Bev Desjarlais

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with how my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has portrayed what took place at committee. Quite frankly, that is exactly what I was saying; I said “the witnesses” and he said “the industry”. I was trying to be more tactful and suggest that it was not the industry that prepared the legislation but the government. I guess the parliamentary secretary has made it quite clear who actually prepared the legislation and where the fault was in the legislation.

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the number of comments made here this morning on this legislation. It is quite apparent that the legislation seems to have overwhelming support among the different parties.

To briefly comment on it, because I do not want to rehash everything that has already been said, the New Democratic Party broadly supports the bill and the Cape Town convention on mobile equipment. The ratification of the protocol could be a positive development for Canadian industry and Canadian workers as well as support for international development. The convention could also promote the use of newer, cleaner and more environmentally friendly aircraft, and actually that is one point that is not brought out here. Again, this is a bill that could give those countries that do not have a lot of dollars to work with an opportunity to purchase new rather than second-hand or used aircraft that other countries or airlines put up for sale.

Just to make it very simple for the Canadian public, because we all acknowledged at committee that this was very much a technical bill, our biggest challenge was in making sure we were not missing something just in case there was some underlying sneak attack on us that we did not want to miss. As committee members, we acknowledged that the legislation is very technical. In checking with people involved in the industry, we found that it was broadly supported so it certainly was not our intent to hold it up.

I am going to try to simplify it as briefly as possible. The bill makes it easier and more orderly for people who lend money to an airline for purchase of a new aircraft to repossess that aircraft in the event that the borrower stops paying off the loan.

The international registry will keep track of every aircraft, listing who owns it and/or who owes what on it. This will facilitate the return of the aircraft to the lender in the event that the borrower stops paying. In theory, the result should be somewhat lower financing costs for countries where the credit risk is perceived to be too high, especially in developing countries, but the new mechanism will apply to all aircraft purchases.

An international mechanism is necessary because of the big differences between countries in terms of their respective bankruptcy laws and because of the ability to move aircraft, unlike tangible assets that are used in collateral loans. There is a potential benefit for the Canadian aerospace industry.

As has already been stated by my colleague from the Bloc, loans are under provincial jurisdiction and, for this reason, it is necessary for the provinces to come on side and enact their own legislation to work concurrently with this piece of legislation.

To try to clear up what happened at committee, I want to make a comment related to the amendments that were supposed to be put forth on this bill but were not. I acknowledge the Speaker's comments today and I think we take them as justifiable comments. As a committee, we were hearing from witnesses. Right toward the end of the witnesses' presentations, they mentioned that we needed amendments in the bill to acknowledge the differences in language.

My colleague from the Conservatives has mentioned this as well: the differences in language between different countries and how things are perceived. Within this legislation there were two terms that we would see as maybe having the same meaning, but which would not necessarily be seen that way elsewhere. So we know that we have a piece of legislation before us which we need to vote on, but as committee members we think--and certainly other members of Parliament now know--there is something missing in the legislation, which is going to make it hard to deal with. I am not totally sure about how the government is looking at addressing that.

It has been mentioned that the government has been dealing with this convention for a number of years, but had the government come forth with a complete bill with those changes it would have had support. It is certainly not our intention to hold up the legislation or to make it unworkable. It will be interesting to see how we deal with this, because this is actually one time where we do have agreement. The government, by not getting the job done properly, has created a problem for the industry and it is going to take up a bit more of Parliament's time to deal with it.

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was of the impression from committee meetings that the signing on by other provinces was not necessary for this process to take place. As long as the provinces that had signed on wanted to be involved it could still happen. I was of the impression that it was not absolutely necessary for each and every province to sign on and that they could do it at any given time. I wonder if the member would care to comment on that.

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Absolute discharge. They got a bit older, they are tax paying individuals, and somehow had their case heard and their charges wiped away. But there are an awful lot of others who may not have had the money to proceed or pursue it and still have the stigma of a criminal charge for cannabis possession.

I am not going to get into these arguments of how much constitutes possession or trafficking or anything else as I think all that will come up again in committee. It is crucially important for members of Parliament to be really honest with themselves. How is it okay for an individual in the House to drink or smoke tobacco and yet somehow feel that some other individual smoking or using cannabis is any less of a problem? In my view, they are the same.

Quite frankly, I have experienced being around people in both instances, and I can say I would much rather be around someone who smokes as compared to someone who excessively drinks and gets a little carried away.

The other point I want to make in regard to this issue is the fact that our police system, whether it is the provincial police or the RCMP, have had their resources taxed to the maximum.

I have listened to my colleagues in the Bloc talk about the number of RCMP detachments that have closed. I think we have all seen in our areas that RCMP detachments have taken on bigger and bigger areas. Pretty soon the RCMP detachments in some areas will have ridings the size of some of ours. That is how bad it seems to be getting in some areas. There is one detachment that has to cover this area, and in some cases they have to fly into communities and they do not have the resources.

From a purely economical perspective, it is ludicrous to have RCMP officers having to try to deal with simple possession charges, knowing that it will go to the courts and, as has been mentioned in numerous instances, there is no real follow-through on anything--not that I think there should be. In a good many instances even the judges have realized it is not the right thing to do, to have someone get a criminal charge on simple possession of marijuana, because they have seen this year after year and they have not seen the drastic consequences. I believe in some cases they are making sound judgments.

Now, on the issue of major grow ops and the charges that are followed through, I have had some disagreements, but I think we take every case as it happens.

From the perspective of the best utilization of our resources, just as I do not believe it is the best utilization of our resources to have a gun registry, I do not think it is the best utilization of our resources to be going after people for simple possession of cannabis. I think we need to be honest as to how we deal with these things.

About five or six years ago I was at a meeting out in B.C. in one of the areas and there were a lot of older women at this meeting. It was interesting to hear them talk about the fact that they thought cannabis should be legalized, not decriminalized. They were talking about it should be legalized because they were tired of the RCMP officers in their area having to deal with these issues when they were worried about home invasions, assaults, and all these other things happening, and they did not have the resources to deal with it.

I implore my colleagues in this House to look at this from all perspectives, not just that somehow we do not want to be seen as allowing a new drug to be legalized, but from all aspects. It is legalized in the sense that we have not been able to put any controls on that part and there is an unjust system throughout the country as to how the rules are played out. I would hope that we do not just look at this from the perspective of not wanting to appear as if we're legalizing another nasty drug. I would hope that is how we end up doing this in the House, that we look at it from all aspects.

With the one minute I have left, I just want to say that I am also greatly concerned, and I see this in my riding, that simply trying to get access to marijuana use means that a lot of young people in this case--and it is young people, because I can say that the older people do not have to contact someone directly tied to a local gang, because they know where to get their cannabis somewhere else--it means that young people are being pulled into gangs and then they cannot get out of them. That bothers me to no end.

I have seen some pretty violent situations where these young people want to get out of it and cannot, and I want that to end. I want a legalized system in place where young people, and I'm not talking about ten and eleven years old, have access.

I do not have any more time, Mr. Speaker. I know that in the future I certainly will have the time to say some more about it. Thank you very much.

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what my colleague from the Bloc said earlier. It is not always a pleasure to be back in the House speaking on the same issue that has sort of been hanging around for a number of years and that we never seem to be able to deal with to finality. We cannot seem to show Canadians that we actually can see some change take place. I am not going to say that I am pleased to speak on this issue again. However, I would hope that this time, as we discuss this issue in the House and it goes to committee, we can put some finality on this issue and see some changes.

I am not going to comment on everything that is in the legislation. My colleague from Vancouver East who spoke earlier today mentioned a lot about the bill, specific clauses within the bill, and amendments that the NDP had made to the bill in the previous Parliament. Those amendments would see a more justifiable change that would benefit Canadians. We will be working on those amendments again as it goes to committee.

I want to comment on the government's overall drug strategy. That has been raised a number of times by different representatives from the different parties. It is a bit strange that as a government it appears there is no particular drug strategy in place. That is an issue.

All that we see in place is a punitive justice type situation where people who have problems with drugs are picked up and charged, some are thrown in jail and some are not. It all depends on who one is. That is the reality of it. It all depends on who people are and whether they are going to have criminal charges brought against them, whether they are going to be fined, or whether they are going to be thrown in jail. That in itself is a major issue.

I am glad to hear my colleague from the Liberal Party mention two other drugs that are extremely bad within Canada. We see extremely negative impacts from alcohol and tobacco use. We have put them in a legalized perspective and we have made tremendous changes within the public as to how these drugs are perceived.

We have seen smoking rates decrease in a number of areas. We have seen alcohol consumption decrease in the amount individuals drink, not necessarily overall but individuals themselves, and it is no longer okay to be impaired while driving. It is also no longer okay to be impaired in a lot of instances, even socially. It is just not accepted any more. I think that is an absolute plus. That has been done through the use of education and prevention.

What we have seen from the Liberal government most recently is a cut of I believe $70,000 or $80,000 to tobacco education at the same time that it is supporting the tobacco industry on a challenge within the courts. That is not acceptable and I think it is sending a negative message.

I would question anyone in the House who thinks it is okay to drink and smoke tobacco but somehow thinks cannabis use should be illegal. I have been chuckling throughout the day as the debate has been going on because we keep hearing about young people who are going to have criminal charges. There are a lot of middle aged people out there who have criminal charges because as young people, 30 years ago, they were partaking in cannabis use. Some have been lucky and had their charges dropped, or what is the other terminology that we use?

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the transport minister's responses and comments tend to inflame Quebeckers. They also probably create a bit of antagonism for other national parties here in the House.

His colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, mentioned in a response to the member from the Bloc that somehow the additional dollars that must be transferred to the unemployed are like extra money that must go into those particular provinces.

Does he think it is acceptable for the government to use, as general revenue, the dollars that workers and employers pay into EI? Does he not think that there should be a more transparent and honest use of the dollars that go into EI to provide benefits to workers and employers?

[Quarantine Act, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12. My first foray into talking about the Quarantine Act was a few years back when the new public safety act was coming into place. The Quarantine Act is not something one would normally talk about in everyday life in Canada. Nobody thought a quarantine would ever be put in place in Canada until the SARS epidemic.

It is good to see this new bill before us. I have listened to my colleagues from all the parties who have spoken today. It is interesting to note that all of us seem to be highlighting the same concerns. We all seem to want the bill to go to committee where we will be able to ask questions regarding the areas of concern.

For those people who may be watching this debate on TV and have not heard about the bill, I will highlight some aspects which may have been highlighted by others as well. If my colleagues on the government side are wondering whether I will be making any riveting remarks on the Quarantine Act, and I can assure them I will be.

As has already been mentioned, the old Quarantine Act has not been updated since 1872. Bill C-12 would apply to people coming into Canada and leaving Canada. It would not apply to people moving between provinces because the legislation respects their jurisdiction and the right to public health in their own areas.

Conveyance and transportation organizations would be subject to the proposed legislation. We can understand why, considering the traffic going back and forth between Canada and our southern neighbour. Literally thousands of vehicles and different modes of transportation such as air traffic move across our borders. It is important that transportation be included in the Quarantine Act.

My colleague from the Conservatives indicated the cost to travellers with regard to a quarantine and possible medical examinations. I have to admit he did not appear to be overly sensitive to the fact that travellers would have to pay money for that and there may not be anything wrong with them. He was much more concerned about getting the dollars from them. On the contrary, I am concerned because refugees and immigrants coming into Canada have already paid a fair amount of money to get to our wonderful country and they may not have a lot of resources available to them. They will face additional costs.

I hate to say this but I have become a bit skeptical about the government wanting to be a money making operation. A good example of this is when a person applies for a passport. A person applies for a passport and pays the required fee. Should something be wrong with the application, the person applies again, pays the fee again, and it goes on and on. It becomes a cash cow. I have seen that happen with visas, passport applications and numerous other areas in the government. My party does not want that to happen. I hope it is taken into consideration because we do not want to increase financial hardship on travellers coming to our country.

I want to highlight what my colleague from the Bloc mentioned about the minister's over-reaching authority. I am a little concerned in that a quarantine officer could put a quarantine order in place but it could be overruled by the minister. I would hope that it would be a medical quarantine officer who would make the decision rather than the not necessarily medical minister making the decision. I would hope that would be brought into question at committee. Possibly the head of the new public health agency, or the head of the public health agency in individual provinces in order to recognize jurisdiction, would be the only individual able to overrule a valid quarantine order.

There were a number of areas I wanted to mention, but those were the most important.

My colleague from the Conservative Party did mention the cost to business. Certainly, if a business were to be affected, there should be some understanding as to the costs that would be incurred and every effort should be made to keep those costs down.

We can all imagine if a transport truck came across the border and for some reason it was found that the driver could not get rid of whatever toxin and it was quarantined. If the toxin could not be done away with, then this vehicle would have to be disposed of, which seems to be the farthest stretch of the imagination. We must take into consideration inflicting orders as well as the business people and their costs.

I look forward, as my other colleagues in the House have mentioned, to the bill going to committee. I know that our health critic has done a thorough job of ensuring that our caucus was informed about the Quarantine Act. I know he will also do a thorough job of bringing our concerns forward in committee.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know the government has indicated on numerous occasions that it has put more money into the military and it has increased the numbers of the forces and the reserves. I am curious to hear if the member is aware of what those actual numbers are for the increases to the forces and reserves. I am of the impression that although the government talks about increasing all these numbers, in actuality it really is not. There is no real effort for recruitment and retention. I would like to know if the member knows what those numbers are.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. The member is free to look at the Debates tomorrow since he obviously did not hear what I said. That is totally opposite from what I said.

We in this party absolutely support the fact that if our men and women are going to be sent into whatever situation, be it peacekeeping or combat, they definitely should be properly equipped or we should not be sending them. That is the issue.

There is no question about our support for our military men and women. As long as the government, and the country, has in place a policy where we will be partaking in peacekeeping, peace making or combat efforts, we have to ensure the funding is available to do so.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know we are all very passionate about our military. It is interesting how it is always our military when we are just talking about them like this. We do not probably think about the military each and every day, which we should.

In between remembrance days we should remember why the military is over there. We should remember when we are voting on issues, if we ever get to vote on issues in the House, as to whether or not when we have military personnel go into places, that we are putting their lives at risk. It is crucially important that we do not forget that.

I accept my colleague's explanation of the motion. As I indicated, I had issue with what was in the preamble in relation to the motion. As he well knows, as do members of the House, we often have to consider that because there is a tendency to use some of that against each other in political times. I accept his clarification of the motion.