Lloyd St. Amand

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the well-regarded member for Labrador.

I am very pleased to speak to the motion which has been brought before the House by our distinguished colleague from Winnipeg South Centre. Certainly I and many others, as evidenced by some of the comments this afternoon, were aware of the hon. member's long-standing interest in and sensitivity to issues that affect our aboriginal population. I am grateful to her for having the opportunity to speak to her motion.

My riding of Brant in Ontario contains the most populated aboriginal community in Canada, the Six Nations of the Grand River and New Credit reserves. Approximately 12,000 individuals reside on Six Nations of the Grand, and there is an equivalent number who reside off reserve, many of whom reside in the city of Brantford.

Since being elected in June 2004, I have had the privilege of getting to know many members of the Six Nations of the Grand and New Credit reserves. I can say unequivocally that they are people of generosity, people of dignity and people possessed of a deep spirituality.

I had heard from many individuals, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, from the latter part of November 2005 up to several weeks ago. All spoke positively about the Kelowna accord and that at last, long term, creative solutions had been proposed for the difficulties faced by so many of our first nations, Inuit and Métis persons.

It is recognized by anyone who has any solid knowledge of the history of Canada that our aboriginal peoples have been treated at various times with a lack of respect, with a lack of honour and quite frankly, with a lack of morality. Previous governments have been complicit with certain churches in attempting to effect cultural genocide. Not so many decades ago it was the deliberate intention of government in concert with some churches to prohibit aboriginals from speaking their language, from following their traditions, from maintaining their culture. The history of residential schools is not a shining example of the much vaunted Canadian values of tolerance, generosity and respect for all persons, for their beliefs and for their traditions.

The Kelowna accord was a recognition that our aboriginal citizens require long term assistance and that the plight in which so many of them now find themselves is not of their own doing. Hence there was the recognition within the Kelowna accord that unique solutions necessarily had to be implemented once and for all to improve the living conditions of our aboriginal peoples, their health, their education, their economies and their very way of life.

Renowned journalist and social activist June Callwood and many others have said that each person wishes intuitively to lead a productive meaningful life, but each person needs to know how to do so and must be provided with the tools to lead such a life. In my estimation, the Kelowna accord was going to accomplish exactly that: to provide our aboriginal peoples with the tools, on a long term basis, that they and their communities require to eventually acquire living conditions which would be equivalent to those enjoyed by non-aboriginals.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was correct this morning. He described aboriginal poverty as the most pressing social problem in Canada. He is right. How dreadfully disappointing it has been then for first nations, Inuit and Métis in this country to have their pressing needs described by the minister himself as the most pressing social need in Canada and to not have their needs recognized as one of the government's five priorities.

The government seems to be about management, not about leadership. Management is uncreative and is reduced to unimaginative steps such as reducing the GST by 1%, or handing out to some parents a few extra dollars a day to care for their children.

With respect to aboriginal issues, and I say this with respect, the government is abdicating its responsibility to demonstrate leadership. Failing to recognize aboriginal issues as a top priority, reflects on the management style of the government and further reflects the vacuum of leadership on aboriginal issues. Needless to say, the scuttling of the Kelowna accord has served to further disappoint and frankly dismay aboriginals who were so full of hope after the accord was signed.

The first visit, which was made by our former prime minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, after the election in June 2004, was to an aboriginal community in Canada's far north. He understood the importance of reaching out to our aboriginal brothers and sisters. He understood the importance of the federal government taking a leadership role with respect to our aboriginal communities. He understood and still understands that the difficulty which aboriginal peoples face needs to be seen as a top priority, that no international body or community will assist us here in Canada with a problem or a set of issues which are uniquely Canadian and require a Canadian response.

In my riding, Jim Windle is a non-aboriginal journalist who writes for a weekly newspaper on the Six Nations of the Grand. He has written, speaking about his experience as a non-aboriginal with aboriginals. He has said:

To work among the most misunderstood and marginalized people of North America has been a life-changing experience. I have been blessed and privileged to have earned the trust and friendship of many, but certainly not all, citizens of the Six Nations.

My journey into their world comes into collision with my own world every day when I return to my home in Brantford and am confronted with people just like I was—arrogantly ignorant of the true history of the greatest society this continent has known.

Mr. Windle and so many others in my riding understand that the federal government must play a leadership role with respect to aboriginal issues, including land claims disputes, such as the current dispute outside of but adjacent to my riding in the town of Caledonia, a dispute which has been going on for close to four months.

As Mr. Windle also states:

Treaties made with the Six Nations are no less important, or no less binding than those made with any other Nation in the world. They cannot just be ignored. New treaties must be signed by both parties to replace old ones.

I have some concern that the Prime Minister and the government feel that the solution to the problems, which beset our first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, can be resolved by simply inviting them into a non-aboriginal world, in the naive expectation that their cultural differences, their unique traditions and their life experiences can be parked or set aside. Such an approach will not work, as our aboriginal citizens will not and should not allow their history to be ignored, their culture and traditions to be overturned.

The Kelowna accord was about narrowing gaps in health care, education, housing, drinking water and economic opportunities that existed between aboriginals and the rest of Canadians. It recognized that these issues were interwoven, one with the other. The accord had the full support of 10 premiers, representing all political stripes. The premiers continue to call upon the government to implement the Kelowna accord, an accord which included $1.8 billion for education, $1.6 billion for housing and infrastructure, $1.3 billion for health, and millions more for economic opportunities.

Approximately 1.5 million persons in Canada are first nations, Inuit or Métis. For the most part, thousands and thousands of these individuals live in conditions which are substandard and approach third world status in many instances. It is impossible to understand how the needs of 1.5 million people would not be viewed as a priority for the Prime Minister and the government

In the view of many Canadians, and I am speaking of non-aboriginals, helping our aboriginal citizens is a top priority. It is beyond the comprehension of many people with whom I have spoken as to why the Prime Minister and the government are not seriously dealing with aboriginal issues, why they have seen fit to dismantle the Kelowna accord.

A close observer of the government's pronouncements on aboriginal issues and the performance in dealing with aboriginal issues would surely conclude that such issues are not a priority, that the Kelowna accord will not be respected or honoured by the government, certainly not in letter and unhappily perhaps not even in spirit.

[The Environment, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health and the President of the Treasury Board were at the cabinet table in Ontario that made decisions which directly led to Walkerton. They have personal experience with the effects of bad management on the environment.

My question is for the Minister of Health. As the true guardian of our national public health and given the fact that he had a very real tragedy under his watch in Ontario, did it not concern him when he heard that the government was cutting programs that fight global warming? Did he not warn his government?

[The Environment, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002 Mr. Justice O'Connor released his report on the Walkerton tragedy. His conclusions were stark. He noted that the Harris government failed to put proper safeguards into place after privatizing the water supply and that a weakened ministry of environment failed to detect the problem.

We are heading down that same path. Global warming is a real problem that will have devastating effects on our climate. Left unchecked, it will cost lives. Yet the government has chosen to cut or eliminate programs that fight global warming.

Will the Minister of the Environment announce today that she will reinstate those programs?

[Jimmie Leslie, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the funeral of Jimmie Leslie, a 45-year-old adult who was blind, non-verbal and had severe intellectual disabilities. In spite of these difficulties, Jimmy had a most profound effect on his terrific parents, James and Kay Leslie, and on the staff of Brantwood Centre, a wonderful facility in Brantford.

Some years ago Jimmie's father wrote a letter to his son at Christmas. I quote, “I have not been able to teach you the prayers of the young and give you the hope promised by a Christmas long ago. You do not speak but in your silence and in your innocence I know that hope will ever be there for you. You have no future and no past but you are here and for that I am ever grateful”.

The staff at Brantwood Centre attended Jimmie's funeral in large numbers. They shared what they loved about his uniqueness. One staff member read from her poem, “Your spirit has touched many, you made a difference in our lives. You taught us all what love is about, and how to care for someone right”.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt this morning only with the issue of mandatory minimum penalties. The issue of conditional sentences and house arrest is quite another topic. For my part I do not see, frankly, any contrary positions advanced by myself or other members of our party. Simply put, with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, the teeth are already there in the current system.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to a point that gang and gun related violence seems to be on the increase, but I will repeat what I said in the body of my speech. Our Criminal Code already contains some 42 mandatory minimum penalties. The majority of these mandatory minimum penalties are, as I said, quite properly for offences involving firearms, so the teeth of the law, so to speak, are already there. That is already present within the Criminal Code. Frankly, that was why the minister of justice, as he then was in the autumn of 2005, introduced a bill tightening the Criminal Code even more.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to some of the speeches from members opposite and have heard various references to specific cases and the suggestion from members opposite that a general or sweeping conclusion can and frankly should be drawn from an analysis of simply a few cases or a few situations. Drawing sweeping conclusions as a result of only a few situations is always risky and is, with respect, intellectually rather shallow.

Having practised law for 25 years prior to my election to this distinguished House of Commons in June 2004, I represented many individuals who were charged with various criminal offences. I obviously cannot breach solicitor-client privilege by referring to specific names, but I can certainly indicate that I have observed non-custodial sentences work for the benefit of society, for the benefit of the victim, for the benefit of the offender's family and for the offender himself or herself.

I am referring to individuals who were charged with a criminal offence, in some cases a serious criminal offence. They appeared before the presiding judge and, following a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt, the presiding judge then obviously turned his or her mind to the issue of sentence or penalty.

It is important to recall the edict of a most distinguished counsel and later jurist, the late G. Arthur Martin. Mr. Justice Martin served with distinction for many years on the Ontario Court of Appeal and was widely regarded in his time as the pre-eminent authority with respect to criminal law throughout Canada. Mr. Justice Martin and many others have commented that the overriding principle of sentencing is to determine what this particular offender deserves by way of punishment for this particular offence. The reality is that human behaviour does not lend itself to a simple or computer driven analysis and it is too simplistic to conclude that there will automatically be a deterrent effect if the sentencing bar is only set high enough or harsh enough.

I can think of many cases in which an offender, a family man, received a non-custodial sentence as a result of a finding of guilt against him. The non-custodial sentence allowed him to, for instance, maintain his job and thereby continue to support his family. It allowed him to continue to parent his children. It allowed him to, as a result of maintaining employment, make restitution or compensation to the victim or victims. It allowed him to attend for counselling and other treatment ordered by the sentencing judge.

Simply put, the non-custodial sentence worked to the benefit of everyone, as these individuals have not returned to the criminal justice system, have truly learned from their mistakes and have rounded the proverbial corner.

I appreciate that it is tempting to view the criminal justice system as a system which should be driven by formulae and by the principle that harsher penalties will automatically reduce the rate of crime. However tempting that may be, it is short-sighted and is not consistent with the experience that we have had in Canada with our current system.

The point has been made by many others, but it must be borne in mind that the crime rate in Canada is on the decline and that there is no compelling evidence to indicate that incarcerating more people truly works as a deterrent. If there were a clear link between increasing incarceration rates and decreasing crime rates, then an argument could logically be made for more persons to be incarcerated. However, the conclusion is otherwise. The rate of crime in Canada is on the decline.

Certainly the former Liberal government recognized that some serious crimes should be dealt with in a certain fashion and, hence, the policy of mandatory minimum penalties. The Criminal Code already contains some 42 mandatory minimum penalties and the majority of these are, quite properly, for offences involving firearms. Ten serious offences committed with a firearm carry mandatory minimum penalties of four years to a maximum of 14 years or life. Weapons trafficking and related offences carry minimum penalties of one year to a maximum of 10 years.

When an accused person appears before a judge, he brings with him, figuratively, to the door of the courtroom, his background, his life experiences, his challenges, his intellectual deficits, if any, his own at times scarred or abusive upbringing, his economic disadvantages, racial prejudice or stereotyping that he may have been exposed to, and various other factors. For instance, any reasonable observer knows that a disproportionately large number of aboriginal Canadians are incarcerated. To simply incarcerate individuals without providing them with counselling and treatment which will alter their behaviours on a long term basis is myopic.

This is not to sound as if I or others are soft on crime, but is simply to reflect a considered view that Mr. Justice Martin and others are correct in concluding that the overriding principle in sentencing is what a particular offender deserves by way of punishment for the particular offence he or she has committed. It is naive to think that building more prisons will reduce the crime rate. It is irresponsible to build more prisons instead of devoting more money to seniors, to aboriginals and to the disabled.

A crime prevention strategy involves more than imprisonment. The former Liberal government took many steps which were aimed at decreasing criminal activity across Canada. We increased funding for the national crime prevention strategy. Since its launch in 1998, the national crime prevention strategy has helped provide communities with the tools, the knowledge and the support communities need to deal with the root causes of crime at a local level. This strategy has supported more than 5,000 projects nationwide, dealing with serious issues like family violence, sexual abuse, sexual assault or drug abuse.

In my riding of Brant, there have been several successful projects under the NCPS. These projects are aimed at engaging youth in the community. One project, administered by the Sexual Assault Centre of Brant, developed a youth theatre project. This project engaged students in identifying, discussing and raising the awareness of important social issues.

It is obviously important that our streets and our communities be safe. It is vital that our criminal justice system ensure the safety of each member of society. It is critical that our criminal justice system provide long term solutions to the continued reduction or decrease in the rate of crime.

As others have noted, the ultimate rehabilitation of the individual offers the best long term protection for society, since that rehabilitation ends the risk of the continuing criminal career. There is simply no compelling or persuasive evidence that increasing the number of mandatory minimum penalties will reduce the rate of crime in Canada. As was noted by Cheryl Webster and Anthony Doob of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Toronto:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher penalties reduce crime rates in Western populations. Indeed, a reasonable assessment of the research to date--with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade--is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society.

Would that the issue of crime lend itself to a simple answer, a simple answer such as “let us only make the penalties harsh enough and the crime rate will automatically be reduced”. Whether we like to admit it or not, the complexity of human behaviour and identifying causes for human behaviour do not lend themselves to simple answers.

[Witness Protection Program Act, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to commend the member opposite for his speech and for bringing forward this bill. The spotlight must be shone, on a very frequent and regular basis, on domestic violence and abuse.

I am pleased for my part to speak to the bill. I practised family and criminal law for some 25 years prior to being elected in June of 2004. I had occasion to represent literally hundreds of spouses who had been abused by their partners. I also represented, as a component of my criminal law practice, individuals who had been charged with domestic or spousal assault.

As I understand the rationale for the bill, it essentially seeks to provide spouses with an opportunity to avail themselves of the various protections provided by the witness protection program; that is, to provide them with that opportunity in the situation where their spouse is abusive.

The Witness Protection Program Act is quite broad in its definitions. For instance, the act currently states that it is:

An Act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions

Clearly, spouses are not in any way excluded from the definition section of the act and, as it currently stands, spouses would clearly fall within the category of persons who may seek assistance under the terms of the Witness Protection Program Act.

It is sad to say that I have received or heard of numerous complaints about the operation of the witness protection program. The complaints I have heard referred to funding shortfalls and the inadequacy of the protections within the act. Individuals who are registered with the program often encounter a variety of problems ranging from a difficulty or inability to obtain employment to difficulty in obtaining official or government identification.

With respect to the former problem, it is trite to say that it is difficult to obtain employment when one can furnish no references for the consideration of one's prospective employer. Nor can one provide that prospective employer with any type of work history.

I have also heard of situations which have resulted in the protected witness or person being not at all protected, given that the person who was dangerous to the protected person discovers the address or location of the protected person.

Although I appreciate that the imperfections of the current program should not, in and of themselves, derail a broadening of the program, it is important to consider carefully whether a seemingly already overburdened program can realistically deal with a new strata or category of persons who could become registered under the act.

Entering into the program has some short and long term consequences. Certainly more extensive or comprehensive measures should be enacted to ensure that persons wishing to enter the program are made aware of exactly what it is they are signing on to. There should be a requirement that the individual contemplating signing on to the program seeks independent legal advice so the short term and long term ramifications of entering the program can be clearly explained to that person by competent counsel.

As I understand the current situation, a large number of individuals, who are registered with the program, sincerely regret they ever entered the program. They claimed that they had no idea of what they were agreeing to and no idea as to the full scope of the program.

Unquestionably, the idea or concept of protecting abused spouses as much as possible is most laudable. It is trite to say that abused spouses and certainly abused children need as much protection as is possible. However, there is family or relationship dynamic between spouses which, in my view, distinguishes the spousal situation from the situation covered in the current Witness Protection Program Act; that is the typical situation witness and accused person.

A typical witness and an accused person, for instance, do not have children together, often do not have any degree of shared history and will have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to repair their relationship or to maintain a level of contact for the sake of children who, of course, do not exist.

In the typical situation in which there are children of the relationship, how appropriate would it be for the children to have no contact with their grandparents, that is, the parents of the abusive partner, if the relationship between the children and their paternal grandparents was positive and beneficial for those children? Certainly such a positive tie would be severed upon the entering into the program of the abused spouse.

What of the children's relationship with their father who, although clearly abusive of the mother, may otherwise enjoy a positive relationship with his children? If the abused partner, the children's mother, enters the program, how feasible would it be for the children to continue the positive relationship with their father?

I have been professionally involved in cases in which spousal abuse was present, typically abuse perpetrated by a husband against his wife. At times, the husband eventually curbed his abusive or violent tendencies, normally with the assistance of counselling and behavioural modification. In due course, typically after a separation of several months, the parties reconciled and the husband's abusive behaviour became a thing of the past. Essentially, the family members, including the children, were reunited. The husband returned to the family with a greater appreciation of his wrongdoing and with a renewed purpose to treat his partner with respect and dignity.

I appreciate that those are the success stories and that there are undoubtedly as many stories of failure, where the cycle of abuse continues. However, it is my current belief that an abused spouse is much more than simply a witness and that the remedies which our system should offer an abused spouse should be more helpful and more creative than the witness protection program, laden as it is with operational difficulties, lack of funding, et cetera.

Like the member opposite, I am familiar with a very well-regarded shelter for abused women in my riding of Brant. The management and staff of Nova Vita Women's Services provide caring, helpful shelter for abused women and children and also provide insightful programming for abusive males. In my view, such shelters and programming should be the focus of our efforts in dealing with the issue of domestic violence.

There should likely be separate legislation established that works within the proper jurisdictional framework to deal with cases of abuse where there is a need to provide additional protection, or even relocation, to a spouse whose life has been put in danger by her spouse. I would agree that in many cases there is a need to provide additional protection to a spouse; however, I do not necessarily believe that expanding or broadening the witness protection program is the best way to deal with this problem.

[The Environment, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for me to table a report from the Climate Institute entitled “First Progress Report on the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate”.

[Government Policies, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are more “harpocracies”.

Day 111, creates plum patronage position to stop patronage appointments, takes ball home when opposition will not play.

Day 112, calls his tax break “Canada's universal child care program”.

Day 113, turns Canada into a unilateralist power, breaks international treaties on climate change.

Day 114, shuffles military contracts to ex-lobbying clients of the Minister of National Defence.

Day 115, hunkers down in the bunker and calls it “open government”.

Day 116, will not take questions from the national media at his “transparency and accountability” announcement.

Day 117, cannot decide if families were consulted or not for repatriation ceremonies.

Day 118, shuts out Canadians from repatriation ceremonies.

Day 119, hires a convicted fraud artist to work in the PMO.

Day 120, rushes to sign the softwood deal that George Bush wants but few in the industry do.

There is more to come.