Debates of Oct. 25th, 2012

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to questions and comments. I assure the hon. member for Malpeque that he still has the full five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Malpeque for his excellent speech. Some of it sounded familiar.

My question for the member relates to economic development on Prince Edward Island. A project that was announced back in 2005 and still has not taken place could have some significant effects to the economy of Prince Edward Island, and he would know that what I am talking about is the construction of a third electrical cable between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, which again is conspicuously absent from any of the economic plans of the government.

I would invite him to comment on the potential impact of a project like that and what it would do, should the government decide to reverse the decision it made in 2006 to cancel the project.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is because of the electrical cable decision by the current Prime Minister that we probably should have expected the kind of attack that we are seeing on Atlantic Canada and seasonal industries now.

When the Liberal Party was in government, the minister of industry at the time, I believe it was—or it might have been the minister of the environment—signed an agreement with the premier of Prince Edward Island, who was a Conservative premier, for a third energy cable to Prince Edward Island, fully funded by the Government of Canada. It was a signed agreement. One of the first acts of this particular Prime Minister when he came to power was to cancel that signed agreement.

That energy cable to Prince Edward Island is extremely important. Number one, it is quite expensive and it really took multi-million dollars out of the system, I believe the cost was close to $90 million, but it would have provided us an energy alternative, both for expanding our own energy industry in terms of exporting wind power, which is a major policy of the provincial government at the moment, and having it as a safeguard in the import of power as well.

However, the first act of the Conservative Prime Minister was to cancel that energy cable to Prince Edward Island. Now we hear they are in discussions again. Costs are up, but it should have told us at the time that the Prime Minister does not care, because we see cut after cut toward our province.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be here today. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville and I am honoured to do that. I know he will make a great presentation.

Today we are here to talk about Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. It has been 12 years since I was elected to the House of Commons. I was thinking back to when I first came here as a new member of Parliament and how exciting it was to be in this place and to realize that we had a lot of work to do, because the Liberals were in power at that time and we could see that the country was going backward, that things were not working well for the country and it was a bad situation.

The present Prime Minister came to lead our party and in every election we were able to increase our position in the House until 2006 when we came to power—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources has the floor. I am sure if members have other conversations they would like to have they might want to take those back to the lobby.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member for Malpeque's frustration. It has probably been a terrible thing to watch what has happened to his party over the years.

However, the Canadian people have rendered their judgment. They have shown great wisdom in what they have done over the years, electorally. The Liberals deserve to sit where they sit right now because of what they have done to Canada over the years and the way they have treated Canadians.

We are happy to be here. We are very grateful for the opportunity from Canadians to be able to serve them. As I was mentioning, in 2006 we came to power as government; in 2008 our minority grew; and in 2011 we finally had the majority government that Canadians wanted to give us, and so we finally got an opportunity to really set Canadians on a defined path to prosperity. That has certainly worked.

We have had some of the thoughest times over the last four years that the world has seen in decades, and Canada has been able to weather those times very well.

In fact, when we look at what the World Economic Forum says about Canada, we see it talks about, for example, our banking system being the soundest in the world for the fourth consecutive year, during a downturn. Certainly our banking system has been one of those rocks of stability in our country that has been able to help us carry Canada through this time.

However, Forbes magazine does not just look at the banking system. It also took a look at the world of business in Canada. It said this is the number one place in the world for businesses to come, to grow and to create jobs.

In a downturn, that is a great honour. I think it is a great tribute, obviously, to the government that has been in power. The government has made decisions that set up a climate that makes it possible for businesses to do really well. We know we have one of the strongest positions in the world, in the G7 in particular, and our rock-solid AAA rating has been proved by multiple agencies.

I think one of the things that I have been really excited to see is the ambitious trade agenda we have had as a government, because we sat for a long time with the Liberals running this country. I notice they are deadly silent on this issue, because they did nothing on trade.

Since we have taken over, we have been able to initiate trade agreements around the world, and we are able to see those trade agreements are now beginning to bear fruit. Certainly they are impacting Canada's relationships around the world in a positive way. We have, through them, not only been able to strengthen our economic and security links with the United States, but we are seeking new agreements with Europe, India, and many others, and those agreements are finally starting to bear fruit.

I should note that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in particular, has done a great job going around the world. We had trouble with BSE. We were unable to get our markets open. The Liberals could not open those markets. They were incapable of doing that. Our present Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has gone around the world and opened Canadian markets for beef after the BSE crisis. The present Minister of International Trade has shown leadership on this file and, finally, we are beginning to see great changes in the trade file.

We know that deficit reduction is critical. For those of us who do not believe we should be funding today's programs off our children's and grandchildren's backs, we are getting back on track to balance the budget over the medium term.

In the economic action plan 2009, we made a commitment that we were going to return to balanced budgets, and we have done that to a great extent. We cut the deficit in half in the last two years, and we continue to move in that direction. We watched as Australia announced it is going to be balancing its budget, and we look forward to being the second developed country that can do that.

We need to do that. My constituents tell me that is an important thing. They want this government to balance the budget and they want us to move ahead with jobs and prosperity that are a result of that.

I should point out that Canadians should not only be thankful—well, they are thankful that the Liberals are no longer in power. However, they also need to be aware of how thankful they should be that the NDP is nowhere near power, as well. I think all we need to do is actually take a look at the NDP's programs that its members promote and we can probably see why it is a good idea that they are not on this side of the House.

This morning in committee, one of our committee members very enthusiastically endorsed once again the carbon tax plan they have. He went on at length about how this should be done sooner, not later; it needs to be done as quickly as possible. As Canadians are now becoming aware, that is a commitment by the NDP to $21 billion in taxation that average Canadians would have to take out of their pockets, which would drive up the price of virtually everything.

However, it is not just a carbon tax. My colleagues across the way think it is hilarious when we mention $21 billion because they think that every taxpayer's money in this country is theirs, and it is not.

I understand why they would think that. We have a quote from the Broadbent Institute report. They think that in order to tie people together, we need to make it compulsory for them to participate. This is the way they would like to do that. The report says:

Taxes are the hinge that links citizens to one another and to the common good.

I think that pretty well sums up the NDP position as much as it can be. I know there is an older definition of socialism, which is:

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

We certainly see those three things in the NDP's taxation policy.

I just want to point out that the Broadbent Institute is straight up about what the NDP would do to Canadians if it got the opportunity. It talks about implementing an inheritance tax. The NDP think that would be a good idea. It would like to put a tax on the inheritance of wealth, which passes on morally unjustifiable class privilege. I am not sure what that is, but I would imagine that means they are going to take money away from people once they die.

The NDP want to have a financial transaction tax, so I suspect the average Canadian would believe that means the NDP wants to tax every financial transaction that takes place in this country. When people are trying to do their business, the NDP will step in, for every single one of those transactions, and gladly tax them.

The NDP says it wants a carbon tax. That is not anything we have not known. It does not want to talk about it. The NDP not only talks about a carbon tax but higher taxes on natural resources. We know the NDP does not want to develop natural resources, but it does not seem to have any understanding about the fact that as taxes are raised on resource development and on corporations, corporations will not invest here.

That is what the NDP seems to want. It does not seem to like corporate investment. We know it does not like trade. The reality is that if the NDP is ever allowed to bring in something such as a carbon tax or higher taxes on natural resources, we can start talking about the Canadian economy declining instead of prospering.

That is not all it said. The NDP said:

—we also need to consider broad-based taxes....

What would that be? I assume it wants to tax a whole lot of other things and wants to do it to pay for more of its social spending. The NDP said it needs to rely on a number of tax bases, so I think we can assume that means new taxes in all sorts of areas because it wants to put as many legs under that taxation stool as it possibly can. It does not matter how much it costs Canadians.

Then the NDP talks about how it needs to have an increase in social spending, which we know is another code word for taxing people even more than in the past.

If we take a look at where the NDP have been in power, what have been the results of that? We can see in B.C. and Ontario that the economies have pretty much collapsed under the NDP rule. However, I think the bigger example would be in my own province of Saskatchewan. The NDP ruled there for far too long, and while it did we saw a complete failure to develop our economy. We ended up with a third of the population of our neighbour when we actually had more of a population than Alberta in 1930. We found our economy probably 30 or 40 years behind our neighbour, just because we had an NDP government that refused, time and time again, to develop the economy.

Canadians cannot afford that. Saskatchewan could not afford it. We are only, in the last five years, beginning to come out of that and are beginning to hold our own and show what we actually have in Saskatchewan.

This economic action plan that we have is good. It is certainly better than anything that we see coming from the other side. This is the kind of action plan that will create jobs. It will ensure prosperity and long-term growth in our economy. Canadians should be excited about it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member on one point. We actually love trade on this side of the House, and we are very much looking forward to trading the current government for an NDP government, so just watch out.

I would like to ask the member a question. We have heard repeatedly that this budget is about the economy, providing jobs and helping Canadians. Of course there are so many cuts and so many things are being slashed that the list is too long to go into here.

I do want to focus on one point. In most Canadian cities, even smaller communities, there is a crisis in affordable housing yet there is nothing in this budget that will address the affordable housing crisis in this country. I would like to ask the member why it is that his government has failed so miserably to address this fundamental human right and human need for Canadians?

We have something like two million Canadians who are homeless. Millions of Canadians are in what we call core need housing, which means they are spending much too much money from their income on housing or they cannot find affordable housing. I wonder if the member could address why his government has failed on that point?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I could go through a whole list of the things that we are doing, particularly for those who need help.

The reality is that the NDP do not understand that what people actually want is a job. People want to be able to make their own money. They want to be proud of themselves and their families. They want to move ahead in life. The NDP would sooner have people dependent on the government and that is why those members insist that they need to tax people until they are pretty much under the thumb of government. Then they argue that they should set up the programs and people would have to put up with it. On our side of the House we believe that people want jobs. They want to be able to prosper. They want to move ahead.

When we talk about the level of taxation that the NDP is talking about, people will not have money to put into the kinds of things that the member thinks are important.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about no taxes, low taxes, that sort of thing. About a year and a half ago the Conservatives imposed a fee at the airport for travellers. I am wondering why in these such tough economic times, they would impose a traveller's tax.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about some of the things that we have brought in through the economic action plan.

The member talked about something we did a couple of years ago. I would like to talk about the present.

We are doing things like extending for one year the job-creating hiring credit for small business. That is an important thing. Small businesses have told us they need this hiring credit in order to continue to hire during this tough time. It benefited nearly 534,000 employers last year. Why does he not bring that up?

We have been promoting interprovincial trade and making sure that trade is moving across this country. Why does he not bring that up and say we have done a good job on that?

We are facilitating cross-border travel. We have done that. He does not bring that up and say the government has done a good job on that.

We have reduced red tape.

We are reducing fees for Canada's grain farmers in this budget. He should stand up and say that is a good thing. He should say that he likes to see us make it simpler and easier for farmers to do their jobs.

I could talk about other things as well but I will stop there.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at one time former premier Ernest Manning was asked what the magic was that helped to create the wealth in Alberta. He said that it was the election of NDP governments in Saskatchewan, which drove all of the capital from there over to Alberta.

I wonder if the member could speak to some of the new things that are here because of the budget and the assistance that his province is gaining from that.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it just about brings tears to my eyes to hear that. The reality is that was a true statement. We had folks like Tommy Douglas, who refused to develop our resources. He said they were going to be left in the ground. Those resources could have been developed and we could have had a strong economy. We could have done a lot of the things that members across the way would like to see happen in our province. We left it and we let it sit there.

When private companies started to develop, such as the potash industry for example, the radical Blakeney government nationalized it and drove it into the ground until it had to be sold to the private sector. The private sector has redeveloped it and now it is a flagship in our economy. We have seen numerous examples of that. We saw that in Alberta. Over the last few years our province has finally freed itself from that kind of thinking.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for sharing his time with me today.

I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House today and speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012. Since being elected to this place I have spoken to every budget bill presented. The budget very much sets the tone for Canada's economic performance, for strong job creation and continued growth.

My riding of Mississauga—Streetsville is an excellent example of a community where both residents and businesses can flourish. We have a very strong mix of residential and commercial development. We encourage people to live and work in our local area. We have a very strong Streetsville business improvement area, adding to the character and heritage of an historic village setting. It is a community that comes together and supports one another. It is very much a shining example to all of Canada.

However, none of this happens if we do not have a strong economy, if we do not have growth and if we are not helping to create jobs. Therefore, I am pleased to speak in the House today of my support for Bill C-45, which lays out a strong plan for Canada's and my community's future.

Our government is on the right track for the Canadian economy and Canadian families, with over 820,000 net new jobs created since July 2009. However, we also know that the global economy remains fragile, especially in Europe and the United States, our largest and most important trading partners. That is why our government is working hard to support the economy with positive pro-growth measures in economic action plan 2012, such as the job-creating hiring tax credit for small business.

I am delighted to see that Bill C-45 extends this credit of up to $1,000 against the small employer increase in its 2012 EI premiums over those paid in 2011. The credit will help approximately 536,000 employers, many of them in Mississauga—Streetsville, whose total EI premiums were at or below $10,000 in 2011. Small and medium-size enterprises are the real job creators in our economy. It is our job to ensure that they can create and sustain jobs for the future.

I am very often amazed when I talk to business people in Mississauga—Streetsville about how many are engaged in international trade. Our government's ambitious pro-trade policies are helping these businesses maintain or improve market access in burgeoning economies around the world. We must continue to open doors so that our businesses can sell their goods.

Unlike the opposition, we are embracing new trade agreements that will benefit thousands of businesses all across Canada. Bill C-45 continues the important work of breaking down interprovincial trade barriers that often make it difficult for businesses to do business right here at home.

Bill C-45 also proposes expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment. We are taking a responsible approach to continued economic growth, while balancing that with improved environmental protections. As Canada's energy needs continue to grow, we must play our role in encouraging new green energy technology because it is a win-win proposition.

Unlike the NDP, we would not impose a job-killing carbon tax that would tax everything we consume, everything we need and everything we do. Instead, we will continue to lower the tax burden for all Canadians.

The bill would also make important changes to registered disability savings plans. How we treat the most vulnerable in our society is paramount to Canada showing how caring and compassionate we are. To give families greater flexibility, we propose that parents who save in registered education savings plans for children with disabilities allowed to roll over investment income earned in the RESP to the RDSP if the plans share the same beneficiary. The bill would also make other administrative changes to ensure even fairer benefits to those who qualify.

The scientific research and experimental development, or SR&ED program, has been a wildly successful project of our government. The budget bill would make further improvements to the program to ensure its fairness and that benefits would continue to accrue.

We continue to very much look forward to ensuring that Canadians have important vehicles to save for retirement. I am pleased that Bill C-45 would amend the Income Tax Act to accommodate the new pooled registered pension plans we announced earlier this year.

The bill would also make important and timely update changes to the Canada pension plan, which were unanimously agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers.

As we are fortunate to have a strong financial services sector, we need to ensure it remains so. The bill would help to preserve the stability and strength of Canada's financial sector. Amendments to the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act are proposed to ensure that derivatives clearing activities are treated in a similar fashion as the clearing of cash securities under the PCSA.

The bill would also improve the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to reinforce Canada's financial stability framework. The proposed amendments will enhance the CDIC's ability to take on and preserve critical functions of a failed CDIC member through a bridge institution and provide for a limited automatic stay on the ability of certain counterparts of a failed member to determine certain eligible financial contracts. A stronger CDIC is a very important part of a strong financial system in Canada.

The budget sets an important tone on pensions in the broader sector to ensure that employees and employers equally contribute to their pension plans, just as MPs will now do through the bill passed unanimously last week in the House.

It is a great honour to serve as a member of Parliament. Each and every day we have the responsibility to act in the best interests of our neighbours. When I campaigned door to door, and when I continue to talk to residents in my community when at home, I pledged at that time, and continue to pledge, that our number one priority is jobs and economic growth. I promised to stay focused on this and to support measures that would attain this goal.

Therefore, today I am pleased to indicate to the House and the people back home that I support Bill C-45 and its obsession with jobs and growth. Unlike the other parties in the House, we have a strong economic action plan for a better and brighter future for all Canadians.

These bills are very important in ensuring that Canada continues to move in the right direction. We see the uncertainty in the world. We see the challenges other countries are having. We must keep our foot to the pedal and keep moving to ensure that Canada remains strong at a time when there continue to be difficulties around the world.

I am delighted to say that I will be supporting Bill C-45 and onward and upward to continuing to build Canada's great economy.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about the great honour of being a member of Parliament. He does put some importance on the role we have and how important it is for us to be able to do our jobs. However, Bill C-45 does not allow us to do that because the Conservatives are not willing to accept any amendments. We heard that from the member for Saint Boniface earlier and I have heard similar comments from other members as well.

Would the member be willing to work with the opposition and accept amendments that we propose or does he share his government's disdain for transparency and democratic principles?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite share the same level of doom and gloom as the member opposite.

From what I have been informed, there is a commitment that sections of the bill will go to eight or nine standing committees, where there will be witnesses, hearings, debate and discussion. That is why we are all elected to this place.

As the same time, this is a government budget bill. We are the government. We were elected to be the Government of Canada and because of that we have a leadership responsibility. Our responsibility is to present a sound economic plan for Canadians and allow the House to debate it. However, at the end of the day, the way British parliamentary democracy works, if the majority of the members of the House of Commons vote in favour of a measure, it passes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, by way of illustration, today I spoke to a constituent of mine who had great concerns about the employment insurance changes.

The Conservatives talk about an action plan, the creation of new jobs and the furthering of work. They want to make EI changes so people will have a chance to go from part-time to full-time work. However, the problem with the changes they have made is the gentleman I spoke to will work one day and get $27 less on his cheque. If he works two days, he will get even less than that. He has to turn this down because it is just not worth it for him as he will get less money as a result.

Now the Conservatives have eliminated the extra five weeks for seasonal workers, which sees them to that period where they can get to that next job.

How does the member feel that this is some kind of action plan worth voting for?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite is referring to the working while on claim program.

It is important to remind the House that it is a pilot program. Pilot programs are brought in and are assessed on how they work. Is it a good program? Is it helping out more people?

There is no doubt that the working while on claim pilot is helping more people than it is not. However, the minister announced a couple of weeks ago that she would be performing a review of the program to ensure that we did not have situations where people were taking work and being penalized for it. The goal is to get more Canadians direct work experience while they are on an EI claim.

I want to talk about the really good changes to EI, which we are now debating at the human resources committee, and that is to provide parents who have critically ill, missing or murdered children compassionate benefits under EI. It will benefit thousands of families in the country. I hope we can count on the opposition to rapidly support that bill and get it into law.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the obsession of my colleague for Mississauga—Streetsville with economic growth and prosperity and how Bill C-45 contains the bridge to strengthen trade act among its important provisions for moving the economy forward.

This is not only a huge construction job for our region, promising thousands of construction jobs, but it will expand our trade capacity. It is the number one infrastructure priority of the government to have a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

Could the member comment on how that is a critical aspect? Also, how could the NDP be opposed to that?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement of a new bridge from Windsor to Detroit is very exciting. The city of Mississauga is actually one of the trucking capitals of Canada. We have more trucking firms and transportation firms in Mississauga than perhaps any other part of the country. This is a huge benefit to trucking firms located in the city of Mississauga which will move goods back and forth across that new bridge all the time. It will create thousands of new jobs. It is great for the economy and great for the environment because the trucks will move back and forth quicker. Those folks are against it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There are two minutes remaining today.

The member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to rise in this House today to condemn yet another omnibus bill, the government's second mammoth bill. That is certainly a good descriptor for another completely undemocratic bill.

Last time, we stood in support of democracy for 22 hours in this House because we wanted to denounce this completely undemocratic behaviour. It is not surprising that we lost in the end, but I told myself that at least it would be the worst bill that the Conservatives would get passed during their term. But no, there is another one. There are more environmental laws to destroy and dismantle; the government wants to go even further. There are still protections for our navigable waters, after all. It will continue to charge forward with legislation that has nothing to do with the budget.

I would like to respond to the allegations that we did not read the budget. Yes, we read it, except it was so vague that one sentence could have been destroying or amending one act or 20 different acts. All in one sentence.

These are not budgetary measures, so they should be individually debated by the appropriate committees, not presented in a big document that is over 400 pages long.

How is the public supposed to digest all of this information? I see that my time has expired, but I will come back to this tomorrow.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials), be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Code

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-217. I congratulate the hon. member for introducing this bill and will offer a few comments on behalf of the Liberal Party with respect to this bill.

First, the bill only relates to the issue of the desecration of war memorials and cenotaphs and things of that nature. While that is worthy in and of itself, I note that it would not expand to other forms of memorialization of significant figures, for instance in our history and culture. Just across the street is the Terry Fox memorial. It is a statue and under normal circumstances it would fall within the provisions of the Criminal Code. A desecration of the Terry Fox statue would attract a mischief offence without a minimum mandatory sentence, whereas a desecration of the war memorial just one block farther east would attract the provisions of this bill and a minimum mandatory sentence.

The bill would thereby set up an inconsistency in the law, which is regrettable. I adopt the views of the then-minister of justice in 2006 who said, when the member for Ottawa South introduced a similar provision, that he thought at that time that the mischief provisions of the Criminal Code were adequate to address the mischief the hon. member for Ottawa South and my colleague from Orangeville wished to address.

Having said that and while I laud the bill, I think it has its limitations. The most significant limitation for us is the inflexibility with respect to sentencing. My hon. colleague with whom I have shared a bench in past times, the member for Mount Royal, has spoken quite eloquently about the limitations of minimum mandatory sentences. One of the most significant limitations is that when a prosecutor or a judge does not wish to impose a minimum mandatory sentence, he or she will sometimes plead the whole thing down to a charge on the basis of a section in the Criminal Code, which does not actually show the reprehensible nature of the particular offence. The bill would create this unnecessary diversionary exercise in the criminal justice system, which sometimes defeats the very intention the hon. member wishes to achieve.

It also excludes the possibility of creative sentencing. For instance, if I were a judge and that kind of offence were to come before me and the accused were to show remorse and understanding, as perhaps having done it under the influence of alcohol or drugs or something of that nature or if were some stupid teenage prank, under this bill I would have no flexibility. However, judges may take a look at the person they are about to sentence and say that they accept that person's guilty plea, that it was indeed a prank and really stupid on the person's part, and for that they would sentence the person to a form of probation. Possibly one of the forms of probation could be to attend services where we honour our veterans, to get to know veterans or to go to our local legion or to learn about the immense sacrifice that the men and women of our nation have made in times past for the freedoms we enjoy today. However, under the minimum mandatory provisions of these sentences, the flexibility of judges to do that and to create an educative function out of an event that is reprehensible to us all would be quite limited. In my judgment, that would cut off the offender from the opportunity to meet and know veterans, to participate in veterans services and an educational exercise about what is important to the functioning of our nation.

In principle, Liberals understand what the hon. member is trying to do to punish these disgraceful acts of vandalism, but at the same time he, in effect, cuts off opportunities for community service and learning that might occur. The problem then becomes that we end up with a system of vengeance and no system of learning. There is no reintegration or rehabilitation of people and then we may be on to something more serious than this specific issue.

The issue of what constitutes a particular cultural or religious property will be somewhat problematic as well, because some memorials and cenotaphs will attract this particular regime or section of the Criminal Code, including the sanctioning section, while other equally reprehensible behaviour against other forms of memorials and community recognitions will not. That is an inconsistency in the law. As my law professor and pretty well anyone who has gone through law school would say, inconsistencies in the law are to be avoided if at all possible.

There is no minimum mandatory penalty for mischief. We think that is actually a good thing, because it creates a certain level of opportunity to fashion a sentence appropriate to the harm that needs to be addressed. My hon. colleague from Mount Royal, in a very eloquent speech, commented that in his riding there is a Holocaust memorial and that under this particular legislation a Holocaust memorial would not attract the minimum mandatory penalties of Bill C-217. They are important reminders of our heritage and history. Cenotaphs are certainly significant symbols in a lot of our cities, towns and villages, but so are other memorials.

Liberals take the view that it would be much better for accused persons to be required as part of their sentencing to participate in veteran services and to get to know the sacrifices our veterans have made over time. We understand what the hon. member is trying to achieve, but we would prefer that recognition of the particular harm that he wishes to address be done through a provision that does not require a minimum mandatory sentence, but would still express to offenders and the community at large the point that these kinds of acts are quite reprehensible.

I hope that the Liberal members have been able to convey their concern about minimum mandatory sentences, which create some very unintended consequences.