Mario Laframboise

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the NDP. He and his colleagues are on the right track with the realization that better working conditions should be provided to our young men and women who enlist in the forces. With respect to the amendment, I do not sit on the committee that will deal with the bill but, given that it involves parental leave among other things, I personally have no problem with this being extended to police forces and to the RCMP.

I have no problem with that, especially since, if we look at the trends with the new generations, those of our children and grandchildren, we can see that, without better working conditions, they will shy away from hazardous occupations because they will have many other opportunities. The fact is that those generations will get many job offers and they will take those with the best working conditions.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am not surprised by the minister's comments. He truly is a Reform Conservative. He can believe what he wants, but the problem is that even if the children of CF members were willing to take their fathers' places, the numbers would still be lower because baby boomers had fewer children. More and more of the young men and women who will enlist do not come from military families. If he thinks there will be enough children from military families to take over for their fathers, he is mistaken. The armed forces are going to face personnel shortages.

My colleague said these people enlist to fight for their country. That is not how the armed forces are advertised in the media. Instead, the ads ask young people if they like adventure. The armed forces are selling adventure and that is fine. I have a great deal of respect for military work.

The problem is that for young men and women of generation X and generation Y, it is a job like any other. Those generations work to live and have a completely different outlook from that of their parents and grandparents.

We can continue with the status quo, but if we do not address the working conditions, the armed forces are going to face personnel shortages.

At least I had the chance to share my thoughts here today, to wake up the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. They are wrong to believe that all young men and women who enlist do so for the Queen.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech on Bill C-13, which would amend the employment insurance act. This bill would enable soldiers to receive their full parental benefits and their full parental leave if they are sent on a mission while on parental leave. The soldiers would have the right to take their leave when they return from the mission. If they were on a mission when they were entitled to leave, they could use it when they return.

As I was explaining, the government should have adopted this measure, along with others, a long time ago. The young men and women, Quebeckers and Canadians, who enrol in the armed forces are doing a job. I have had the chance to speak to some of them. This is far from fighting for the Queen. These young people are ready for adventure. That is what the armed forces advertises. That is what they are trying to sell.

They consider it to be a job, and more and more, they are expecting to be treated like workers. Parental leave is part of the new rights. Family rights. It is part of what we refer to as the work-life balance. The government must take a closer look at this situation, otherwise it will have a hard time recruiting.

Out of personal interest, I took training in workplace sociology. We need to understand that the new generations, generations X and Y, unlike the baby boomers and the veterans before us, work to live. The baby boomers and veterans before us lived to work. It is completely different. The armed forces must pay more attention to labour rights issues. Young men and women choose a job when they enrol. They see opportunities and we must be able to continue to offer them opportunities. We also need to be very respectful of their rights.

As I said, they work to live. Their goal in life is to work so that they can afford recreational activities and have fun once they retire. We should be improving their work conditions. That is what the government must do. We need to stop thinking that they will be excited and want to enrol if we give them nicer equipment and new toys. Enrolling, to them, is like starting a job. We have to keep passing legislation that will improve their work conditions. If we apply this outlook on life to amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, it would allow them to take the parental leave that they missed out on because they were on a mission or that was cut short because they had to go on a mission.

That is one angle, but there are others as well. Because of the work they are doing, they have psychological and physical needs that must be taken care of. They are putting their lives in danger. This is not just any kind of work. It is dangerous. They chose to do it because they love adventure and that is what the advertisements promise them. They very quickly realize that it is very dangerous. They are risking their lives and that, inevitably, can cause emotional shock. This type of work can also cause physical problems.

This service has to be provided. We are not getting from the government the feeling of any firm desire to invest in physical rehabilitation and psychological support. Yet, that is how we can attract young men and women into the military.

In addition, there is a petition being circulated which calls for the compensation scheme for injured military personnel under the Veterans Charter to be amended so that they receive a lifetime pension. Again, this is about working conditions.

The Conservatives have to stop thinking that the young men and women, the young Quebeckers who enrol do so for the country or for the Queen. That is completely out of date. This is the age of Internet and video games. Many young people really enjoy playing war.

In their ads, the Canadian Forces offer young people a taste of adventure. Inevitably, some join the army, but they look at it like a job. The course I took on the sociology of work made me realize that the young men and women who join the army are no different from those who choose other types of jobs.

As I said, generation X and the new generation Y work to live. Working is something they have to do to pay for their leisure time. We live in an age of leisure. The new generations are not like us; we learned to live to work. Work was important to us and even more important to our parents and grandparents. That is what they lived for, but the new generations are the complete opposite. The psychology of the young men and women who enlist in the army is no different from that of their peers. We have to be able to offer them attractive working conditions, because serving in the army is a job for them. The army is their employer, and they consider military service a job. I know what I am talking about. Studies have been done that show this is true.

The generations that come after us, the baby boomers, will have more job opportunities, which stands to reason. In Quebec alone, 150,000 jobs will be available around 2018. Young people know this, and they are well aware that if they do not like a job, they can always look for another one, because they will have no trouble finding work.

We can try to convince them otherwise, but they will let us know that that has not been their experience. We are going to have to adapt, which is why I took this course on the sociology of work. It is clear that employers who cannot adapt will go out of business. Quite simply, they will have no more employees. That means that if the army does not adapt, people will stop enlisting. The Conservatives may think they can still impose mandatory enlistment, but that would surprise me. It would not go over very well, and they could forget about it in Quebec.

We must be very respectful of the work our young men and women, our sons and daughters, Quebeckers and Canadians, do for the armed forces.

This bill must be improved. It changes employment insurance so that soldiers who would have been entitled to parental benefits or parental leave would still be entitled if they are on mission, but these benefits must be made retroactive for soldiers who have just lost their entitlement because they were on mission in Afghanistan, for example.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act. I would like to take a moment to read the bill's summary, which states: “This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period and the period during which parental benefits may be paid for Canadian Forces members whose period of parental leave is deferred or who are directed to return to duty from parental leave.”

First of all, it is important that the Quebeckers and Canadians who are watching us right now understand that Canadian Forces members pay into employment insurance. They are entitled to parental leave. Inevitably, they are always in dangerous situations when taking part in overseas missions. Here is what this bill will do: when they were on parental leave and they come back from a mission, they can continue their parental leave, or if they were entitled to parental leave and did not take it, they will be entitled to that leave when they return from their mission.

This is an important bill and the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle. My colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges mentioned this earlier. We want to ensure that no one is left out. This bill is not retroactive. There will be a debate in committee. The Bloc Québécois will most likely propose an amendment and we hope that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats will agree to make the bill retroactive in order to cover the young fathers or mothers who were recently entitled, but were not covered because of the delays in passing this bill.

We can set policies, that is what we are here for. We can have discussions. We can talk about the missions. The Bloc Québécois was in favour of the military pulling out of Afghanistan in 2009. Other parties decided otherwise. We can discuss this, but the fact remains that soldiers are young men and young women. They are our sons and daughters, Quebeckers and Canadians.

I have personally gone through an experience that other colleagues may have had. I attended the funeral of a fallen soldier in my riding. I will not name the municipality or the soldier out of respect for the family. He had just started his tour. He had just completed his training for this mission. It was his choice. People lined the funeral route. I had to walk to the church and it struck me how young our troops are. They are young men, young women, young fathers and mothers, and they are the face of today's Canadian Forces. Our society is evolving. The military is having difficulty finding recruits. It is a matter of how we treat people and if we want our young men and our young women to offer their services, then we have to be able to offer them adequate conditions. Parental leave is one way to provide them with such conditions. We must never forget that they are human beings.

Gone are the days when people went into the army to defend the queen. Today, people who choose to go into the army need to feel that they are supported and that the work they do when they put their lives on the line to defend societal principles is valued. This bill is a prime example of something that happens too often. How long have we been in Afghanistan? Yet this bill is just being introduced now, in 2010, for all sorts of reasons.

The Conservative Party can make a big deal about this and say what it wants, but it should have introduced this bill a long time ago, when it came to power, even though it had a minority government. Once again, politically, the Conservatives are interested in missions, visibility, international relations. But too often they forget that the army is made up of young men and women who chose to work in the military and who have a taste for adventure. A military career is a choice, and that is how the Canadian Forces sell themselves, by targeting people with a taste for adventure. That is how they try to attract young Quebeckers and Canadians into the army.

To attract people and ensure that the army does not have any trouble recruiting, as it does currently, the government has to offer good working conditions. The bill that is before us is one way to do this. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle, because it has a great deal of respect for soldiers.

Soldiers deserve the right to parental leave, because they pay into employment insurance. If they lose that privilege because they are on mission—and risking their lives—they deserve to be compensated.

Young soldiers with families who are currently on mission deserve the right to parental leave, especially since they are getting younger and younger. Few of the soldiers I met that day were over 35. Most were between 20 and 30. Some were young fathers, and others were potential young fathers or mothers.

We must ensure that they have good working conditions. Being part of the Canadian Forces is a job. We must ensure that they have adequate working conditions, just like every other worker in our society. This way, individuals who were not able to take parental leave or whose parental leave was cut short would be able to take their parental leave once they return from their mission. It is only fair to them.

As the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges said, we must make parental leave retroactive for the young men who have recently been sent on missions, but who were not able to take their parental leave.

I will perhaps have the chance to explain to my colleagues everything the government should do to provide good working conditions for our armed forces.

Some members in this House spoke about the support we need to provide, which we forget all too often. The Conservatives see international relations as a way to show their power. They increase investments in equipment and armament. That is important, but we must also invest in our young men and women. They are the hard core. It is all well and good to have all the equipment we need, but if there is no one there to drive it or use it, it is useless.

We must focus on measures that make the job easier for our soldiers and that provide them with working conditions similar to those of other workers in society. This way, we might attract more of them and let them feel they are part of society. They are not just risking their lives in combat for a taste of adventure, but also because it is their job, for which they are paid and have access to the same benefits as other workers.

We must also look after all their physical and psychological needs. It is important to compare. The comparison shows that they should be entitled to parental leave. If they are on a mission, they are not entitled to it. This bill would restore that right. We agree with this provided that the measures are retroactive and cover those who were unable to benefit recently. They too are workers who can suffer physical and psychological wounds because of the nature of their work.

Every time there are concerns or problems in the construction industry, a series of safety measures is adopted.

We have legislation, workplace safety, laws and all those things.

However, when members of the military put their lives in danger to defend our society's principles and our values, and return home needing physical and psychological help, the government is not always around. The military does not have a health and safety board. It may be because there are not many employees in that sector. However, we have to start thinking of them as workers and give them what they deserve. The government should think about helping and supporting these workers who sometimes suffer from psychological or physical trauma because of their jobs. That is the direction we should be headed in.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. I seriously think this is just political bravado by the Conservatives who are trying to score political points. I would not be surprised if they have not done any calculations. What is more, my colleague is absolutely right. The federal government is dumping the problem and its cost on the provinces and that is tough for them to take. I trust my colleague and I also trust the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. I know they will be able to get to the truth in committee and show how the Conservatives are passing the buck to the provinces.

This will not solve anything and no one is asking for this. My colleague is right; there is no call for this. Whether we are talking about the prison system or the legal system, no one is asking for this legislation to be changed, especially not the provinces who do not want to end up paying the bill.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The symbol of justice is a set of scales. It is true that this balance has always been sought in Quebec and Canada. As I was explaining, we are not the ones who created this balance system, but rather our predecessors did. They made that choice.

The Americans made a different choice. Now, for purely partisan reasons, the Conservative Party is trying to copy the American system, which has gone way too far. As I was saying earlier, the Obama administration had to release over 30,000 prisoners. There was no more money to keep them in custody, and thus no more money for rehabilitation, and it was thought that their offences were not serious enough to warrant keeping them in custody.

Once again, it is a choice based on partisan politics. The Conservatives believe that by being tough on crime, they are pleasing the media, that are often present in courtrooms, but personally, I trust our predecessors' judgment, and that is not the kind of society I want to pass on to my children.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. This bill does not address anything, other than the Conservatives' political deficit. They are really working hard on that. If a government is tough on crime, it cannot be smart on crime. The Conservatives talked about transparency in their election promises. As we can see from everything going on with the Afghan detainee issue, transparency is not one of their strong suits.

When it comes to integrity, the Conservatives are no smarter than the Liberals with their sponsorship scandal, if we look at what happened with Rahim Jaffer and the former status of women minister.

There was a $16 billion surplus when the Conservatives took power. We are now looking at a deficit of $50 billion. They are no smarter when it comes to economics.

All they have left is being tough on crime, but they cannot be smart on crime.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, especially because sentences of less than two years are administered provincially. First of all, the federal government has not invested enough in rehabilitation. We have seen that. Furthermore, if we decide to jail these people, they will serve their sentences in provincial institutions.

The Conservatives are trying to scare people. They want to promote their political interests with their tough on crime ideas. However, the provinces, not the federal government, will be footing the bill.

I realize that the committee will study conditional sentences. I hope it will ask to hear from those responsible, the provinces, because they will be footing the real bill.

This law was established in 1996 in order to provide for rehabilitation. It is less costly than placing someone under surveillance in the community. According to the report we have today, it costs 10 times less to serve a sentence in the community than in a prison.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16, especially since at our caucus meeting this morning, our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin gave an excellent presentation on this important bill.

I am the chief organizer for the Bloc Québécois. I therefore have a political role as well. Before I go on any further about Bill C-16, I will try to explain how this bill shows that the Conservatives are in political disarray.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006 and 2008, transparency was one of the main planks in their election platform. But the Speaker of the House was forced to take the Conservatives to task on the issue of Afghan detainees. So the Conservatives can no longer use transparency to score political points.

Then there was probity. The Liberal regime had just come to an end with the sponsorship scandal, and the Conservatives were keen to show that they were whiter than snow. It was their way of positioning themselves as the alternative to the Liberals, who were facing corruption charges.

In recent weeks, with the affair involving Rahim Jaffer and the former status of women minister, we have seen that the Conservatives do what the Liberals did as soon as they get the chance, so the Conservatives should forget about probity.

They also talked about the economy. They styled themselves as the great defenders of the economy, and they said they were going to help the economy turn around. But they made some very unfortunate decisions, such as reducing the GST. That was in their election platform twice, and it cost them $14 billion. Today, we have a deficit of close to $50 billion, and the Conservatives are trying to blame the global economy. It is true that there was a crisis, but the Conservatives did themselves out of substantial revenue with their political ideology. I remember that they even wanted to put things right in the employment insurance fund. The Liberals had taken $54 billion from that fund to reinvest in the consolidated revenue fund and pay other expenses instead of putting the money toward EI.

In recent weeks, government ministers have been saying that there is no more surplus in the EI fund. There will be an annual deficit. The $50 billion is gone. The Liberals spent it, but the Conservatives neglected to say that they ran up a $50 billion deficit this year.

What is left of their political agenda? They can be tough on crime. That is what they have left. That is why I said that the Conservatives are in disarray.

Look at the title of Bill C-16. It is quite something. Bill C-16 contains the exact same provisions as Bill C-42, which died on the order paper due to prorogation. Once again, they used Parliament for partisan purposes. Bill C-16 is now known as the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act. Bill C-42, which is in fact the same bill, was known as the Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act.

The Conservatives are grasping at straws. They are trying to use any means to prove that they are tough on crime and that they are trying to defend the public. However, this bill deals with something other than crime.

The title, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act, suggests that it will solve the problem of extremely violent offenders, even though the bill really deals with conditional sentences. It has very little to do with the extreme violence suggested by the title.

Before 1996, persons found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to less than two years' imprisonment had to serve the sentence in jail. They no longer participated in their regular activities, such as work or school, and lost the ability to fulfill their family, professional and social responsibilities.

Conditional sentencing for adults has only been in place for 13 years. The bill before us amends a law that has only existed for 13 years. Conditional sentencing became law in 1996 with a bill that received the support of the Bloc Québécois. Our party felt it was important to create an alternative to incarceration because judges need as many tools as possible in order to hand down the most appropriate sentence, the one likely to result in the reintegration of the offender, while guaranteeing public safety and the appearance of justice.

Once again, this takes public safety into account. It is the first condition that must be taken into account, and that is why my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin mentioned it in his excellent speech this morning.

Before handing down a conditional sentence, the judge must first respect an initial condition, that public safety not be jeopardized. If the individual is a danger to the community, the judge will not release him into the community or will not issue a sentence that allows him to be in the community. The judge will simply send him to jail.

When an individual receives a conditional sentence, this means that he will serve his sentence within the community. He therefore stays out of jail as long as he respects the mandatory and optional conditions imposed by the court.

The main condition is house arrest. The courts have decided that someone who has received a conditional sentence must, in principle, be on house arrest for the duration of the sentence.

Prior to 1996, people found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to terms of just a few days were required in all cases to serve their time in prison. The primary objective of conditional sentences was to reduce incarceration and give the courts an alternative.

This is where we see the Conservative demagogy. It reminds me of the Quebec film À soir on fait peur au monde. The Conservatives believe that there are many criminals roaming the streets and that they are very violent and extremely dangerous. They are talking about sentences of less than two years for serious crimes—a crime is a crime—but for which we have been trying, since 1996, to focus on reintegration: young people go to school, fathers have jobs, and so on.

When the judge has determined that there is no danger to society, it is explained to the offender that he will be monitored, but that he can keep his job and support his family, as opposed to how it was prior to 1996, when he would have been sent to prison, would have lost his job, and would not have been able to support his family.

Prior to 1996, people found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to terms of just a few days were required in all cases to serve their time. Since the adoption of conditional sentencing, judges can give a person who poses no danger to public safety a sentence that is less than two years to be served in the community.

The Criminal Code requires that a number of conditions be met before the judge can hand down a conditional sentence. That is important to understand. Since the Conservatives have decided to evoke images from the horror film À soir on fait peur au monde, we have to determine if this bill will really put extremely dangerous criminals in jail. The Criminal Code has requirements for conditional sentences. For one, the person must be found guilty of an offence not punishable by a minimum sentence.

There are minimum sentences and, to be eligible for a conditional sentence, the person must not be charged with a offence punishable by a minimum sentence.

The judge has to find that the offence merits a jail term of less than two years. I will say it again, a crime is a crime and it is always serious. However, when the crime is punishable by two years less a day, it is understood that this sentence obviously does not apply to the most serious crimes in society.

The judge must be convinced that serving the sentence in the community would not pose a threat to public safety. I spoke earlier about the title of the bill: Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act. The Conservatives want to be tough on crime. Every week they try to change public opinion because things are not going well with all their other political endeavours. Being tough on crime is all they have left. Of course, once again, they are trying to mislead us. Indeed, judges must be convinced that serving the sentence in the community would not pose a threat to public safety. So the first condition is that the offender must not be someone who poses a threat to society.

The judge must be convinced that the conditional sentence meets the criteria of the principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Of course I am not a criminal lawyer. If I have time later, I will talk more about those sections.

The following offences are ineligible: offences prosecuted by way of indictment; offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more; offences related to organized crime; terrorism offences; and serious personal injury offences, pursuant to section 752. I repeat, those offences are not eligible for conditional sentencing. Those are people who are convicted for being a member of organized crime, for a terrorism offence or for a serious personal injury offence, in which the victim was seriously injured or there was an attempt to cause serious personal injury or attempted murder, all very serious offences.

Bill C-16 adds to the list of offences that preclude conditional sentencing. Once again, the Conservatives' goal is to make that list longer. Let us continue with our original theory that the Conservatives are having political problems with the rest of their election promises. Being tough on crime is all they have left. They did not dare abolish conditional sentencing. They probably have another bill ready to go in a few years in which they will add more crimes to the list of offences that preclude conditional sentencing. That will allow them to continue their partisan politics, play their horror film again and scare everyone. That is the Conservative reality.

And that, by the way, is what the Republicans did. The crime rate in the United States is much higher than in Canada and higher still than in Quebec. The U.S. administration has had to release 30,000 prisoners over the past few months, primarily because it ran out of money, it ran out of room in the prisons and it was felt that the crimes and the sentences would be better managed through monitoring on the outside than by keeping those people on the inside.

For partisan and political purposes, the Conservatives probably want to score political points for trying to reassure people who have suffered serious harm from serious crimes. Indeed, this happens. There are street gangs. Crimes are committed, but I have never heard the government extending millions and billions of dollars to fight organized crime or to fight street gangs or very serious crimes. For that matter, I have not heard the government announce any funding for rehabilitation either.

As the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin so very intelligently made us realize, people who have committed crimes and been rehabilitated do not brag about it. We must take the time to look around us. There are people who have committed crimes, had the good fortune to be rehabilitated and today are good and honest citizens. The problem with such people is that they do not brag about it, while we are more aware of violent crimes and those who commit them because that is what we see so often on television and in other media.

As I said, our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin intelligently—brilliantly even—told us that at this point in time, we can only imagine how many sentences are handed down in every court in Quebec and the rest of Canada every day.

Errors may occur, but should we scrap the whole system because one judge makes some kind of mistake? I think that is easy for the Conservatives to do. Television cameras are typically set up near courthouses to keep an eye on what is going on. That is something we see every day, something we live with. We rarely see good news stories on television. The media like to sensationalize bad news stories. However, the thousands of rulings handed down are generally excellent considering how justice is administered in Quebec and Canada. We have inherited a very good justice system from our forebears.

We inherited our justice system from our parents and grandparents. It is a choice. I am looking at how the Conservatives want to change it. There was a big debate on abortion in the House. Our predecessors resolved that issue.

For purely partisan reasons, some people are doing everything in their power to reopen debates that have been put aside. It is the sound and fury of partisan politics once again. I often say to those who will listen that power can make people crazy. Some of the people in power in this House are well on their way there. Once again, the only thing the Conservatives have left is their tough on crime agenda, and they are going to milk it for all it is worth. That is what is going on today with Bill C-16.

We have to take a respectful approach to this bill because the cases that will be exempt from the legislation involve conditional sentencing, which was brought in in 1996. As I said, Bill C-16 adds more crimes to the list of those not eligible for conditional sentencing.

Parts of the proposed new section 742.1 read as follows:

(c) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life;...

(e) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years, that

(i) resulted in bodily harm,

(ii) involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, or

(iii) involved the use of a weapon; and

(f) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, under any of the following provisions:

(i) section 144 (prison breach),

(ii) section 172.1 (luring a child),

(iii) section 264 (criminal harassment),...

(v) section 279 (kidnapping),...

(viii) paragraph 334(a) (theft over $5000),

(ix) paragraph 348(1)(e) (breaking and entering...),

(x) section 349 (being unlawfully in a dwelling-house), and

(xi) section 435 (arson for fraudulent purpose).

It can be any kind of arson, even setting fire to a moped. That is why members have to understand that adding to the list of offences for which a judge can no longer hand down a conditional sentence restricts the power of the law passed in 1996.

Once again, the government is restricting judges' power and, I repeat, we are talking about sentences of two years or less, so two years less a day. That is the reality.

The list is so long now that it is almost like turning the clock back 10 years to a time when conditional sentences did not exist as an alternative for adults.

Criminologists have long agreed that tougher sentences do not reduce crime. Recent studies confirm that there is little correlation between the severity of a sentence and the number of offences. But publicizing arrest rates and increasing the likelihood of being arrested do really have an impact on crime.

A conditional sentence not only involves a penalty, but also rehabilitation and restorative justice. This combination is more likely than incarceration in a correctional facility to prevent an offender from continuing to endanger the public after serving his sentence.

In addition, certain conditional sentences require the offender to make restitution to the victim and society and comply with very strict rules. Since 2000—

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 minutes, I will try to explain the position that the Bloc Québécois took in committee on Bill C-310.

I will take a moment to reread the motion before us today. The committee report reads as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, and, after some hearings on Bill C-310...the Committee recommend that the House do not proceed further with Bill C-310—” because it makes air carriers solely responsible.

This is important because our position has always been as clear as day. I think that airlines should be held responsible for what they do, but I will never agree that they should be held responsible for actions that may have been or may yet be taken by other air industry participants, such as airport authorities like ADM in Montreal or the Toronto or Ottawa airport authorities. They are responsible for, among other things, de-icing planes. I could say much more on the subject. CATSA, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which conducts searches, could also be responsible. I would not want companies to have to pay for delays. NAV CANADA is responsible for flights, and its air traffic controllers make sure that planes are always safe. I would not want companies to have to pay if ever there was a problem and NAV CANADA grounded flights or if the Canada Border Services Agency, Customs and Excise, delayed a flight for safety or security reasons. I would not want airlines to be held responsible for that.

This has always been the Bloc Québécois' position. I agree that airlines should be held responsible for their mistakes and their actions, but I do not think that they should be responsible for the actions of other parties.

The Bloc Québécois submitted a proposal. The Bloc examined Bill C-310. The problem with private members' bills is that we do not have unlimited options. A government bill can be amended with the consent of the government, but the nature of a private member's bill cannot be changed. In this case, the bill introduced by the NDP member holds airlines accountable. I will read the amendment that we proposed for clause 4 in particular, but it was always the same amendment. The Bloc Québécois proposed adding the following to all the clauses:

If the air carrier required to provide services or compensation under subsection (1) is of the opinion that the flight cancellation results from a measure or decision taken by an airport authority, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), NAV CANADA or the Canada Border Services Agency, it may submit the matter to the Department of Transport, which shall determine the responsibility of the organization in question and its obligation to refund the air carrier the amounts it had to pay out under this subsection.

The goal was to make whoever was responsible pay, if it was not the airline that was responsible. Transport Canada would have to investigate and make whoever was responsible pay.

I think it was logical and useful, except that it was deemed to be out of order because the amendment concerned a private members' bill and would change the nature of it. Consequently, the House of Commons law clerks said that the amendment was out of order.

Once again, I was prepared to improve this bill, but I could not because the amendment was out of order. That is fine, that is how things work. That means that the bill from our NDP colleague could not do what I was hoping it could. I had the opportunity to tell him that it was not a good bill because it only held the airlines responsible.

I am not the only one. I heard the Liberal member and I will probably hear our NDP colleague, but we heard from more than just the airlines in committee. The Canadian Bar Association offered its conclusion about Bill C-310.

The CBA Section does not believe that Bill C-310 is required in the public interest. Passengers have established avenues for redress that appear to be functioning well. Bill C-310 imposes a universal standard of conduct that cannot necessarily be met – at all or without costs that may not be appropriate for the benefit obtained. The Bill's scheme of compensation and penalties is arbitrary to the point of unfairness.

The Canadian Bar Association came to tell us that this bill is unfair and I agree. It is unfair to the airlines that would have to pay for damages they did not cause.

My colleague touched on what happened in the Cubana case. Planes stayed on the tarmac for more than 12 hours. During the holidays, the Cubana company had to divert planes from Montreal because of the weather. There were Quebeckers on board those flights.

In Ottawa, they were not allowed to deplane and go into the airport. They stayed for 12 hours without food, water or toilets until a passenger called the police to say that it made no sense to be held like prisoners in a plane on the tarmac in Ottawa. They managed to resolve the situation. The airline had had to reroute the plane to Ottawa because of the weather. Again, they were exempt because of the weather.

I wrote to the Ottawa Airport Authority, Cubana and Transport Canada. Two years later, I still do not know who is responsible. At first, the Ottawa airport said that Cubana had not paid its fees and that was why the airport did not open its doors to let the passengers off the plane. Cubana told us that it did pay its fees. Was the person in charge of collecting the fees at the Ottawa airport away on vacation? Probably. Someone made a mistake, but it seems it was not necessarily the airline. It was exempt because of the weather.

We cannot solve everything with one bill. That is what our NDP colleague hoped to do. Someone is trying to play politics with a bill that would penalize airlines for things that are not their fault in many cases. The Canadian Bar Association said as much. We have analyzed the situation. After what happened with Cubana, the government asked that all Canadian airlines at least be able to regulate this.

That is when the famous flight rights Canada program came into being, referring to the rights we have when we buy a plane ticket. During the recent events in Europe, Canadian airlines were able to accommodate their passengers, at least.

I have been trying to follow what is being said in the media to see if any official complaints have been filed. I have contacted some airlines. They seem to have been able to accommodate people. They did not punish people who were unable to fly to Europe because of the volcano. They tried to transfer flights and reservations. These accommodations are included in passenger flight rights. They are included in the plane ticket.

These companies agreed to do so at the request of the government. It is a step in the right direction. Obviously, if there ever were a public outcry about the behaviour of airline companies, I am convinced that we would amend the law. When the Canadian Bar Association says that there is no need to amend the law, we must listen.

In Quebec, the consumer protection act gives passengers many rights with respect to reimbursement and other things.

I have always had the same focus: I want justice to be served. If the airline company is responsible for damage suffered by a passenger, I want the latter to be compensated. However, it if is not responsible, it should not be blamed. The financial situation of airline companies is fragile. Two companies have shut down in the past six months.

Can we impose an additional burden on the airline industry when the Canadian Bar Association has said it is not necessary? It is simply being done for political gain. In addition, it is good politics to offer this up against an industry that has shown interest by voluntarily participating in the government's suggestion of passenger rights.

Once again, we will support—