Geoff Regan

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. minister's speech today and congratulate him for many years of service in the OPP, the London police force and elsewhere, but I am surprised at the answer he gave to the previous question because it seems to me the point of the questions was that if there are parts of the bill which the opposition is prepared to support and expedite, why would the government not want to do that?

The minister said to get this moving, get it going, and get the measures that he is talking about today moving forward. That is what my hon. colleague who spoke a moment ago was talking about exactly.

I do not comprehend why the minister would not say yes, that is the right move. Why, when there are other issues in this bill that opposition members in both parties, enough that he is not concerned about, why not separate the bill? It is a huge, omnibus piece of legislation. Why not separate it and move forward quickly with so many of the measures on which there is agreement?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in a question I referred to an article by Mr. Peter Blaikie, a very distinguished Canadian lawyer, founding partner of Heenan Blaikie and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I would like to quote from his article again and get the member's reaction to it. He said:

The [Prime Minister's] government wants to send more Canadian young offenders to jail and for longer periods of time, no doubt creating more recidivists. One twice-jailed young offender had the following comments on the legislation:

“For the most part, harsh sentences do not deter crime and actually work against rehabilitating offenders. My brief time in incarceration only ensconced me more deeply in the criminal culture.”

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague is aware of a recent article by Mr. Peter Blaikie who is one of the founding partners of the well-known Montreal law firm, Heenan Blaikie, and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. In an article on August 2 in The Gazette he stated:

A civilized, effective system of justice should have two overriding objectives: to protect society, perhaps forever, from the truly dangerous and, while punishing the others, using every possible effort to rehabilitate them, turning them into productive citizens. The government’s approach, in effect and almost certainly in intention, reverses these objectives. It is all stick and no carrot. It even abandons the highly successful, self-sustaining, century-old program of prison farms, which taught generations of inmates critical life skills.

I would like her comments on this.

[The Environment, September 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we just do not see that. Canada needs an energy strategy that recognizes that the economy, energy and the environment are all important. The government does not seem to understand that a strong economy depends on a healthy environment.

In light of the demonstrations taking place on the Hill today, when will the government come up with a sustainable energy strategy for Canada's future?

[The Environment, September 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, sustainable development of Canada's energy sector is key to our future but the government has failed to show any leadership. What the Conservatives do not understand is that it is impossible to have a strong economy without a strong environment.

With today's protest in Ottawa on the government's lack of leadership, when will the Prime Minister get his head out of the sands and produce a sustainable energy strategy for Canada's future?

[Taxation, September 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are only too happy to cave in to any U.S. demand when it comes to security, but they allow the U.S. to threaten Canadian jobs with its protectionist buy American policy, and now they have failed to defend law-abiding Canadians.

Conservatives are eager to follow U.S. orders on border security, but they do nothing to protect our own citizens from the American taxman.

Why will the Prime Minister not pick up the phone, call President Obama, and stand up for Canadians' interests?

[Taxation, September 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, by attacking the savings of Canadians with dual citizenship and imposing massive fines on them, the American government is threatening the financial security of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. The Conservatives responded by writing a letter.

Why is the government allowing the United States to treat law-abiding Canadians as though they were tax-evading billionaires?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Charlottetown on his first speech in the House. It was excellent.

Earlier today, the minister, in introducing the bill, talked about his concern for victims, and I think that is a concern that is shared by all members of the House. As my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore said a few minutes ago, it is time the members on the Conservative side recognized and accepted that. However, if this does not have the effect of lowering crime, how does it help victims?

It is reasonable to look at what has happened elsewhere when measures like this have been taken. We just need to look, for instance, at the U.S. where the incarceration rate is 700% higher per capita than it is in Canada. In California, where it had the “three strikes you're out” rule, there have been huge increases in incarceration. Does it have a much lower crime rate than we do? The fact is, its crime rate, like ours, has been dropping for 20 years. However, the rate of violent crime in the U.S. is still far higher than in Canada, suggesting that what the government is doing here will have no appreciable effect, perhaps none at all, on the rate of crime in Canada and will not help victims whatsoever.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, this morning the minister appeared on Canada AM on CTV. He was interviewed by Seamus O'Regan, who asked him five times what the cost would be to the Canadian public, to the taxpayers, of the implications of this bill. Each time the minister refused to answer.

The minister has been asked several times today in the House of Commons, and perhaps he was asked the same question elsewhere. He still has failed to tell the House.

In fact, one of the minister's answers to Seamus O'Regan was that it would be a sustainable cost. If he can come to the conclusion that it will be sustainable, then surely he must know the amount. Does he know the amount and is not willing to tell the Canadian people, or will he tell us today? Will he give us the answer to the question he has been asked all day long?

If the minister absolutely refuses to answer the question of what the bill will cost, perhaps he will answer the question of how many times he has been asked that today.

[Purple Day Act, September 21st, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-278, An Act respecting a day to increase public awareness about epilepsy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would declare March 26 Purple Day in recognition of epilepsy awareness.

Purple Day was founded in 2008 by Cassidy Megan, who lives in my riding of Halifax West. At the time she was only nine years old. Her objective was to let other children with epilepsy know that they were not alone.

Purple Day is a grassroots effort dedicated to increasing awareness about epilepsy worldwide. Thanks to the leadership and dedication of Cassidy and Epilepsy Nova Scotia, Purple Day is now celebrated in more than 35 countries.

As in previous years, on March 26 people around the globe, including members of this House, wore purple to spread the word about epilepsy, which affects over 50 million people worldwide. That is more than multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and Parkinson's disease combined.

Greater understanding of this disease will help educate people about what to do when someone is having a seizure and will help give epileptics more safety and support.

The bill would enshrine March 26 in law as the date each year when we Canadians wear purple to raise awareness of epilepsy.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)