John Godfrey

[The Environment, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, following a request for access to information, we learned that no one at the Prime Minister's office, the Privy Council or the Minister of Environment's office communicated in writing with the Government of Quebec about implementing the Kyoto protocol. And yet, on May 2, the minister said in this House, and I quote, “[The provinces] will be very much a part of our made in Canada solution, Canadians will come first, and Quebec is a part of that plan.”

Why did the minister mislead the House?

[The Environment, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is responsible for protecting the environment. The crisis of global warming is real and urgent.

The minister has destroyed the only Canadian plan for addressing global warming. Where is the new plan?

[The Environment, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, at its annual conference, held in Montreal, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities voted on a motion supporting the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. Incidentally, at the last minute, the Minister of the Environment decided not to attend the conference.

The Canadian mayors decided to prevent this Prime Minister from reneging on Canada's international commitments. Given this recent show of support for the Kyoto protocol, will the Prime Minister finally recognize that he is the only one who does not believe in it?

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

That is right. Disguised as decent kind of Liberal people. Disguised with intent. Looks like Hallowe'en is in some difficulty.

If we were simply to go with the bill as it is, a lot of us would ask, what about specific cases in this long list that includes things that have changed and evolved over time? Would it not be more appropriate for us to send the bill to committee, which this side is willing to do, to examine in detail the effects that this surprisingly deceptively short bill has, to make sure that we are not inadvertently doing something quite foolish? It seems to me that is the task of Parliament and that is indeed the task of parliamentary committees.

The whole concept of conditional sentencing itself is rather sophisticated. It has been developed as part of the tool kit of restorative justice. It is basically a good idea to have it. We want to make sure in simply passing the bill that we do not undo the good things that come from conditional sentencing. That would be a very important reason for us not to support the bill in its present form because of these questions, and for us to have a proper sorting out at second reading of all of the implications so that we will not be in a worse situation than we are. We are not denying that in some cases this might make sense, but let us go through all the cases where it might apply.

There is another question that arises out of our examination of Bill C-2. It is the whole question of whether this has been certified as constitutional. We have gone through a certain amount of ambiguity, where certain legal officers in the context of Bill C-2 have said they do not think that bill satisfies the constitutionality test. We heard from the Attorney General in the case of Bill C-2 that it does, but when there is that kind of ambiguity it seems to me that it raises flags about all the legislation that comes before us.

What we ought to do is make absolutely certain that this bill has had that kind of certification from the Attorney General so that we find ourselves in a position of clarity.

This is one of the reasons that we need to give greater examination to the detail, because the detail is not in the bill itself; it is in all that is implied, the whole philosophical background behind conditional sentencing. We know that if we do not get it right, we will undo all of the good work, the advances in thinking on this that have occurred.

I would ask the government to work with us in a cooperative--

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the point that I would like to bring to the debate is that while this is a remarkably short bill, the implications of it are quite remarkable.

What I find particularly interesting is we are talking about a bill that says it is not possible to have a conditional sentence if the penalty is 10 years or more, but then when we actually go to the list of possible crimes and misdemeanours which would be worth 10 years or more, it is quite astonishing.

For example, one can be sentenced to 14 years for intimidating Parliament. Whether that might demand a conditional sentence under some conditions, I cannot say. Forging a passport or using a forged passport has a penalty of 14 years. With respect to communicating false information, I would think there has to be some more detail about this one because the penalty could be life imprisonment. I would think there might be some conditions where a conditional sentence would be more appropriate. Contradictory evidence with an intent to mislead is worth 14 years. Perjury is worth 14 years. Fabricating evidence is worth 14 years.

Do we think under all of those conditions there might not be a situation in which a conditional sentence would be more appropriate?

Theft over $5,000 is worth 10 years. A public servant who refuses to deliver property could get 14 years. Cattle theft is included. One has the sense of the majesty and history of the Criminal Code with this roll call of fascinating things. Destroying documents of title is worth 10 years, but could someone not be given a conditional sentence for that? What about the unauthorized use of a computer? I would bet there has been a little bit of that around here. How long is that? Ten years.

Disguise with intent is another one. That happens in the political world all the time. It is worth 10 years.

[The Environment, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister discussed joining the Asia Pacific Partnership with his Australian counterpart. In Australia, the respected Climate Institute affirms that, with this plan, global emissions are going at least to double by 2050.

Does the Minister still think that Canada should join this partnership?

[The Environment, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on April 26 the Minister of the Environment said, “We've been looking at the Asia-Pacific partnership for a number of months now”, but yesterday I had to point out to her that the Republican dominated House of Representatives had just terminated all funding, $46 million, for the Asia-Pacific partnership. The Americans have abandoned AP6, just as surely as the government has abandoned Canadians in the fight against global warming.

Having had 24 hours to reflect, does the minister still think Canada should align itself with an American inspired organization which has just lost all American funding?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's point. In my historical overview, while saying we had huge success in some areas, and I outlined everything from classical music to pop music to art galleries and the rest, I did say that one of the areas which we have been less successful in is precisely the one the parliamentary secretary referred to, which is the feature film business.

Why do we not have more Canadian feature films of quality? I totally accept the premise that quality is important. Why is there so little screen time? This has been a subject of a lot of consideration. Is it the distribution system? Is there some kind of monopoly which is organized by those who screen the films? Is it a plot or is it the nature of the film business, which is an increasingly international one? It is pretty hard sometimes to tell what a film is in terms of content.

I certainly accept the criticism because it is one I have made myself. This is an area where the nature of filmmaking has changed. It is worthy of those who happen to be lucky enough to be on the heritage committee to spend some time thinking about that.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do that and I would be pleased to do so with specific reference to Bernard Ostry, whose funeral I attended in Toronto on Friday. It was an extraordinary manifestation of a great life.

Here was a person who had done many things in the Public Service of Canada. He covered many dossiers, but culture and broadcasting were really his forte. His far-seeing vision of the impact of new technologies on public broadcasting in our country goes back to the 1960s and 1970s. Things that he wrote in 1975 have a prophetic air to them.

It is precisely because we have great public servants like Bernard Ostry, who served both the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario when he was head of TVO, and his wife Sylvia, who is the leading trade expert in the country and his children, particularly Adam Ostry, who works in the cultural field, that we have been able to have these deliberate policies. These policies have taken us forward. They have anticipated the changes which have come across in the multi-channel universe of over the air broadcasting in the early fifties. At that time, the United States had three channels and Canada had a couple.

We have gone through a total revolution. It is precisely because we have been well served by people like Bernard Ostry and the rest of his family that we have been able to anticipate change and introduce, in a thoughtful and intelligent way, the kinds of regulations which have allowed us to keep up and demonstrate the flexibility, which has been asked of us by the Conservative government. I ask the government to once again demonstrate flexibility and support this motion.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we seem to have two opposing philosophies before us. I must say that the Conservative philosophy remains rather obscure for now, yet we can nevertheless make out certain aspects or hints in the comments made so far.

To answer my colleague, I would say that it is precisely because of this vagueness. We hear talk of new technologies and flexibility. We are told that it is old fashioned, as though it were outdated, although what we are not being told is what will serve to replace this system of protecting Canadian culture and French culture in Canada.

This is particularly important to Quebec. Quebec's situation is the same as Canada's, only even more so, I would say. It is precisely to protect the French language in Quebec and throughout Canada that such rules exist.

When I hear all of this rhetoric on flexibility and new technologies, I tell myself that these are only details. I have absolutely no faith in our future. For now, I remain conservative, as it were, in terms of the regulation and protection of culture, whether in Quebec or Canada.