Debates of April 24th, 2009

Business of Supply

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that Monday, April 27, and Tuesday, April 28, shall be allotted days.

Housing

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition in support of a national housing strategy. The signatories to this petition are from around Halifax and Dartmouth, in Nova Scotia. They were actually collected by Community Action on Homelessness, an organization that is committed to housing and homelessness issues in Nova Scotia.

The signatories are calling for the swift passage of private member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. They call for an increased federal role in housing through investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for new housing.

Both the signatories and I look forward to the minister's response.

Gun Registry

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present in the House a petition signed by hunters, farmers and rural people who would like to see us scrap the billion-dollar long gun registry, which has not saved lives and has diverted resources away from people, away from real public security.

These farmers and these hunters are not criminals. By targeting people who legitimately use long guns in rural communities, we do not stop handgun crime in urban communities; thus I present this petition.

Income Trusts

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present this income trust broken promise petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Jeffrey Robinson, of Mississauga South.

He remembers the Prime Ministerboasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said “the greatest fraud is a promise not kept”.

The petitioners, who are in fact all from my riding, remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts but he broke that promise and imposed a 31.5% punitive tax that permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners therefore call upon the government, first, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, as shown in the finance committee hearings; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to introduce for the second time a petition asking Parliament to reject the Canada-Columbia free trade agreement until its impacts on human rights have been assessed by an independent panel.

The petitioners also ask that the agreement be renegotiated with the respect for fair trade practices to take into account its environmental and social impacts in a way that really respects the rights of workers and all other affected people. The petitioners are very concerned by the violence inflicted by the Colombian paramilitary groups on workers and members of civil society and by the fact that more than 2,200 unionists have been murdered since 1991.

The petitioners believe that all trade agreements signed by Canada must be based on fair trade principles, namely the respect of social justice, human rights, workers' rights and good environmental practices.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 88 will be answered today.

Question No. 88

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

With regard to the Canada Ecotrust for Clean Air and Climate Change that was announced by the government in February 2007: (a) what are the details of each project, including its explanation, cost, start date and current status; (b) what is the detailed explanation of the amount of all greenhouse gas emission reduction attained by virtue of the projects; and (c) what is the detailed explanation whether or not the funding of these projects was incremental to existing provincial or territorial environmental spending?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:

With regard to a) Budget 2007 confirmed the arrangements for the trust fund for clean air and climate change by establishing a third-party trust, a $1.5 billion initiative, to provide resources to provinces and territories that identify major projects that target real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. These projects range from infrastructure to community energy efficiency campaigns.

The ecotrust for clean air and climate change is a transfer payment to the provinces and territories. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to draw the funds over three years according to their respective schedule and priorities. Provinces and territories report directly to their residents on the commitments and progress made under the trust.

The Government of Canada has made a number of joint announcements with provinces and territories regarding the planned expenditures under this trust, and in many cases provinces have publicly acknowledge the use of ecoTrust funds in their budget and project announcements.

Under this type of funding arrangement, the provinces and territories are not required to report to the government on how they use that money to achieve results. Provinces are encouraged to acknowledge in their public announcements the funding contribution provided by the Government of Canada to reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

For example: Alberta’s recent budget announced $1.1 billion for carbon capture and storage and projects funded through the climate change and emissions management fund and Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change. Alberta received close to $160 million of ecotrust funds. Nova Scotia acknowledged the financial assistance of the Government of Canada’s ecotrust in its 2008 report “EcoNova Scotia for Clean Air and Climate Change”. The Ontario government has identified that ecotrust is financially contributing to initiatives, including: the development and implementation of policies to monitor, analyze and address smog and air toxins; expansion of the GO Transit system; and the establishment of a bio-energy research centre associated with the Atikokan generating station.

With regard to b) Under the operating principles of the trust, provincial and territorial governments are encouraged to report directly to their residents on the expenditures financed and outcomes achieved as a result of the funding provided through the trust.

In its climate change action plan in 2006, Quebec estimated that it would be able to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 10 megatonnes below otherwise projected levels for 2012. Subsequently, Quebec indicated that the $349.9 million in federal funds under ecotrust would enable it to achieve 13.8 megatonnes in reductions by 2012. This is an increase of 3.8 megatonnes attributed by Quebec to the $350 million it received under ecoTrust.

To estimate the likely emission reductions from the ecotrust contribution, we used Quebec’s estimate as the basis for estimating the total ecoTrust emission reductions.

1. $350 million/19 megatonnes in incremental reduction (3.8 megatonnes times 5 years) = $18.5 per tonne;

2. $1,500 million total Trust Fund / $18.5 per tonne = 81.1 megatonnes – cumulative reductions over five years;

3. 81.1 megatonnes / 5 years = 16.2 megatonnes per year.

With regard to c) The trust fund provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to draw down the funds over three years according to their respective schedule and priorities. The trust fund is allocated on a per capita basis and provides a minimum of $15 million per province and $5 million per territory to support efforts to develop technology, improve energy efficiency, and undertake other projects that will result in significant environmental benefits.

The intention behind ecotrust was to provide funding to provinces and territories that would allow them to supplement their current activities related to climate change and air emissions, thus allowing greater achievements in emissions reduction.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 85, 86 and 89 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 85

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund: (a) how many applications were successful and received funding under this program, and how many were rejected; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by province and federal electoral district; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will or went to expand existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects applications that went towards (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; and (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications that went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communication more accessible?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 86

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

With regards to mortgages: (a) how many loans for 40 year amortization mortgages has the government guaranteed (i) since January 1, 1993, (ii) since February 6, 2006; (b) since February 6, 2006, how many loans for 40 year amortization mortgages has the government guaranteed with zero down payment from the client; (c) as of March 10, 2009, what is the government’s contingent liability related to guarantees for all mortgages which were entered into with (i) a 40 year amortization period, (ii) a 35 year amortization period; and (d) as of March 10, 2009, how many mortgages entered into with a 40 year amortization period have been purchased by the government through the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 89

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

With regard to the previously cancelled procurement processes by the Department of Public Works and Government Services for two Joint Support Ships (JSS), on behalf of the Department of National Defence, and 12 mid-shore patrol vessels, on behalf of the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) is there a procurement process for vessels under the JSS project currently being pursued and, if so, (i) is there a plan to move forward with another request for proposals for the vessels during the 2009-2010 fiscal year, (ii) what funding has been allocated to pursue this project in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; and (b) is there a plan to pursue a competitive bidding process for the acquisition of mid-shore patrol vessels for use by the Canadian Coast Guard and, if so, (i) has money been budgeted to pursue this project in the 2009-2010 fiscal year and, if so, (ii) how much, (iii) through which department?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Code

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill at third reading.

Bill C-14 proposes to amend the Criminal Code in several important ways. It facilitates the prosecution of gang related and organized crime and it makes our communities safer by introducing several new initiatives.

Specifically, Bill C-14 makes murders connected with organized crime activity automatically first degree and presumptively planned and deliberate. It creates three new offences: one, intentionally discharging a firearm while being reckless about endangering the life or safety of another person; two, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm to a peace officer; and three, aggravated assault of a peace officer.

The bill also extends the maximum duration of a recognizance to two years for a person who has been previously convicted of an offence involving a criminal organization, or intimidating a justice system participant. The recognizance conditions have also been clarified, which is another positive attribute of the bill.

In simple terms, this bill is aimed at reducing gang related violence, reducing drive-by or public shootings, and protecting our justice system officials, notably our police officers who have to deal with gang activity on a daily basis.

The bill is timely. It is helpful. It is a measured and defensible response with aspects that all Canadians can and should support, but it is not sufficient nor will it alone address all of the aspects of violent crime and gang activity that we need to address.

I would like to place the bill in the context of my own riding. I live in and represent the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, a riding that straddles the east and west sides of Vancouver. All Canadians have seen the violence that has erupted in Vancouver and in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. In the last four months alone we have had over three dozen shootings and at least 15 deaths. We have had public shootings in our streets, at homes and in shopping centre parking lots. Two women have been shot; one was murdered in a car in front of her four-year-old son. This outburst of violence, of gunfire, of deaths, many of which are obviously gang related, deserves a swift and strong response from all parliamentarians. We New Democrats are prepared to support such a response.

Indeed, just six months ago, New Democrats campaigned on renewing and strengthening our federal crime program. New Democrats called then and we call now for: 2,500 more police officers across Canada to be added to our forces; improved witness protection programs; more resources for prosecution and enforcement; toughened proceeds of crime legislation; better coordination between RCMP, border services, provincial and municipal police forces; and better and more prevention programs to divert youth at risk. Just as important, indeed it is critical that there be an understanding of and commitment to the concept that crime does not just happen, that it is a product of the health, or not, of society at large. Crime is connected in many ways to poverty, to unemployment, to weakened family units, to inadequate social supports.

It is this last component that I believe sets the New Democrats apart from the other two national parties. New Democrats understand that only a balanced and multi-faceted approach to crime will pay dividends and actually work to reduce it. New Democrats believe we must be tough on crime, but we also believe that we must be equally tough on the causes of crime. Punishment, prisons and locking people up longer alone will not solve our problems.

Last week on April 16, I held a forum on crime, gangs and violence in my riding. I invited all of the community to attend. I specifically invited the administrators, teachers and students of all four high schools in Vancouver Kingsway: Windermere, Gladstone, Sir Charles Tupper and Eric Hamber secondary schools. I would like to thank the administrators and staff of these schools for their dedication to their students and the work they do day in and day out that actually helps build and improve those young people's lives.

I held the forum at Windermere High School. We screened a locally made film called Warrior Boyz, a wonderful film directed by Ms. Baljit Sangra and co-produced by the National Film Board. This film was shot in Surrey, British Columbia. It examined the real lives of youth in gangs, at risk and ex-gang members, youth 15 years old, 18 years old and adults. This was a dramatic, sensitive and nuanced look at the lure and realities of gangs to our youth.

After the film we had a vibrant and robust discussion. I listened to the views of the citizens of Vancouver Kingsway. I listened to the voice of teachers. I listened to the voice of parents, the voice of social workers, the voice of ex-gang members and the voice youth. What came out very strongly was that if we truly want to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, we need to take a balanced, intelligent and caring approach.

We need to strengthen support for families, they said. We need better jobs so that parents can work less and spend more time with their children. We need stronger economic health across the board for all Canadians. We need universal, accessible, affordable, quality day care. We need youth programs and community centres. We need more money and support for our education system to provide programs for music, art, drama and athletic programs to keep our youth active and engaged. We need better access to universities, technical schools and apprenticeships to give our young people hope for the future. We need policies that nurture our youth and adults, not punish them solely.

An ex-gang member came to my forum spontaneously. This was a hardened criminal who had spent many years in prison, and he spoke eloquently. He now actually is reformed and speaks to thousands of youth every week in British Columbia. He spoke of the causes that led him into a life of crime and into gangs. He told us that his was a life of deprivation as a child. He was a victim of domestic abuse. The first hug he said he ever received was from a gang member in a federal penitentiary. His first sense of belonging happened in prison.

What is the message from all of this? The Conservative approach of only cracking down on crime while reducing social supports for our families, our youth, our teachers, our social workers, our workers themselves, is wrong. It will not work. It is not what people across this country or the people who came to my forum want.

What people do want, what they need and what they have a right to is to be safe and secure in our communities, safe and secure from crime, and safe and secure from economic deprivation. Our children have the right to play safely in our schoolyards and parks. Our seniors have the right to walk safely in our streets and in their homes. They also have the right to dignity and a life of economic security. Women have the right to be safe everywhere, at home, at work and in our streets. We all want a Canada that is peaceful and free of guns.

This week has been a strange week in Canadian politics. As the Conservatives claim to get tough on crime, as they say they are cracking down on crime, they are trying desperately to make it easier to own and transport guns in this country. They say they want to reduce crime, but they adopt policies that make families poorer, attack women, do nothing to build stronger social, educational and health supports in Canada.

I will give an example in my riding. The government in its budget, in its so-called economic action plan, refused to increase the funding for the only federal program that supports employment for at-risk youth, kids who left school, kids who are on the street, kids with substance abuse issues, kids in poverty.

This caused the closure of the Baristas program, a wonderful program, in co-operation with Starbucks and the Pacific Community Resources organization, that trains at-risk youth to work in Starbucks. It teaches them money handling skills, customer service skills and organizational skills. This program, which was delivered on Broadway in East Vancouver, shut down two weeks ago because of the government's inaction.

This example shows in stark terms the shortsightedness and fallacy of the Conservative get tough approach. These youth do not need a handout, they need a hand up. They need support.

The government cut this program and wants to jail youth, when there are other ways to make these people secure. Instead, these youth who need help learning how to survive are being turned away from positive directions in this regard and are left with very few alternatives.

The bottom line is healthy, economically secure and supported individuals and families do not turn to crime. While we will never eliminate crime entirely, we need to recognize the clear link between strong social supports and reduced deviant behaviour. New Democrats recognize this, but the government does not.

I am pleased to move the bill forward. As I said at the beginning, we should and do have no tolerance for gangs, guns and violence. We need to express our most serious opprobrium as national legislators. The bill does that.

New Democrats will continue to do our part to get tough on crime. We will also continue to bring the voice of intelligence, compassion and reason to address the causes of crime so all Canadians can move forward in safety and security.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 is another small bill. I will make a couple of comments on the history. We have had a number of pieces of legislation from the government, which are purported to be tough on crime. As the member noted, this is a situation where a crime has to have occurred before the effect of the bill comes into play. It involves mandatory minimum sentencing and conditions under which certain sentencing will occur.

Although Bill C-14 deals with the Criminal Code, in an aspect of dealing with organized crime, it is not a comprehensive solution. This is the problem I have with the bill.

I agree with the bill and I will support it, but I will not support the government's initiative in terms of saying that we have addressed the problems of organized crime.

As I understand it, there is significant argument about mandatory minimums being a deterrent. I very much doubt the people involved with guns, drugs and organized crime are worried about the Criminal Code or look at the penalties to determine whether they will get in or out of the business. It really is ludicrous when we think about it.

On top of that, some of the mandatory minimum sentences seem to be reflective of other issues, whether it is a prohibited weapon or not and that somehow affects it. I asked the justice critic for the Liberal Party whether it really mattered to anybody if a firearm were used in the commission in the crime. I do not care if it is prohibited or not.

Could the member elaborate on this? I agree with him fully that we need a comprehensive approach to deal with organized crime, and prevention must be part of that solution.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally agree with what the hon. member has said. The gist of the New Democrat position has been and continues to be that we take a comprehensive approach to this very complex problem.

Prevention is the key aspect that is always missing from the current government's position on crime. In fact, it is even worse than that. It is my understanding that the amount of prevention moneys that were available in 2008 were not even spent in their entirety.

The government, besides not putting money into specific crime prevention programs, also completely fails to recognize the underlying social causes that lead to increased criminal behaviour.

Again, the member is quite right that the bill is not comprehensive. In fairness to the government, I do not think it is intended to be. It is part of a suite of bills that the government has put forward. I would put this statute in that context. What is missing from the government is that the suite of bills the government has put forward is not complete. It is a one bedroom apartment when what we need is a complete house of legislation.

I also point out that the bill has a bit of an aspect of window dressing. Its main aspect of making gang related shootings and killings a first degree murder really does not help much. It would probably be the case now that any gang related murder would be planned and deliberate under current legislation. We would press the government to bring in meaningful legislation in that regard.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague keeps saying that the government is doing nothing to help prevention. I point out that individuals living in Vancouver's downtown eastside will benefit from two new treatment services thanks to an investment by the Government of Canada.

These two new treatment initiatives represent the creation of treatment stabilization beds and the launch of an effective service delivery model, so persons with more disabling disorders have a range of treatment options. As part of the national anti-drug strategies treatment action plan, these new and comprehensive treatment service initiatives are aimed at helping individuals with complex, mental health and addiction problems, with a focus on women involved in the sex trade living in Vancouver's downtown eastside. This is just one of the many things we are doing to help prevention.