Gord Brown

[Government Programs, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, including my constituents in Leeds—Grenville, are concerned about whether subsidized tattoo parlours in federal prisons are a good use of tax dollars. These concerns are echoed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation that called the program introduced by the previous Liberal government lunacy.

The pilot project has been completed. Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House on whether subsidized tattooing in federal prisons will continue?

[Organ and Tissue Donations, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, George Marcello received a liver transplant in 1995. Soon after he received this precious gift, he devoted his life to helping improve the rate of organ and tissue donations in Canada by walking to raise awareness of the urgent need for donors.

After nine years, 15,000 kilometres, 500 communities, 4,000 events, many media stories and even a second liver transplant, George has been relentless in helping raise Canada's poor rate of organ and tissue donations.

His ultimate goal is to see Canada save everyone; over 4,000 Canadians who need these live-saving gifts. Recently he completed a 500 kilometre walk from Toronto to Ottawa and now he is prepared to once again walk across Canada for organ and tissue donation awareness.

On March 26, from St. John's, Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia, George Marcello will undertake his campaign called “S.O.S. 4 000--One more time, with a little help from my friends”.

Let us all wish George luck and success in his quest to bring this perennially important issue to the attention of all Canadians.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-284, introduced by the hon. member for Halifax West.

As we have heard during the debate, Bill C-284 asks us to endorse the extension of the Canada access grant for students from low income families from one year, as it is currently, to all years of a student's first program of study. In addition, it proposes we vote to repeal the Canadian student financial assistance regulations that apply to this grant and incorporate them into the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

I want to reassure Canadians that the government is determined to find ways to support students from low income families in realizing their dreams of a post-secondary education. We want to enable these young people to obtain the skills and knowledge that post-secondary education can provide. We want all young Canadians, regardless of the incomes of their families, to have the opportunity to compete for the challenging and fulfilling careers of tomorrow. Access to post-secondary education will help them contribute their skills and knowledge and will make our national workforce stronger, more flexible and better positioned to compete in the global economy.

However, as other members have pointed out in the debate, to extend the Canada access grant for students from low income families to cover all years of a student's first program of post-secondary study, while perhaps noble in intent, may be premature at this time. It should be noted that this has been only operating for little more than a year.

The government is doing many things to help post-secondary education and to help access to it across our country. However, before extending this grant to all years of a student's post-secondary education, I believe it is essential that we consider Bill C-284's proposals in the larger context of the support of Canada's new government for post-secondary education, which does include various forms of assistance.

In total, we are providing $1.8 billion in grants and loans to help students access college or university. This is in addition to $15.5 billion that the government will provide this year through the Canada social transfer for provinces and territories to allocate for post-secondary education. We also have a wide range of tax measures, including the tuition tax credit and a tax credit for textbooks.

The government is doing many things to help access to post-secondary education, but at this time we believe the proposal is a bit premature. Fundamentally, not only are Bill C-284's proposals not informed by hard evidence, but they would impose an unnecessary obstacle to the provision of effective and efficient support for Canada's students.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the Canadian Reserve force is composed of dedicated men and women who are enrolled for service other than continuing full time military service. The reserve force is divided into four subcomponents: the primary reserve, the supplementary reserve, the cadet instructor cadre and the Canadian rangers.

The role of the primary reserve is to augment, sustain and support deployed forces and in some cases, perform tasks that are not performed by regular force members. The Canadian Forces are continuing to explore ways to enhance the role of reserves in civil preparedness to respond to natural disasters and local emergencies. In fact, I would be remiss at this juncture not to mention the Brockville Rifles located in Brockville in my riding of Leeds—Grenville.

This is an outstanding reserve unit with a long, proud history and tremendous connection to its community. It proved its worth to the community during the now famous ice storm of 1998. At the height of that storm, 825 people were housed at the Brockville armouries, 75 of whom were regular forces members while the rest were from reserves across Ontario. It should also be noted that there was another similar contingent housed in Cornwall during the same crisis.

The reservists did a number of jobs during this storm including, but not limited to, assisting with police traffic control, patrolling vulnerable cottage areas, assisting older folks out of isolated rural homes and into care centres and hand delivering water to cattle. They put in thousands of hours of work clearing fallen trees with the city, individuals and hydro crews.

There are currently 125 reserve members in Brockville and the Rifles are looking forward to further expansion. Because many of its members are of high school age, the Brockville Rifles has received funding for the past two years as part of the local school board's cooperative education program. It is an important part of the community of Brockville and all of Leeds and Grenville.

The Canadian Forces reserves are also an integral part of the Canadian Forces. They are playing a key role in our current operation in Afghanistan. As the report of the Department of National Defence on plans and priorities states:

Currently, reservists make up 13% of DND’s deployed strength abroad, including one in seven soldiers in Afghanistan. make up 13% of the Department of National Defence's deployed strength abroad, including one in seven soldiers in Afghanistan. The CF Transformation and anticipated commitments in international operations suggest that this rate of reservists’ participation in operations will be maintained, if not increased, under the new Integrated Managed Readiness System.

Could the Minister of National Defence provide an update on what the Canadian Forces is doing with regard to the primary reserves?

[Privilege, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today concerning a question of privilege that came to your attention last week. I wanted to discuss this in the House. In fact, we have had some discussions at the committee.

The breach was, in fact, unintentional and it was inadvertent, but it was a good lesson. I think it would be good if all members of the House would take the opportunity to ensure they know all the rules in terms of these potential breaches of rules in the House.

On that basis, I apologize to the committee and to the House, unconditionally. I believe the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh would probably like to address the issue as well.

[Committees of the House, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

This would be the interim report of the subcommittee reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act. It specifically deals with investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions.

[Witness Protection Program Act, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I would like to applaud my hon. colleague for bringing forward this important matter. Sponsoring such a thoughtful bill, he has demonstrated his personal concern for one of our most troubling challenges as a society, the abuse of spouses by their partners.

As a society we have come a long way. We have developed a much better understanding of this issue and as a consequence, we are taking real and meaningful steps to address it. The debate we are having today is more evidence of a concern that is widely shared.

A caring society must ensure that its citizens are able to go about their daily affairs with a reasonable expectation of personal safety. As lawmakers, we cannot guarantee complete safety to every individual, particularly behind the four walls of their homes. However, we can take steps to increase the overall level of safety of Canadians, and that is exactly what Canada's new government is determined to achieve.

As hon. members will recall, the Speech from the Throne designated attack on crime and the protection of communities as two of the government's five main priorities.

Budget 2006 pledged $161 million to hire 1,000 new RCMP personnel and federal prosecutors to focus on such law enforcement priorities as drugs, corruption and border security. Another $20 million was earmarked for various youth crime prevention initiatives with a focus on guns, gangs and drugs. Our government has also promised $26 million for a range of initiatives for victims of crimes, including the establishment of a victims ombudsman for matters within federal jurisdiction.

The government is also examining such issues as the length and terms of custodial sentences. In particular, as the Prime Minister has committed, the government introduced legislation to address sentences for dangerous offenders, particularly those convicted of sexual or violent offences.

Such initiatives will do much to enhance the safety of our streets and to increase the confidence of Canadians. Can we do more? Yes we can. As the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse proposes, we can amend one of our existing laws to bring greater protection to a particular vulnerable group.

Under the bill before us, the Witness Protection Program Act would be amended, so as to extend to victims of spousal abuse the kind of protection afforded to men and women who endanger their lives by testifying as witnesses for the Crown. In order to weigh the merits of the proposals before us, permit me to expand a bit more on the witness protection program.

The RCMP has been engaged in witness protection activities since the 1980s, initially for informants contributing to the breakup of narcotics rings. This authority was formalized in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act, which allows the RCMP to protect witnesses to any inquiry, investigation or prosecution that places them at substantial risk. Typically, these witnesses are testifying in cases involving major organized crime, national security, terrorism, and so on.

The question then becomes, is it appropriate, feasible or indeed necessary to broaden the witness protection program to also protect victims of spousal abuse? In considering this question, we need to begin with some context.

According to the Government of Canada's 2004 general social survey, an estimated 7% of Canadians aged 15 and older had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. While nearly as many men as women reported that they were victims of domestic abuse, it is noteworthy that the scope of their experience is different.

Female victims, for instance, were three times more likely than men to fear for their lives and to lose time from their everyday activities. Women were also much more likely to report that they were the targets of more than 10 violent incidents and suffered bodily injury.

What do people in that situation really need? The answer to that question is as varied as the cases. In general, victims of domestic violence need a range of interventions, from information, counselling and social support, to emergency shelter and medical attention. Some need to get away altogether.

For some, fleeing a life-threatening situation, only a whole new identity will save them. Such a solution is of course always an absolute last resort. It is a complex task and drastic desperate measure. It starts with a new name, but it is so much more than that. There is a new home, a new community and a new job. Gone is everything that the person once had such as friends, colleagues, a personal history and often even a family.

Fortunately, in Canada victims of violence do not have to walk that path alone. Some, as I mentioned earlier, are eligible for the protection by the RCMP under the witness protection program. The Government of Canada also works with its provincial and territorial partners, police, and a variety of social agencies to ensure that victims of family violence gain access to the services and supports that they need. These services may be delivered right in the victim's home community. Alternatively he or she may need help to relocate.

In assessing the intent of Bill C-286 several questions come to mind. For example, are those who fear for their lives at the hands of a dangerous partner sufficiently well-served by existing programs and also by social services that might exist at the provincial, territorial or local levels?

For one thing, the program is a tool for law enforcement officers operating in a context of crime investigation. As such, might it lack a focus on social intervention and support which are often important to domestic abuse cases?

Such social interventions, moreover, fall under the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial agencies, and we must determine whether it is inappropriate for the Government of Canada to manage their activities under federal law.

Finally, there is the issue of resources. We must assess whether the RCMP has the capacity to manage a substantial increase in the number of individuals afforded protection under the witness protection program. If the focus of the program were to change, would officers working on domestic abuse cases need to receive further training which would add to the cost?

There are few obligations of government more grave than the duty to protect and defend society's most vulnerable. Victims of domestic abuse need support and practical aid, including, in the most serious cases, assistance in leaving their abusers.

Addressing those needs is not easy. Programs must be developed and delivered in a way that will genuinely help victims, not inadvertently expose them to new dangers. In that context, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the initiative demonstrated by the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

The remedy he proposes in Bill C-286 is thoughtful. It underscores his profound concern for a truly worthwhile cause and it merits the respect of further debate and deliberation. This deliberation must also weigh the utility of the witness protection program as a tool to address domestic abuse, the jurisdictional implications of its use, and the resources available to law enforcement bodies that might wish to use it.

I do, however, thank my hon. colleague for bringing this matter to the floor of the House of Commons in the hope that it will receive due consideration in the very near future.

[Randy Payne and Blake Williamson, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in April, I had the sad occasion to pay my respects to Corporal Randy Payne who was killed in Afghanistan. His name has been inscribed on the cenotaph in Gananoque where he grew up. In early November, a tree will be dedicated in his honour on Remembrance Road in Mallorytown where he lived and his wife, Jodi, and his children live.

Later this afternoon, I will be in Kemptville attending a memorial service for Private Blake Williamson who was killed in Afghanistan just last week. He, too, will continue to be honoured in his hometown.

Both these men were dedicated, honourable, courageous and personable. They have both been recognized as examples to their peers as they were growing up.

When Afghans no longer live in fear and poverty, we will continue to remember the role played by Corporal Randy Payne and Private Blake Williamson and the fact that they made the ultimate sacrifice. We will continue to thank them.

[Privilege, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague. He refers to an article that appeared yesterday in the National Post.

I take my responsibilities as the chair of that committee very seriously. I was referring specifically to something that potentially could be part of the report, that had been discussed by many members of the committee in public in the past, so at this point any breach of privilege was inadvertent. As I said, I do take that responsibility seriously. However, I want to apologize first of all to the member, and also to the committee and to the House if there in fact has been any breach of privilege.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2006]

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