 10 year plus maximum sentence can also be prosecuted by summary conviction where the maximum sentence is much lower. In those cases where police and prosecutors exercise their discretion to proceed summarily, conditional sentences will still be available in those cases. The justice system must rely upon police and prosecutors using summary conviction charges in appropriate cases.

One thing that I was concerned about with the bill was whether all sexual assault cases would be ineligible for a conditional sentence. This reform will restrict the use of conditional sentences for all sexual assault offences that are prosecuted by indictment and punishable by 10 years or more of imprisonment. Consequently, sexual assault cases that are prosecuted by summary conviction will still be eligible for a conditional sentence order.

I have confidence in police and prosecutors using summary conviction charges only in appropriate cases. The offence of sexual assault covers a wide range of conduct, and not to allow conditional sentences at the very low end of that range would not be in the interests of the administration of justice.

I urge all members to support the bill moving on to committee. This is something which the constituents in my riding of Leeds—Grenville take very seriously. They are very happy that the government is taking action. I urge all members to get behind the bill and stand up and vote in favour of it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his ability to try to get tough on crime.

He indicated during his speech that there are many occasions on which he spoke to his constituents about this issue. I was wondering if the member, for the record, would advise us if he has advised his constituents of any evidence based facts that this would actually reduce crime. If he has, perhaps he could table it in the House or perhaps he would be able to provide it during the committee process.

Has the member been clear with his constituents about the actual financial costs and who will pay for all the additional sentences, jails, prisons and so on?

I have no problems with the perception of getting tough on the worst criminals. I have a bill on child Internet pornography and I would like us to get a lot tougher on child pornographers in this country than we are now. We hear about truth in advertising. We would like to know what the economic costs of the provisions in this bill will be. Who is going to pay for it? Where is the evidence that it would actually reduce crime in this country?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for introducing the bill on child pornography. Child pornography is something which my constituents find offensive.

The question was about who is going to pay for this. Some of this reform will fall on the provincial and territorial governments. The hon. member asked about the cost. What is the cost to society when people continue to commit these crimes and they do not have any deterrents in place whatsoever?

I ask the hon. member about the real cost to society if we do not take these types of action.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the line of questioning around the member's constituents, I have been listening with great interest to the member for Leeds—Grenville. I noted that during his speech he mentioned his constituents and their interest in this important bill. I was wondering if the member could elaborate on why they think the bill is so important.