Debates of Sept. 27th, 2011

National Flag of Canada Act

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, An Act respecting the National Flag of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proudly introduce my bill entitled, “National Flag of Canada Act”. The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that all Canadians from coast to coast to coast have the right to fly the national flag of Canada.

It is in the national and public interest that all Canadians have the right and privilege to display the national flag of Canada and that no Canadian shall be restricted from displaying our flag. The Canadian flag represents all Canadian citizens. It represents pride in our great nation and support for those who have sacrificed their lives for the principles that it embodies: freedom, democracy, courage, and justice, upon which our great nation was built.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Asbestos

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to introduce to the House a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians from right across the country who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. They point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined and yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world, spending millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry and blocking international efforts to curb its use.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for any asbestos workers who may be affected and economic development opportunities for the communities in which they live. They also call upon the government to end all subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad. They also plea that Parliament stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

Agriculture

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a group of citizens in my riding who have presented a petition to me calling upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered alfalfa and to do a proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada.

The Environment

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people from all over Ontario objecting to a mega quarry in Melancthon Township in Dufferin County in Ontario. There are a number of provisos, which I will not read, but there is one that I will.

It says that the proposed mega quarry would threaten the headwaters of the Nottawasaga, Grand and Saugeen watershed systems and the Mad, Noisy, Pine and Boyne Rivers sub-watesheds, consequently, detrimentally and permanently affecting the aquifers in the area of the proposed mega quarry. All of these rivers, of course, will end up in the Great Lakes.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to conduct an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

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

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30 minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

Given the amount of interest, I will ask members to keep their questions or comments to about a minute. I will ask the minister to keep his replies to about a minute.

Also, as this is an opportunity for members to question the government, preference will be given to members of the opposition parties, but we will ensure that, if interested, some government members will have the opportunity as well.

I recognize the hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the start of this first full session of the 41st Parliament, the government has not stopped harping about how its real priorities are the economy and employment. It is now the second week, and we have seen none of that. Instead, we have yet another example of its contempt for our parliamentary institutions, since it is prepared to use the guillotine to stop debate at second reading.

My first question for the government is the following: will it use other techniques to restrict debate when the parliamentary committee is examining the bill? Will we finally be able to take time to hear from experts and witnesses on the cost, particularly transfers to the provinces?

This is an exceptional situation where, at the beginning of a Parliament, in only the second week, the government is already using the guillotine to stop parliamentary debate.

At other stages of the bill, will the government be using closure, time allocation or other methods to restrain debate, notably in committee?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat confused by one of the statements by the hon. member. He said that we will finally get a chance to hear witnesses.

All components of the bill have been tabled before Parliament and, as of right now, we have heard 295 witnesses, 58 committee days have taken up by this and 123 hours of the justice committee. I hope that is one of the things we can all agree on. We always look for things to agree on but the bill has been thoroughly looked at, debated and has been before the public.

I hope the hon. member will rise and say that it certainly has been and that we want to get this. He says that he wants to get back to talking about the economy, which is great. However, let us get this justice bill moving and then we can get back to talking about the economy. I agree with that as well.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we were expecting to hear. We knew that the government's intention was to restrict proper analysis in parliamentary committee, and the minister has just confirmed that for us.

Not only is the government using the guillotine in second reading, we will be getting the same treatment in committee and then the same treatment at report stage. It will try to ram this through.

We do not know how much this would cost the provinces. This would be a massive transfer of expenses to the provinces. The Conservatives have used very restrictive rules for employment insurance, and as people's employment insurance has run out, they go on the welfare rolls, which is the responsibility of the provinces.

Here is another massive transfer. Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, told us today about another decrease in transfers to the provinces, something the Conservatives swore they would never do so they would not be like the Liberals. Not only are they worse than the Liberals in terms of transfers to the provinces, they do not respect the basic parliamentary right to debate bills and to know the real costs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who should have to bring the hon. member up to date on this, but the transfers to the provinces have increased. I checked it out with the Minister of Finance. It is over $2.4 billion more than the last fiscal analysis the year before. I know that should make him happy. Maybe he did not know that before but I want him to know that is the case.

The bill has been thoroughly analyzed. It has been before the committee. We responded to those questions. There have been hundreds of witnesses.

Everybody needs to get to work. We are trying to crack down on violent crime in this country. We should all join together. We should all be against crime. We need to take steps and this is a step in the right direction.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absurd. Of course we are all against violent crime. I have not met anybody in the House who is in favour of violent crime. That is not what the debate is all about and the minister knows that. He is an intelligent person and knows perfectly well that is not what the discussion is about.

The debate is about whether these measures will actually have the effect that the government says they will have. Does he not appreciate and understand the impact that these measures put all together would have on the administration of justice?

The bill would not only have a dramatic effect on the size of our prisons and the prison population but it would also have a significant impact with respect to the administration of the courts. It would have a huge impact on how crown attorneys do their job. It would have an enormous effect on whether plea bargaining could ever take place. It would jam up the courts and cost the provinces and the country billions of dollars. It would not add to the security of Canadians with respect to criminal activity. That has to do with a crime prevention agenda to deal with the root causes of crime.

The minister is simply carrying us down a road that has been tried in the American states and has been abandoned by most of the American states that have tried it. It has been criticized by people from all sides of the political spectrum, from the right, left and centre, and from anybody looking at this in a rational way.

Why is the government persisting in taking this country down a path in which wherever it has been tried has been eventually rejected by the people and governments of those places because they have found that it simply does not work?

The government is dumb on crime and it would have a terrible effect--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Since quite a few people stood, I would ask that interventions be kept to one minute.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, only the Liberals would take that position. Actually, I should not say that as they would be cheered on by the NDP in most of these cases. What they are saying is that by leaving these violent criminals out on the street that somehow we are all better off.

The bill is very specific. The hon. member was not correct when he talked to the press outside after the bill was introduced by saying that we would be going after people who are possessing marijuana plants or something like that. The bill is not about that. It would go after the people who are in the business of trafficking, the people who sell drugs around schools, the organized crime that brings drugs into the country. We are saying that those individuals should be taken off the street.

There are a lot of ordinary law-abiding Canadians and victims right across this country who are applauding this.The hon. member and his party, and all those who are cheering him on, are completely offside with Canadian interests on this issue.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I remember in committee when the minister could not answer whether he had any evidence that mandatory minimums on drug crimes worked. He could not offer any evidence. Not only that, the Conservatives cannot even offer a true accounting of the cost of the bill and yet they are prepared to ram it through and stifle debate in the House of Commons.

Now that the minister has had an election and some time to think, does he actually have any evidence about the true cost of these bills that are contained in the omnibus bill? Does he have any evidence that the bill would actually act as a deterrent in terms of drug crimes? He could not offer any before and I suspect that he has none now.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this new concern from the opposition members about cost. In one sense, it is refreshing. However, they have it wrong if this is the area in which they want to save money.

With respect to the cost of these, I would refer the member to the hundreds of pages that the Minister of Public Safety and I tabled before the committee. I can tell her that it will provide her and her colleagues with many happy hours of reading looking at the costs of crime.

As I have said before, the vast majority of the cost of crime is borne by the victims. That would have been missed because I do not think we have ever heard that coming from the opposition. It is the victims who pay the cost. They are the ones we side with. They are the ones we stand up for.

I wish that after all the analysis, all the time that these bills have been before Parliament, they would stand up to say, yes, they stand with victims and law-abiding Canadians as well.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the minister talk about all the debate and discussion that has taken place on this bill. Obviously, what has not taken place is the Conservatives have not listened to Canadians when they have talked about the impact Bill C-10 would have on Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The Canadian Bar Association has said there is a real problem with Bill C-10. It has concerns about the mandatory minimum sentences and overreliance on incarceration, constraints on judges’ discretion to ensure a fair result in each case, and the bill’s impact on specific, already disadvantaged groups.

Yet the minister stands and says that we have had enough debate and enough discussion.

The government is closing debate on the bill at a time when Canadians know full well what is needed. They know what the risks to their safety are. They know that more is needed in terms of prevention.

The minister should start listening to the experts, like those at the Canadian Bar Association.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a lot of experts in this area, and oftentimes they are the victims of crimes. We do listen to them.

The hon. member mentioned that we are not listening. I will tell her to whom we are listening. In the last election we made it very clear that this will continue to be a priority for us, that we will reintroduce these bills, and that we will take a stand against violent criminals and those who would sexually exploit children. We were very clear on that.

I have to tell the House how pleased, proud and grateful, quite frankly, I am to the people of this country. They have come forward and given us a stronger mandate in each of the last four elections.

The hon. member might want to start listening to that, because every time the Liberals keep championing their soft on crime approach, they keep going down. They might want to listen to ordinary law-abiding Canadians and victims in this country. It might help them.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the minister that it is 39% of the population. If that is the government's idea of a strong mandate to shove things down our throats, then I think that is a little rich.

I am against the fact that I am being denied my democratic right to express myself with all the time that is normally allotted. This is not the 40th Parliament; it is the 41st Parliament. The 295 witnesses and 88 committee days show how important this bill is. It is not an individual bill; we are talking about an omnibus bill. When a criminal court—and the Minister of Justice claims to be well versed in criminal law—declares or orders a new trial, it is back to square one. A new Parliament is not unlike a new trial. All the information from the previous trial does not carry over; the process starts all over again. Democracy has spoken, as it has the right to do.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have had each of these bills before Parliament. As I pointed out, there have been 223 speeches, many hours of debate, and there will be a couple more days of debate. There will be investigation and discussion and witnesses before committee. There is third reading stage as well.

If the hon. member and her colleagues did not get an opportunity to express their thoughts a dozen or so times when these bills were before Parliament, I would suggest they participate in the debate in the next couple of days.

We have been listening to the NDP. The NDP suggested that we bring these bills together to better debate them, and that is exactly what we have done. They were separate in the previous Parliament. I remember when we put them together, members objected to their being together, so we separated them. Now we have separated them, and they want them back together. That is what we have done. We have responded to what that individual's party wanted in December of last year. We have put the bills all together. Here is an opportunity for the member to make her opinion known, and that is all I would suggest to her.

The member should look at who the bill targets. It targets violent criminals, those who would sexually molest children, people who are in the child pornography business. There are other good parts of it.

When the member has a chance to go over those hundreds of pages of transcript, the testimony of those hundreds of witnesses, she will agree that these are important steps in the right direction.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to correct the hon. minister, only 39% of Canadians voted for the Conservatives, which means that 61% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservative government.

This chamber is supposed to be the place where democracy plays itself out. This is where we have the chance to fully debate these issues.

There are major issues with the omnibus bill. If the minister has confidence in his legislation, why is he closing down the debate in Parliament, which is where debate is supposed to happen, and denying many of us the opportunity to voice our concerns and our constituents' concerns?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, I am very aware and very appreciative of the mandate Canadians have given us.

I remember there were not too many observers in the media or pollsters who predicted we would get a majority government, but we could feel it. When I was talking with people and visiting ridings outside of my wonderful riding of Niagara Falls, I was getting such positive feedback from people that I was confident all the way along that Canadians would give us that mandate.

I have to say to the hon. member that in going across this country and talking about the justice agenda of the Conservative government, it has been well received. I can only say how pleased and grateful I am that in each of the last four elections where we have made this a priority, our number of seats has been going up. I am very grateful to the people of this country for that.

The hon. member knows that the bill has been extensively debated and perused. We have taken one of the suggestions from the NDP of putting the bills together in a comprehensive bill. We are responding in that sense.

The hon. member should have a look at who this bill targets. Ultimately the opposition members should support us. If they still do not agree, they should talk to their constituents about how they feel about the components of this bill. I think the member will find that they support us as well.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, in 2008 there was a Department of Justice study which said that the cost of crime in Canada in that one year alone was near $100 billion, most of which was borne by victims.

I would ask the Minister of Justice to share his views on the cost of crime in Canada and how this comprehensive legislation is going to deal with that.