House of Commons Hansard #96 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sentence.

Topics

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, hold on tight, you are in for quite a surprise.

My hon. colleague is the one playing petty politics. If you are so clever, get rid of it right away. I do not want to talk about clause 1, on the contrary. My speech was about section 745.21, which is found in clause 4. Read your bill carefully. You will see that we are in favour of it. We are not the ones playing petty politics or introducing government bills; you are. Get rid of the clause right away. You will see that it will not take long for this bill to get through the legislative process. Before you know it, it will be Christmas and it will be through.

However, we know what you are trying to do with the short title. You are continuing the political games. I do not even want to talk about it. I was not the one who started talking about it; that was you. Out of the 20 minutes of my speech, I spent 18 minutes talking about the fundamentals of the bill, and we agree on the fundamentals. But get rid of clause 1. It is urgent.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I must ask all of the members to address comments through the Chair, not to other members directly.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, like the other parties in the House, subject to the short title, we are prepared at second reading to support the bill. However, I want to be very clear that we are doing so because we believe, to counter some of the misinformation that the government party puts out on these issues and some of the hyperbole we have heard both in the House and around this bill, it is extremely important to get it to the justice committee so that there is at least some public education about the reality of this area of the law and the practice that has developed around it since we have moved into the use of the faint hope clause in particular and the use of concurrent sentences, which are long standing in our jurisprudence.

When we are looking at this area of law, what does society do, and we as the legislature in this society, to build a fair, equitable criminal justice system to deal with the most heinous crime that a person could commit, which is taking the life of another person within our society? It is very fundamental. It is fundamental to the criminal justice system, it is fundamental to the Criminal Code, and in many respects it is fundamental to our role as legislators since it seems to me always that our primary role is to protect society. People have elected us to come here, and in many ways, to provide protection. It is the fundamental arrangement we have in a democracy.

So when we are looking at this area, the obvious question is what principles guide us in determining whether we are going to change the law as is being proposed by the government or leave it alone. It seems to me that when we look at those principles, there are subsets of them, but there are basically four. The primary one, as I have already said, is public safety, the protection of society as a whole. That has to be our driving principle.

Unfortunately, that lends itself to a lot of demagoguery, which we see in this bill in the form of the short title, and I am not going to spend any more time on that other than agreeing with my colleague from the Bloc that it is really a demeaning title. I do not know of any judges in this country at the trial level or at the appeal level who see themselves giving out discounts when they are sentencing people for murder, whether it be first degree or second degree, or even manslaughter. The title is a gross insult to our judiciary. There is not one judge in this country who would ever see, at the sentencing process, himself or herself giving discounts.

Coming back to the issue of public safety, yes, it is the guiding principle, no question, and how do we achieve that to the maximum potential? So we look at other principles.

Clearly when it comes to murder we look at the whole issue of denunciation, and included in that, the concept of punishment.

The third principle that we look at is one of deterrence. The denunciation and the punishment, along with deterrence, are very closely tied together. We look within the deterrence area subset at both general deterrence and specific deterrence to the individual who has now been convicted of the crime.

As well, we look at rehabilitation, because we have all sorts of evidence that in many cases deterrence is of no use at all as a guiding principle because it does not work in the vast majority of cases, whether specific or general.

We do know that to maximize the protection we are going to provide to society, if we rehabilitate these individuals while we have them within our custody, while they are incarcerated, the chances of them being a risk to society of committing more violent crime, committing murder, is dramatically reduced.

I know there are members of the government who do not believe that but that is the fact. Since we have instituted the faint hope clause provision which, if the bill goes through will substantially undermine it, plus what is being done in another bill and that goes through, if the Liberals do not get their backbone up and oppose it, we will lose that system.

The system, as it is today, works this way in terms of its consequence: not one murder but two serious crimes. We do not have enough facts to know whether they actually involve violence, but no second degree murder, no first degree murder and no manslaughter, and we believe, the little we know of the two serious offences, that they did not involve violence in the sense of anybody being injured.

In that respect, we have built a system that works. It works because we trust, which we have every right to do, our judges and our juries to come to the proper solution.

I want to take some issue with the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville when she was speaking about justice. If the bill goes through and we destroy at the same time the faint hope clause, we are really slapping in the face our juries and our judges.

The way the system works now, if a person applies for early release, which this bill would completely eliminate, along with eliminating the faint hope clause, there is an initial, interim application. A senior judge of the region where the crime was committed needs to make a preliminary decision as to whether there is any merit to allowing the application for early release to go ahead after 15 years of incarceration. If the person passes that test, and a good number of people do not from the figures we have, we then move on to the judge and jury reviewing the current situation. Is this person to be released? All of the evidence that was available at the time of the trial, how serious the crime was, how vicious it was, how heinous it was, all of that evidence goes before the jury, and they are the ones who make a recommendation as to whether that person will be released early. That is the system we are talking about destroying with this bill in combination with Bill S-6, which is getting rid of the faint hope clause.

We come back to what is justice. How do we determine what is justice? Is that not the best way, to let our judge and jury combined make the decision? They make the decision at the time the person is convicted. Has the person in fact committed this crime beyond a reasonable doubt? They make that decision and then the judge makes the decision as to penalties. If the person is to get out early, we go back to the judge and jury. They make the decision deciding the facts as they are at that time. It is a workable system and it has worked.

The other point that has to be made with regard to the way the system has functioned is the length of time that people spend incarcerated for murder, both second and first degree, in Canada. Those applications to get out early, in spite of the fact that people can make them when they have served 15 years, the reality is that just this past year they have served 25 years. That was the average amount of years people spent in custody before they got out under the faint hope clause.

In spite of the fact that we have this legislation that lets them at least potentially apply to get out early, the reality is that last year the average worked out to be exactly 25 years. We also have figures, all of which came out, not because of anything the government did because it does not want these facts out, it does not want the truth and the reality out.

However, the reality is that over the last five to seven years the average number of years has been running between 23 and 25 years that people are released under the faint hope clause. As well, many people never apply for parole in the 25th year when they can first apply for parole under our existing legislation. We have all sorts of people who do not apply and do not get out. Again, that would be done away with if this bill goes through and judges can impose sentences that are consecutive rather than concurrent.

Although we have heard the figure repeatedly here today that the average time a convicted murderer spends in custody in Canada is 28.5 years, I believe the numbers are now higher than that and that it is closer to 30 years.

Also interesting is the average age of people who commit murder, which is close to 45 years old. If we take that and then add on either the 28.5 years or the 30 years, we are talking about people getting out of custody, if they ever get out, and a number of them do not, when they are 75 to 80 years of age. This goes back to the point that I raised at the beginning of my address today about public safety. They would no longer be a risk to public safety in this country at that age.

I will go back to the issue of justice because that is really what we are talking about. What is justice? I have a feeling I may start quoting Shakespeare here. If we really want to achieve some of the justice as perceived by the government, we would need to bring back the death penalty. It is the only way we can avoid having victims face the potential of an application for early release under the faint hope clause or applications under the Parole Act for parole after 25 years.

We also ask the question of how we came to this position where a number of victims, but not all from my experience, and the families of victims have come to the conclusion that we can use propagandized, politicized terms like “discount” of sentences to murder. How did we come to that? The average family member of a victim does not think of that. It is politicians who came up with those words and that concept.

We give life sentences and we give them for every murder. Whether a person was the first murdered or the second murdered by the murderer, both lives are treated equally. The penalties that we impose in this country is the same. There is no injustice there. That is a contrived plot that is completely out of reality with how it functions in this country.

Murder victim one, two and three are all treated the same in terms of us as a society and our criminal justice system meting out a penalty and that penalty is always life. Whether the time spent incarcerated is 25 years, 30 years or, in some cases, for the rest of natural life, it is the same. There is no discrimination here. One murder victim is treated no differently from the subsequent ones. That is a fallacy that is being perpetrated here and it is being perpetrated by some members in the opposition but it is not true.

I have never met a judge who has treated a murder victim any differently because the victim happened to have been killed later in the consecutive order. Not one judge thinks that way in this country. I think we can all believe, knowing our colleagues in society generally, that there would not be a member of the jury who would think any differently. Every one of those victims are to be treated identically.

That fallacy should be put to rest.

This goes back to what is justice and how we determine what is appropriate sentencing. Every society that I have looked at, and there are all sorts of reports and statistics on this, treats first degree murder much less severely than we do in this country. Again, they treat multiple murderers the same way. The period of incarceration is as much as half and, in some cases, even less than half of what our incarceration rate is for first degree and second degree murder.

Are we to say that those societies, basically all the rest of the democratic societies that are similar to ours, treat their murder victims less justly than we do? If we were to listen to the government, the answer to that would be yes, that those societies are all wrong, that they do not treat their people fairly, that they do not care about their people enough and that they are soft on crime. That would be true about every other country in the world that has governments and a criminal justice system similar to ours.

Do we, as Canadians and as parliamentarians, have the arrogance to say that we are absolutely right and everyone else is wrong? That is what the bill is saying.

A good deal of it, I think, when I listen to some of my Conservative colleagues, is based on their lack of knowledge of how the system really works, driven oftentimes by ideology rather than by the facts.

I want to touch on one more point because it has been irritating me for some time. A couple of months ago, the Minister of Public Safety, dealing with one of the government's many crime bills, was asked a question about whether we as a society within our criminal justice system should have a concept of forgiveness. We need to accept that people can be rehabilitated and that there should be a redemption type of concept within our system, which I believe exists within our system. The emphasis that we have placed over the years on rehabilitation has been the proper one and it does have an element of forgiveness.

The minister's response at that time was that it was okay for the churches, for organized religion and for people of faith. However, the concept that he came across with in his response was that the concept of redemption and forgiveness should have no role to play in a criminal justice system.

I want to say for the record, for Hansard, that I totally reject that type of an approach.

I want to be clear that we in the NDP are supporting the bill to go to committee. The main reason for that is that we have a saving grace in it of leaving this decision to the judge and, to a much lesser degree, to juries as to what the ultimate penalties will be. However, I want to investigate that much more extensively before I and my party will be prepared to vote for this legislation at third reading.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member.

The member made an excellent point on redemption and rehabilitation. I think the government forgets the fact that virtually everyone gets out but if they are not redeemed or rehabilitated, the government is making society a far more dangerous place through those policies and that attitude.

The member raised the point about respect for judges and that role, and the fact that they are very carefully chosen, they hear all the evidence, they have a lifetime of experience, they have guidelines that they have to follow in sentencing, they are the experts and they can give the best decision as to what will be in the interest of safety for society, including rehabilitation.

Does the member think the government has respect for the judges, in spite of the fact that it has been constantly limiting their powers through bills, limiting their pay rates and limiting the way in which they are chosen?

Could the member comment on either of those items?

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be quick and answer both questions.

As I said earlier, a large number of people convicted of murder, first degree murder in particular, are going to get out when they are in their mid to late seventies, assuming they serve 30 years. Just because it is logical and real, we have to assume they will no longer be a risk.

There are others who commit murder at a young age, in their twenties, who may very well be eligible to get out when they are younger. We want to be sure that when they get out that they have been rehabilitated.

Taking this kind of an approach, where we say they have to stay in for 50 years, which is probably the logical extension of this bill, there is any number of cases where that is not appropriate.

I want to be very clear that this is why I was prepared to recommend that this bill go to committee to be looked at further.

If we consider Clifford Olson, and if I place myself in the role of the judge, I may very well say that for murdering 10 young people the person in front of me is never going to be rehabilitated. I may very well say that I want to be sure that guy never gets out, or if he does he is going to be so old that he is no longer a risk. There may be one, two or three cases every few years where we may want that. However, if we are going to do that, it seems to me that this bill has to be tightened up in that regard.

On the second point of judicial discretion, obviously I am a strong supporter of the quality of judges we have in this country. We know from any number of things that members of the government, from the Prime Minister on down to backbenchers, have said that those members do not trust the judicial system in Canada. They do not have respect for the judicial system. It is kind of strange that the government is doing this bill in that regard.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for an excellent presentation on this bill. We have come to expect that of him. He was not voted the hardest working member in this place for no reason.

I also want to talk about the whole question of redemption and rehabilitation, and maybe take it a step further. We do not get a chance very often to do that with these justice bills that come forward.

There is rehabilitation for the person who has committed the crime, but there is also a benefit for the whole of society when we move in that direction, when we try to create a situation where healing is possible. At the end of the day, not only does the person who has committed the crime benefit by being rehabilitated or redeemed, but society benefits as well. The person and the family who have been hurt also stand a better chance of being redeemed.

Before healing comes forgiveness, and before forgiveness comes rehabilitation and a lot of hard work.

Perhaps the member could speak to the whole question of healing society, and the question not only of rehabilitation but of forgiveness.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, the labels people are tainted with when they speak in terms of forgiveness, such as being soft on crime, force some members to avoid speaking in those terms. If Canada is the caring society that I believe it is, then we have to have that as part of our criminal justice system.

I want to go back to that story I have told repeatedly about that man whose daughter was killed. When he came before the committee, all of us were expecting that he would maintain a position that the faint hope clause should be gone and that people should be incarcerated forever. Because of his contact with a murderer who had gotten out earlier than the 25 years, and what that person had done in being rehabilitated and the contribution that person was making to society, that father of the woman who was killed had gotten to the point where he recognized that he could forgive murderers in certain circumstances.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, who is always very impassioned, clear and logical in how he talks about the criminal justice system. What I find absolutely amazing is the body of knowledge he has around criminal justice and how he is able to look at it as a whole rather than what we see coming from the government, which is piecemeal recommendations on how to change a particular piece of the act, which really becomes the band-aid solution. Unfortunately, rather than being a band-aid of solution, it becomes a band-aid of partisanship.

I would ask my colleague to comment on what he thinks we should be doing in terms of a holistic approach to changing the criminal justice system as a totality, rather than trying to simply use it for partisan purposes. I wonder if he would care to make a quick comment on that.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, right now before the House and in committee there are five separate bills that are intertwined around this issue, including the bill on the transfer of foreign prisoners. One of the consequences of these two bills, Bill S-6 and Bill C-48, is that a number of people are going to be coming back into this country from other countries, who are not going to be under any supervision because we are in fact foreclosing them from thinking of coming into Canada, because if they do, they may be faced with extended periods of time in custody that they would not be faced with in the jurisdiction they are in. They will be coming into this country and will be a major risk to us because they probably have very little rehabilitation services in other countries compared to what Canada has, which is not great but better than most countries. They will not have a criminal record in Canada and there will be no supervision of them whatsoever.

When we are doing this work, we should be doing omnibus bills. Of course, the government would forgo all the politicization it does on each one of these bills, trooping out victims and using them to try to push its tough on crime agenda, which in most cases is just dumb on crime.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, violent offences are probably most frightening to members of the public. They are scary. We read about them and they are most disturbing.

If we look at the people who commit these violent offences, many of them have been abused or have suffered in deplorable conditions when they were children. While this does not exonerate them from the actions they have taken, it certainly makes us understand where they came from and perhaps provides some insight in terms of what we could do to make our streets and the public safer.

Dr. Clyde Hertzman from the University of British Columbia is giving a talk on his amazing work on early childhood learning, the impact of subjecting a child to good parenting and a safe and secure environment with good nutrition. In those conditions, the trajectory of a child's life generally becomes quite positive. If children are subjected to violence, sexual abuse and terrible things, the trajectory changes. That is why an early learning head start program is really important. It would change the trajectory and give children the best chance of having a positive outcome.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member will have 19 minutes left to conclude his remarks the next time this bill is before the House.

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

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, on June 17 I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a question regarding the government's wholesale dumping of lighthouses. Instead of protecting lighthouses, the Conservative government is identifying close to 1,000 that it considers surplus and is expecting communities or organizations to take responsibility for them.

People who are familiar with lighthouses and the value of lighthouses, both on the most easterly coast of our country in Newfoundland and Labrador and on the most westerly coast in British Columbia, are finding this deplorable. They are looking to the government to change its mind and see if we cannot come to some kind of resolution in terms of ensuring that these icons are protected.

Ironically, this announcement of the government's plan to dump approximately 480 active lighthouses and 490 inactive lighthouses across Canada came at the very same time the Conservative government was wasting taxpayers' dollars to construct a fake lighthouse in Ontario for the G8 and G20 meetings. While we see the government dipping into taxpayers' money for reckless and irresponsible spending that supports its own partisan objectives, the government turns it back on the heritage lighthouses that are so important and treasured in Canada's coastal communities.

The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act came into force on May 29, 2010 with the stated purpose of ensuring the protection and conservation of heritage lighthouses. I contend that the Conservative government's announcement to get rid of close to 1,000 heritage lighthouses that it considers surplus is inconsistent with the intent of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. The federal government instead should be looking to preserve these Canadian icons, not get rid of them.

The wholesale dumping of lighthouses shows a complete disregard for the importance of these historical buildings. If the government had a plan or the intention to preserve heritage lighthouses, the minister had the perfect opportunity to share that commitment with Parliament in response to my question, which she chose not to do.

Instead, when I asked the question, she refused to say what financial assistance, if any, would be available to ensure that lighthouses do not fall into a state of disrepair once the government has washed its hands of them. This is frankly offensive to those of us who live in communities where a lighthouse is a well-loved symbol of our rich maritime history and our present maritime activities. It is further aggravated by the fact that the government spent money on a fake lighthouse in Ontario made out of a tree stump as part of the over $1 billion spent for the 72 hours of meetings for the G8 and G20 summits.

The federal government wants to offload these lighthouses and expects someone else to assume responsibility for them while it displays a complete lack of prudence and responsibility in spending taxpayers' money.

Many of these lighthouses are rundown. That is why the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act received support in this House as it contains a commitment to set out a federal process to preserve heritage lighthouses.

A spokesperson for the Canadian Heritage Foundation, Carolyn Quinn, was quoted in the Moncton Times & Transcript as saying, “The intent was never that there would be a massive unloading. It really has undermined the intent of the act”.

Some of the lighthouses will be taken over by communities. However, in my own hometown of Grand Bank, where the lighthouse is a symbol of safety and is widely used, the town would more than likely take over the lighthouse than see it fall into a state of disrepair. But there is no indication at this point in time that the government is even willing to do anything to ensure that the lighthouse is in a state where it can be carried on and maintained in good condition by anyone who wishes to take care of it.

If the government is going to ask organizations and communities to take responsibility for lighthouses, I am asking it to seriously consider making money available so they can do so.

6:30 p.m.

Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta

Conservative

Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time to thank the Conservative member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, my seatmate, for his education. He has taught me a lot about lighthouses across the country.

I am very happy to have this opportunity to talk to the implementation of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. The purpose of this act is to preserve and protect Canada's most iconic lighthouses for the benefit of future generations.

My constituents are very interested in this as well. As members are aware, I represent some 30,000 Newfoundlanders, 5,000 Nova Scotians, 5,000 New Brunswickers and some 5,000 Quebeckers. This obviously is a very important issue to them as well.

Canadians, particularly those living in coastal regions, such as my constituents who come from those areas, care deeply about lighthouses. The way the member spoke, I am certain the she also cares, as do her constituents. They are reminders of Canada's culture and history and are part of the heritage of our country and our landscape.

Lighthouses have made a significant contribution to maritime communities and to the development of our nation. This contribution deserves to be commemorated and to be respected. That is exactly what this Conservative government is doing.

Despite their historical contribution to the economic development of our country, the role of the traditional lighthouse has evolved over time as a result of advances in marine navigational technology.

In many instances, the principal function of the community-based lighthouses can now be reflected in tourism-based ventures that have been established at these sites, to which the member previously alluded. That is good news again because it creates an economy where there was not an economy before.

The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act requires that the federal ministers publish a list of all lighthouses that could subsequently be made available for ownership by outside interests, and there is a lot of interest in that. These new owners would be committed to preserving the heritage character of the lighthouse and maintaining an ongoing public purpose for the property. This is very important. I just had a chance to look at the lighthouse at Peggy's Cove. I had many opportunities to visit the east coast. They are beautiful things and they need to be preserved.

The publication of the list of surplus lighthouses under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act is an extension of existing practices related to lighthouse divestiture. There is quite a history to that. In fact, the history goes back to previous Liberal prime ministers. In fact, this started under a Liberal prime minister. Since 1995, over 20 operational lighthouses have been successfully divested for ongoing public purposes and further facilitation of such opportunities is one of this act's main purposes. Communities all across the country have assumed control over the conservation of their historical landmarks, and many more are willing and able to take upon this task.

I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss lighthouse automation in Canada.

Lighthouse de-staffing began in 1971, under the leadership of Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. In fact, in the early 1970s, 189 lighthouses were automated. This process continued over three decades, most recently in 1997, under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien when he de-staffed 51 lighthouses.

The results of automation throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s is that manned lighthouses remain in only two provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia.

I will get to the rest of my speech in a moment.

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the concern being expressed by my colleague in terms of the lighthouses and their importance, particularly to safety, for those who travel on the sea, whether they do it as tourists or for a livelihood.

While there are communities and organizations that will take on responsibility for these lighthouses, the question remains whether there is any kind of support for an organization or community that may wish to do so.

The problem is in a lot of these rural communities where these lighthouses exist the communities just do not have the financial resources to maintain them on an ongoing basis. They are saying that if we expect them to take over responsibility for a lighthouse, because they do not want to see it go by the wayside or see it fall into a state of disrepair, will we not at least offer something upfront in terms of making it possible for them to do that.

That is what we are asking the government to do. If it must insist on offloading what it considers to be surplus lighthouses, please—

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, we do recognize that over the years some lighthouse keepers have taken on services in addition to their regular function of keeping the lights operational, which is of course very important. Mariners and aviators have grown accustomed to these additional services, which actually add quite a value to these communities.

That is why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has asked the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to look into these issues and report back by the end of 2010. We anticipate hearing from the Senate committee before Christmas and that report will help instruct the minister and coast guard as they move forward.

In conclusion, our government understands that lighthouses have made a significant contribution to our history as a nation. Lighthouses have stood tall as constant reminders of our maritime heritage. The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act provides an opportunity to ensure that an important part of our history is preserved for future generations of Canadians, and at the same time, we will keep mariners safe and secure throughout this country.

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to a question I raised in the House in September around first nations education. I raised a couple of different issues and I am going to focus mainly on post-secondary today.

There was a news release about an educational rally that was happening in Garden River. It was on the SooToday website. In that news release, Garden River First Nation talked about the fact that:

The current education system is failing our youth.

Quality culture-based education is the key to addressing the educational achievement gap.

Changes to First Nations education requires meaningful First Nation consultation.

Short-changing First Nations education affects us all.

We are the fastest growing population in the country.

Statistics Canada has predicted that Canada will face a labour shortage by 2017.

It went on to say:

Access to a university degree will triple one's earning potential, therefore creating an opportunity for prosperity among First Nation people that will eliminate the employment gap and inject billions of dollars into the Canadian economy.

I want to touch on an article by Paul Wells, on November 12, entitled “One school's native intelligence”. In his article he says:

A February 2010 study by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards suggests that if the gap in educational attainment and labour-force participation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians vanished by 2026, total tax revenue would increase by $3.5 billion and government spending could decrease by $14.2 billion.

Clearly, that is the kind of example of an investment in education that not only benefits the bottom line in government coffers but will substantially increase first nations' participation in the labour force. We often hear that if we want to lift people out of poverty what we need to do is provide them with education.

There are some very good examples out there where people are doing creative things. The University of Victoria has a program called LE,NONET. It is a Straits Salish word referring to “success after enduring many hardships”.

The bottom line about this program asks, does all this fuss keep aboriginal students in school? Participants in the program were less than one-third as likely to drop out as aboriginal students who were not selected for the pilot program.

There was also a national working summit of participants committed to improving aboriginal education across the country and they had some very specific requests. This is a working group involving a number of organizations, including the Association of Universities and Colleges and the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation that provides substantial scholarships and bursaries to first nation students. With their working summit, the AUCC and the foundation and summit participants committed to the following objectives: to take a holistic approach to ensure successful transition for students; to continue to seek increased federal funding for aboriginal students; to continue advocating for increased federal funding for aboriginal-focused support programs at universities and colleges; to work collaboratively seeking opportunities to partner with other interested organizations to share knowledge about what approaches are most successful, and so on.

My question for the government is, when will it come forward with a post-secondary education program that has been developed in consultation with first nations across this country?

6:40 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, without question, I agree with my hon. colleague in her assessment that one of the priorities for our government, and any government, is to ensure that first nations people fulfill their potential when it comes to educational opportunities and integrating themselves into our economy and our workforce.

I point out for my hon. friend that the government has made unprecedented contributions and investments in aboriginals, whether it be on infrastructure, or on clean water or in educational investments and opportunities.

I certainly point out that in my home province, the government has continued with direct funding to First Nations University at a time when many critics of the FNU were pointing out the vast cost overruns of that institution. Our government stepped up to the plate and continued funding. We discussed the previous problems with the administrators, with those involved in the First Nations University on campus and through intelligent, targeted and focused funding, we have ensured that students at the First Nations University are continuing their studies. That is just one example of the government's commitment to educational funding for all first nations people.

Unfortunately, too many times we hear members of the opposition criticizing the government in a fashion, which I consider to be overly partisan. I believe it would behoove all members of this assembly if we could agree on a couple of very simple priorities: first, that all members of this place feel a commitment to educational opportunities for our first nations people from coast to coast to coast; and second, that we work in the best interests of aboriginal and first nations children to ensure, as we move forward into this century and beyond, that they will be given every opportunity to get the education that they not only need, but deserve.

6:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with First Nations University. I was the one who asked questions about it in the House. The government needs to acknowledge that there were others working on this file.

I did an inquiry on spending around the post-secondary students support program, commonly known as PSSSP. An answer came back indicating that in 2008 nearly $300,000 was paid for a preliminary survey on post-secondary education and another $15,000 on an applied research program. We have heard consistently from the government about the review that it is doing to the PSSSP, yet we have seen nothing.

The question I asked in the House originally back in September was when would we see the results of that program. In addition, I asked how first nations would be included in any of the recommendations that would come as a result of the studies that were done.

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my original intervention, our government understands the importance of education. We certainly understand the importance of aboriginal and first nations education. That is why we are investing vast amounts each and every year in first nations' education.

Although we recognize how vital a good education is to a healthy, prosperous future for first nations, our government is working primarily hand in hand with first nations communities and with provinces and territories to strengthen those relationships to ensure that first nations communities across the country are given the proper tools and sufficient funds to advance their educational aspirations.

6:45 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, many months after the billion dollar Toronto G20 photo op, Torontonians are still waiting for answers from the government.

Businesses in downtown Toronto lost millions in damages and lost revenue, and they deserve answers and they deserve compensation.

Canadians saw the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, and nearly 900 of those 1,100 individuals taken into custody were never charged.

The Conservative billion-dollar security budget was supposed to prevent property damages and keep people's rights protected. Clearly this did not happen and Canadians deserve to know why.

No one has answered for the appalling conditions in the detention facility or for the systematic violations of many individuals' rights to counsel. The government still has not adequately explained the decision making behind the planning of the summits or who was calling the shots for on-the-ground security decisions.

More than 200 people were surrounded by police in a kettling, as they call it, at the corner of Queen and Spadina, right in the heart of my riding on Sunday, June 27. It forced many to spend hours in the pouring rain. Whether they were just walking by, whether they were buying pizza, whether they were minding their business or whether they were just ordinary pedestrians, they were not told what was happening or why they were being held. Some were peaceful protesters and many were just innocent bystanders.

The public needs to know who ordered this confinement and why these individuals' civil liberties were taken from them. Was it the former head of the OPP, who is now the Conservative candidate in Vaughan, or was it the RCMP or was it the Toronto police?

Respected journalist Steve Paikin described the events on Saturday night at the Toronto G20 in real time on Twitter, and his first-hand account demonstrated the heavy-handed conduct of police during a very peaceful gathering on the Esplanade.

He said, via his tweets:

cops tightening their perimeter. why? they are forcing something they don't need to force.... cops moving closer why? ... arresin people.... weapons are rubber bulles....

Why? Who gave this government the right to suspend our civil liberties for a weekend?

The public deserves to know. Ordinary Canadians have the right to a public inquiry to get to the bottom of what occurred in Toronto during the G20. They need to know why the federal government ignored the concerns and suggestions of the City of Toronto in holding the summit in downtown Toronto on a weekend.

What role did federal officials play in the integrated security unit policing the summit? Who made the strategic decisions on how the stores were protected and how peaceful demonstrators and journalists were treated?

When and how will the government compensate Toronto for damages, and why is it that if there are broken windows, owners are not compensated? Who made the decision on these boundaries, in that ordinary business people outside the boundaries are not compensated, even though a recent survey said 93% of downtown businesses lost a tremendous amount of money in those few days? They are told there is no guarantee they would get compensated, even if they put in an application. That is—

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

6:50 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the G8 and G20 summits held back to back in Muskoka and Toronto a few months ago were unprecedented on a number of different fronts.

It was the first time the G8 and G20 summits were held back to back. We were very proud to host country these two summits. In a time of economic upheaval worldwide it was critical that Canada lend its voice not only to the recession, but to try and get a worldwide consensus and plan to work our way out of that recession.

Canada has the enviable record of being the one country in the world, I would suggest, that was least affected by this recession. That was due to sound economic policies, banking procedures and other policies of this country that allowed us to be a world leader in that respect.

I take some issue with my hon. colleague's characterization of what happened during the G20. Canadians from coast to coast to coast can remember vividly the images of professional protesters and the carnage they wreaked on Toronto.

Who can forget those images that were on all television stations of professional protesters? Perhaps they were not average members of our society or even of our country, but their sole purpose was to disrupt the G20 and cause as much damage and create as much havoc and chaos as they possibly could. We saw the images of police cars on fire and of protesters jumping up and down on those cars and throwing flammable liquids to try and create that havoc and chaos. That is something I do not think any Canadian who paid attention will ever forget.

That is why the security budget we brought forward to deal with those incidents is as high as it is. Security comes at a price. Thank goodness our government had the foresight to bring in a budget that anticipated these types of actions and reactions from these protesters.

I would add that as we stand here today, the budget for the G8 and G20 summits was approved by this Parliament, and the costs seem to be coming in well under budget. Not all the costs are in; we appreciate that some costs will be coming in over the coming weeks and months, but I am very confident in stating that we will be under budget. That is one thing I think many other countries would aspire to.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, the G20 summit budget was approved by the Conservatives with the help of their Liberal friends. The New Democrats certainly did not vote in favour of it.

I note that the G20 summit did not deal with climate change, or make poverty history, or help the children with AIDS who are having trouble in getting new drugs to prevent their death.

I quote a recent article in which the columnist talked about rights:

First it was the anarchists, who deserved the draconian measures. Then the protesters. Then anyone wearing black. Then anyone on Queen Street. Then anyone in a cab who casually said something nice to a police officer. Rights are not easily gained. Nor should they be easily withdrawn, for a weekend, for an evening, for a moment.

It is important for us to remember that 98% of the protesters were there peacefully--