Sue Barnes

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I will just reiterate that every investigation is unique. Every fact situation is unique. We are well aware that seasonal workers have a special challenge. They do face special challenges and we will continue to work with all of the people in the region.

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to give my hon. colleague a response. The government is committed to ensuring that employment insurance remains responsive to the needs of all Canadians and that is why the Canada Employment Insurance Commission monitors and assesses the program each and every year.

The commission recognizes that some regions and groups of workers such as seasonal workers can face very particular challenges. The member should know that the government has not stopped working with all the various partners, because we know that workers in seasonal industries want more opportunity to work. The Government of Canada will continue to stimulate local economies to provide sustainable employment opportunities.

However, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is responsible for administering and protecting the integrity of EI benefits in a way that is fair to all contributors. EI is a national program. As such, the government has an obligation to ensure that the program is administered fairly and that employers and employees adhere to the regulations governing the program. Because of this, investigations take place regularly on all sorts of issues related to EI in all parts of the country.

Let us be clear on one thing, and I believe the member would know this: the vast majority of claimants are honest, but for the very few, the minority who are not, the department has programs in place to detect fraud as well as prevent and deter fraudulent activity.

To protect the integrity of the EI fund, the department of HRSD conducts investigations into suspected fraud and abuse of the EI program as well as performing an educational program for employers and claimants on their rights and obligations.

The department does conduct several investigations of varying degrees in EI every year. It stands to reason that some of these investigations are more complex than others.

With regard to the specific issue of banking of hours raised by this member, investigations into this practice have been regularly conducted both prior to and since the 1996 legislative reform, in all parts of the country and in a variety of industries.

Just like the bulk of investigations done by the department, I imagine some of the investigations into banking of hours are more complex than others, but I think it is worth mentioning that I am not an investigator nor do I imagine that the hon. member is an investigator in these matters, so it is difficult for either of us to say that two separate investigations should yield a similar or same result. I would imagine that if there are different facts they yield, in different and changing situations, different conclusions. In fact, it is rather presumptuous of us to assume that anyone who is not part of the investigation team could draw such a link.

The bottom line is that each case is individual and decisions regarding consequences are made on a case by case basis by the EI commission at the conclusion of its investigations. The member opposite should know that EI legislation provides for all sorts of consequences, including overpayments, fines, penalties and violations as well as criminal prosecutions that may result in imprisonment. There is quite a range, so I do not think that it is very easy for us here to compare one investigation to another. I hope this assists the member opposite.

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member find that there is a place for the justice and the judiciary to take into account the individual situations of those people standing before it in a courtroom, so they can use their judicial discretion when they go to sentencing?

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

I will put my question then to the hon. member, seeing as Madam Speaker wants to limit my involvement, even though I have sat here all day.

I will ask the member how he can justify not giving the judges discretion--

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I believe I have up to 10 minutes for questions and comments.

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to your looking into that matter.

I have sat here all day. We started the day in the chamber doing third reading debate on a very important bill for the government, Bill C-10. It is a bill on which many people have worked long and hard. The chamber was engaged and all parties were working together debating the objectives of the bill. We also heard the dissenting viewpoint from a party but we were debating at third reading stage so we could go to the vote at third reading.

This afternoon we saw the use of a valid procedural tool, a hoist motion. What I have been listening to for the last number of hours was not the debate on the bill but the debate on the hoist motion, which would put this bill on hold for six months. It was perfectly legitimate to move that motion. That is not a problem.

However, I have been listening attentively to every speech today. I have been listening as a representative of constituents who have the same concerns for community safety, the same concerns about grow operations, the same concerns about young people and education. I wanted to hear a valid reason for not proceeding with the bill, for not proceeding to the vote on the bill, for not moving the legislation forward.

Even though all parties in the chamber have been engaged in third reading debate, surprisingly I have been listening to one party debate this motion. This motion was not about the bill, it was about the motion to hoist the bill, to delay it. That is the position of the opposite side. What have I also heard members opposite say? I have heard them say that mandatory minimums are the solution.

Perhaps we should look at one state in the United States because they refer to that country a lot. California has some of these three strikes and you are out bills. What do we see there? We see a state that spends more money on incarceration than it does on education, which is a shame because it does not work. If it worked, perhaps I would be willing to embrace something like it, but what works is really important.

I listened to the debate all afternoon. Members were talking about the government allowing or encouraging certain things. That is not so. In fact, I have only heard that type of message from the opposition. In reality all we are doing in the bill is making the sanction efficient and consistent in a manner that police organizations and prosecutors across the country will be able to free up the resources in the courts and make it a ticketing offence on the streets. If a minor were involved, the parents might be advised, something along those lines, something that might have an impact on young people.

I have heard the criticism about the differential in the fine rates between the younger person and the adult. Maybe we want the young person involved in paying the fines. Maybe these sanctions are not about putting kids in the cycle of not being able to pay fines and therefore escalating a system that does not work.

Millions of dollars for the drug strategy have been announced. It is very difficult to get the honest answer out if misinformation is put on the table and I have seen that strategy used before in other areas where it has failed. In fact, on other bills there have been lots of strategies used. I can remember a time when I stood as the chair of the aboriginal affairs--

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard words that I do not believe are parliamentary language.

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his continuing interest in this bill. He has a special area of knowledge about the workings of this bill and its passage through the House, which has not been the easiest passage because people are still debating the misinformation as opposed to the actual bill, and that makes it difficult for people.

There are some myths that have taken hold. One of the myths is that the U.S. will not like this legislation. I know that, as a former solicitor general for this country, he has had discussions with the representative from the United States. I would like to hear a little more about those conversations.

I would like to tell the House that grow operations are becoming a big problem in just about every community. They are becoming a safety issue and they are an issue in and of themselves.

I would also like the member to address these questions. What do we say to the police who have to work on these difficult issues? If we were to stick with the status quo and not pass this legislation, what would happen to all the measures in this bill that would help police get at the grow operations, involve more parents, and issue fines that younger people would pay on smaller amounts? What does this say about where we want our resources to be expended in this country?

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 27th, 2004]

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

[Justice, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to this because this has nothing to do with what the opposite member is putting on the floor here. In fact, we have allowed, through our Bill C-12, the former Bill C-20, to go and add more power to the defence and the prosecution of these very damaging assaults on children through exploitation.

I hope the members opposite join the government in adding to the protection so cases like this can be properly judged in our courtrooms to protect children.