Paddy Torsney

[Contraventions Act, February 25th, 2004]

She said, “Are you high?” That is illegal.

[Contraventions Act, February 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to be clear. While we are sitting here having this discussion, the member opposite is accusing me of being high or using illegal substances. That is absolutely and totally inappropriate. It does not add to the debate and it is factually incorrect. She should be asked to apologize. People can have differences of opinion without being accused of doing illegal acts.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I too am presenting petitions on behalf of some 135 Burlington and area residents who are asking Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Landmines, February 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada led the way internationally to ban landmines. The Ottawa convention is binding international law and this year it celebrates its fifth anniversary. Next week Canadians will celebrate Canada Landmines Awareness Week beginning March 1, Canadian Landmines Awareness Day.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on progress on the convention, and what we can all do to familiarize ourselves with it?

[Public Service, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Burlington is located in the region of Halton, and Halton is part of the greater Toronto area.

Imagine my surprise when I received an inquiry from a constituent who wanted to know why he could not apply for a job in downtown Toronto because, according to Treasury Board guidelines, residents of the L7L postal code area were not allowed to apply.

Could the President of Treasury Board tell the House how my constituents, many of whom travel every day to downtown Toronto, can get access to federal government jobs through the website?

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I will have 10 minutes and so I have many things to say.

The bill is before us, having been referred initially as a private member's bill to a committee that was studying the issues of the non-medical use of drugs in Canada. It was a committee of members of Parliament from all sides, and at the time there were five parties in the House. The members set about reviewing what was going on in Canada.

The member for Red Deer likes to talk about the few people he talked to about this issue. For over 18 months, the committee made up of representatives from his two parties and other parties went out and studied what was taking place on our streets in our communities and considered what was the best solution to make changes. In all, the committee made 41 recommendations, two of them related to cannabis specifically. Those were related because of a private member's bill by an Alliance member at the time who wanted to decriminalize the possession of marijuana.

As I mentioned, there were 41 recommendations in the committee report. It was a unanimous report. The opposition members may forget, but their party also supported the decriminalization of marijuana.

The member mentioned the United States and what was happening there. He thought that was important for a comparison. There are at least 11 states that have some form of decriminalization.

Let us think about what decriminalization means. We have a substance that remains illegal. It is illegal to possess marijuana and resin in Canada. That was the 40th recommendation our committee made.

The 41st was to take a look at changing how we punished those who broke our laws. Canada has a series of punishments. We have fines, community service and jail time. Those are appropriate consequences for breaking the laws of Canada.

Today we have a situation where 50% of those who are caught possessing marijuana are given a criminal record which has dire consequences for their careers for the rest of their lives. It limits their travel. It limits the career options they can take. It affects their businesses and their families. People said to us that this was too harsh.

I am concerned about the other 50% of Canadians for whom there have been no consequences, who are under the mistaken belief that it is legal in Canada to possess marijuana. I want to send a very strong message to them that we have a law on the books and it will be enforced.

How do we ensure that it will be enforced? We make it administratively simple. We make it fair across the country so police forces are doing the same thing in my community as they are doing in Red Deer and as they are doing in your community, Mr. Speaker.

In spite of the fact that there is a potential for a criminal record, some 100,000 Canadians every day are using cannabis. I would say to the hon. members opposite who are concerned about the use of cannabis as I am, that there are legal drugs that are being misused. As a government, as people who care about our fellow citizens, we have to do a much better job. I was pleased to see the government support again for the committee recommendation that we get and talk to people.

For all those people who use back medication, which has codeine in it, each and every day, or for all those people who misuse alcohol, cigarettes and who are not being all that they can be, we have to do a better job of dealing with substances and helping people get through the misuse of substances, be they legal or illegal.

We talked to young people across the country who are using prescription drugs, injecting them and having difficulties.

The member opposite talked about marijuana being a gateway. That theory has been set up by some individuals. If we look back, yes, people who use heroine generally have used other substances. The member opposite mentioned crystal meth. They probably used cannabis. They also probably smoked, drank and ate cornflakes. However, we are not going to change our laws on that front. The commonality is that these people have a substance use problem. We have to make better inroads in dealing with substance use and misuse.

I know the members opposite mentioned that they had not been on the committee, so I am sure they are interested in hearing what the committee heard. Again, the committee was unanimous in that we had to do a better job.

Members of the party of the member for Red Deer also supported the recommendations that we decriminalize the possession of marijuana.

The member opposite mentioned that there are different systems in the bill, and there are. We have different sentences for murder for young offenders versus adult offenders. We have different sentences for the severity of the crime, based on quantity. We have a system in Canada where if people are speeding on the QEW at 20 kilometres over the speed limit, they are fined. Going much faster than that, 250 kilometres, is a criminal offence.

The bill would rightfully establish that for small amounts of marijuana, there would be a fine system. For a person possessing more marijuana, there would be alternatives, based on what police believed was the best way to proceed. For large amounts, it would clearly be trafficking and criminal behaviour, and that is the way with which it would be dealt.

Around the world, governments are dealing with how to best enforce the laws and how to deliver the most solid message to their constituents. It is not just about dealing with people who are using at the end. It is not just an end of pipe solution.

We have a need for more treatment facilities, for much more education and for a sounder social framework so we can say to people, that they seem to be getting a little out of hand with their alcohol use, or their prescription drug use, or their illegal drug use, and that we will help them find the resources to deal with the inner problems that are causing them, in some cases, to have this particular need.

The bill is a very solid response to what is happening across Canada in our communities.

My nieces will tell members that I do not condone the use of marijuana. Too many people make inappropriate decisions in their lives. The scariest thing I heard from young people was that they got the message that drinking and driving was wrong, but they did not actually get the right message. The message they got was, “Don't do it because you can get caught”. Some young people tell me that rather than drink at a party, they use cannabis.

To all those young people who think that it is okay to drive while under the influence of prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, illegal drugs or legal drugs, do not do it. It is not good for them and it is not good for others on the highways and roadways.

We are developing a test, as are other countries. However, right now a police officer can arrest and charge someone with being impaired, whether they are impaired from codeine or over the counter medications or whether they are impaired from cannabis or alcohol. We have to work with our police officers, and we are working with our police officers. I have talked to police officers who have in fact arrested people on that basis. Those individuals tell me it is possible. We will continue to work on that test.

Let us be clear. Young people have been high from cannabis and have driven on the road beside other vehicles, However, the last five times they encountered a police officer nothing happened to them. They just had their pot taken away from them. That is the wrong message.

The message has to be that there is a law on the books. They need to be told that they will be given a fine. They need to understand that we have laws on the books that will be enforced, that we are being responsible and are sending a strong message to individuals.

I encourage all members to support this bill. We have heard much about democratic reform in the country. This was again an issue brought up by members of this House who said, “Let's study the problem. Let's find the solutions”, and members of this House, representatives of five political parties, came up with the unanimous report to which the government responded with action on education, on treatment and on dealing with research, which is far too lacking.

The government also replied with legislation, and that is the bill is before us, again amended by a committee of the House. I know the member for Winnipeg Centre talked about the member for Vancouver East who did a lot of hard work, as did the member for Langley—Abbotsford, the member for Crowfoot, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the member Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier and members of this party. We worked very hard to consider all the options. There was great cooperation from all members, elected representatives, who studied the issue and came up with the best solution.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This is a very important framework for our government and for Canada's parole and corrections system.

While we may think there are some problems that from time to time need to be addressed, Canada is very fortunate to have a system that is the envy of many countries in the world. We have much more safety as a result of our corrections and conditional release system. It is important to keep that in mind as we look at the bill.

The minister introduced the bill following on work done by a subcommittee of the House. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued a release when she introduced the bill.

The CCRA is a legal framework for the federal corrections system. The purpose of the act is to protect the public by providing a balance between the control of and assistance to offenders.

We must remember that in the large majority of cases offenders will be released back into our communities so we need ensure they will be able to contribute to our communities after having paid their debt to society.

We want to reintegrate these individuals as law-abiding citizens. Therefore, the conditions under which they are held and the processes under which they are kept or they go through in terms of determining their release date, are important to all Canadians.

The bill is in response to a number of recommendations that were made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendments would tighten up the accelerated parole review process, which again is important in terms of cost effectiveness at the review process, but, more important, to ensure we are protecting the safety of citizens and that we get the best product possible.

The changes that the minister has introduced with the bill reinforce the greater scrutiny of those eligible for statutory release. We have to remember again that people do come to the end of their term at some point and we want to ensure that they are scrutinized properly.

There is a temporary absence process, which is part of the reintegration, that we need to ensure is sound and streamlined so there is greater public safety.

I think my colleague from Hillsborough identified at the end of his speech the importance of ensuring that the rights of victims in making statements to the National Parole Board hearings are protected in law and in process.

Sadly, there are offenders who are terminally ill and we needed to have some conditions under which we would allow them to spend their dying days perhaps in the best environment possible. For those of us who have visited jails, they are perhaps not the best place for the final weeks of anyone's life. Certainly we must keep in mind that not everyone is in jail for a personal injury crime. There are those who are in jail, and not to diminish the types of crime for which they are in jail, because they are very serious, but we need to ensure that we have the right conditions, that we are compassionate, that we are humanitarian and keeping in mind the reasons for them being there.

As I mentioned earlier, these amendments are in response to an all party committee of the House which reviewed the situation, listened to Canadians who had differing views on the issues and it came up with some solid recommendations to improve the system for everyone.

The committee issued its report in May 2000. Anyone interested in reading the report in its entirety can go to the parliamentary website at www.parl.gc.ca and look under the committees of the House of Commons. People will find various reports that have been published. This would give those who are following the bill and these issues a better foundation for what was being considered, the full list of witnesses and the kind of things that our colleagues on both sides of the House have said about the issue.

The act itself was proclaimed in 1992 and has had a number of updates since that time. It is the legal framework for the correctional system. The act sets out three important principles: the purpose of the corrections system that guides Correctional Service Canada and the measures guiding its operations; the purpose of the conditional release system, which is a part of corrections, and the principles that guide the National Parole Board; and the establishment of a very important office, the office of the correctional investigator, and specific measures governing its operations.

The CCRA contains a review clause requiring a parliamentary review of the act. I believe that takes place approximately every five years.

The subcommittee of the main committee of the House wrote a report entitled “A Work In Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act”. The subcommittee made some 53 recommendations for changes. The minister has taken action on 46 of those recommendations.

It is an important dialogue to have in the House. It is also important to update our laws to respond to the latest information, the latest conditions and individual situations that have arisen over the time that the act has been in place. We cannot always crystal ball everything and know exactly how things are going to work into the future. We try, and certainly people bring to committee their best estimates of how things are going to work, but we have to be practical when we undertake to do things to see if we need to make some amendments.

The amendments would tighten the provisions relating to the accelerated parole review. It excludes offenders convicted of offences, such as criminal organization offences, child pornography offences, high treason--thankfully, we do not see that too frequently--sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, or those causing bodily harm with intent using an air gun or pistol, and torture. I think those are really very important changes. We do not want to see accelerated parole review for those individuals. Those are very serious crimes that affect individuals in the most personal way.

We want to ensure with these amendments that in reviewing the cases of those who are eligible for accelerated parole review that the National Parole Board takes into account the likelihood of someone re-offending in general versus the likelihood of committing violent re-offending, as is the case under the current legislation.

The bill would amend the provisions that give the National Parole Board discretion over the release of offenders on accelerated parole reviews and would increase the ineligibility period for day parole for offenders serving more than six years.

The other issue that I thought I would really focus on here is the victims' rights issues that my colleague from Hillsborough had also identified. These amendments would enshrine into law the right of victims to present a statement at National Parole Board hearings. They would revise the definition of victim to ensure that guardians or caregivers of dependants of victims who are deceased, ill or otherwise incapacitated, can get the information that victims are permitted under law.

From time to time we really have to clarify what we mean by victim. Certainly, any of us who have had crimes, especially violent crimes, in our communities feel victimized by what has taken place, but we need to ensure that we have a very careful definition, one that includes the right number of people and the individuals. I think the change to the definition of victim would ensure that those who want to and need to make representation to parole board hearings to protect our community, to ensure that they are receiving the support they need, that is included.

The amendments to the act are important for the workings of our communities and our criminal justice system. It is important that the House be responsible for updating our laws, after careful review of how they have been working and after listening to Canadians who have divergent views on these, and making reports.

The minister has been incredibly responsible, as part of the parliamentary reform that many are talking about, to make sure she has responded to a committee of the House and its recommendations, and brought forward proposed laws that will make the Corrections and Conditional Release Act much better for our community and for the solid working of Canada.

I am sure the members opposite would want to get on the record with their comments.

[Herb Gray, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Governor General will present 44 recipients with their insignia of membership to the Order of Canada.

The right hon. Herbert Gray has been an enduring force in Canadian politics. First elected in 1962, he was re-elected an unprecedented 12 consecutive times. Though retired from politics, he continues to serve this country as the Canadian co-chair of the International Joint Commission.

Mr. Gray's commitment to his family, his faith, his community and this country is well demonstrated.

The Order of Canada recognizes people who have made a difference to our country. It is only fitting that this remarkable man is given such recognition, Canada's highest honour for lifetime achievement.

On behalf of all colleagues, I extend my congratulations to the right hon. Herb Gray, recipient of the Companion of the Order of Canada.

[Income Tax Act, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question. Certainly some of my friends, some of constituents especially, have found themselves in the situation where they are paying very high adoption fees. I know this relief would be important to them, in spite of what the finance department probably will tell us why it cannot be done.

How does the member reconcile this with the people who are paying exorbitant fees to produce a child through reproductive technologies? How would all those deductions, which are quite beyond the medical expenses that people can claim, be reconciled?

Many of the constituents first go through all the expenses for reproductive technologies. Then they go through private or public adoptions. Many public adoptions now are not that inexpensive. However, it is the same group of people who are sometimes spending $40,000 and $50,000 to try to have a family. I know many of my constituents have been in this situation and, given my age bracket, many of my friends are as well.

Could the member suggest how we reconcile that with this issue?

[Address in Reply, February 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I for one was very pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne a lot of discussion about helping poor families, and particularly poor children, achieve all they can. As I know the hon. member is committed to families and to children in particular, I wonder if she would elaborate on the post-secondary sector given how much she has in her constituency related to the post-secondary sector, and the importance of poor children getting access to post-secondary education.