Paul Szabo

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2009]

I hear the member, Mr. Speaker. I did hear all the other speakers talk about Senator Grafstein as well.

There is this issue, and it has to do with the hon. senator, that bills can be traded up and down on the order paper. This one might go down to position number 20. That means 20 sitting days from now it would come up for its second hour and then there would be a vote on the following Wednesday.

I am a bit concerned that there is a risk that the bill may never come back and that would be a shame. I think everybody would understand why.

We always want to fete our colleagues in both chambers who have done such great service to Parliament. I am a bit saddened that we cannot seem to have agreement to let this debate collapse so that we can allow the senator to enjoy yet another victory on behalf of Canadians and Canadian legislation.

Bill S-205 is a simple bill but a meaningful bill. Sometimes a word or two makes all the difference in the world in terms of its application.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code of Canada. This particular bill is seeking an amendment to Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code by adding the following subsection 1.1. “For greater certainty” is the title of this paragraph. Subsection 1.2 says:

For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

That substantively is the bill. It is not very much. It also says that it comes into force at a date fixed by order of governor in council. That is another reason why it is important to deal with this now because it will not come into force when royal assent is granted. It will only come into force when cabinet gives an order in council making it law. Even then, once it gets that, it depends on whether it is proclaimed.

There are many other steps in the legislative process that have to happen, and if we have to wait another 20 or 30 sitting days it may not happen before the senator has to leave the red chamber and retire, and not get the credit that is due him.

I am going to appeal to other members in the chamber. We have enough time to still make this happen. I think it is the honourable thing to do. I do not know of any reason why anyone would want to delay this legislation since there is unanimous support for it. There is no misunderstanding of its intent.

I simply want to appeal to members in all sincerity to heed the good wishes, the goodwill, that all hon. colleagues who have already spoken have expressed to Senator Grafstein. We could make this happen. There are substantive reasons why it should happen tonight. People who would like to have it happen should maybe speak to others to determine whether or not there is good reason for it not to happen.

I am going to conclude my remarks. I do not intend to speak out the clock just for the sake of speaking. I support the bill. All hon. members support the bill. All parties support the bill. All opposition parties, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals have agreed not to put up any further speakers so that we have this opportunity. I offer it to the Conservatives now to allow this debate to collapse so that we can have our vote and give Senator Grafstein his due reward.

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that this debate would collapse tonight because this is significant. One of our colleagues from the other place, Senator Grafstein, I understand will be retiring in December and this is his swan song. This is his last opportunity to make yet another contribution to the Parliament of Canada which includes the Senate.

We are in an interesting Parliament. It is quite uncertain what is going to happen next week, a week or two from now, or even tomorrow. Since we have the support of all members on the bill, we have an opportunity under our rules to allow this debate simply to collapse. No more people would stand up, the mover of the bill would speak for the last five minutes and then we would have a vote and we would pass Bill S-205 tonight as a tribute to our colleague, Senator Grafstein.

It does not look as though that is going to happen. I do not know why, but I am a little concerned that given the uncertainty of this place the bill could in fact never come back before this Parliament. There are a number of ways that could happen. Certainly one would be the call of an election. Another possibility would be that even though the bill would go down to the bottom of the order paper which--

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing this bill, on behalf of a Senate colleague, to the House for our attention.

At the end of her speech, the member, who I know well and who is a good member of Parliament, referred to elements of what would constitute being a suicide bomber. It would seem to me that is very relevant. So, I want to ask her if she is aware of whether or not there is in fact a definition, presently, in the legislation of what constitutes being a suicide bomber. If there is not, the matters that she just raised about someone who organizes or participates in or is somehow involved would probably be problematic, I guess. I assume there is a clarification with regard to that definition. Maybe she could help the House.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member is an experienced member and always adds to the debate.

Given the urgency that the government seems to be recognizing, does the member have any comment about why having this bill referred straight to committee before second reading was not considered?

The other question I would have for the member is with regard to restitution. It would seem to me that there are other tools the government may have if moneys have been spirited offshore, such as the person's passport. Is he aware of any other tools that might be available to the Government of Canada and to the courts to ensure that when the funds are not readily available within Canada's borders, there are other tools that may be used to ensure that the person does not get away with the resources of those who have been defrauded?

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about subclause 380.3(5), which states:

If the court decides not to make a restitution order, it shall give reasons for its decision and shall cause those reasons to be stated in the record.

If the member is serious about dealing with white collar crime and proposing a mandatory minimum of two years, which is fairly modest, it does not do anything to address the elderly who have put their trust in people and have lost money.

I am wondering if he can explain why it is that the court would have the discretion on whether there is a restitution order but no discretion on what the penalty is for the perpetrator.

[Natural Resources, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the Prime Minister's guidelines, contrary to the government's disinformation campaign.

The minister is already under investigation by two officers of Parliament. Furthermore, the Prime Minister's guide states:

Compliance with these Guidelines is a term and condition of appointment [as a minister].

Given the clear violation of the Prime Minister's own guidelines, what sanctions will the Prime Minister impose against the Minister of Natural Resources?

[Natural Resources, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's guide for ministers states:

--a public office holder should not participate in a political activity where it may reasonably be seen to be incompatible with the public office holder’s duty...or would cast doubt on the integrity or impartiality of the office.

Since the September 24th political fundraiser for the Minister of Natural Resources was organized by a lobbyist who is registered to lobby her, how can the Prime Minister deny that the minister was in breach of his guidelines?

[Petitions, October 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present a petition concerning cruelty to animals and animal welfare.

The petitioners want to raise with Parliament the fact that there is scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals can feel pain and that all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty and to reduce animal suffering.

The petitioners also indicate that over a billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihoods, that many others rely on animals for companionship and, finally, that animals are often significantly affected by natural disasters yet seldom get considered during relief efforts or emergency planning, despite their recognized importance to human beings.

The petitioners ask Parliament to petition the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the problems within the forestry industry go back four years ago to the softwood lumber deal, and I have read a lot of interesting points in some of the briefing notes.

It appears that the government is restricting its thinking to matters such as tax cuts to help the forestry industry. Would the member care to comment on how the government seems to think tax cuts will help an industry that is not making any income?

[Petitions, October 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the clerk of petitions, I would like to present this petition on behalf of a number of my constituents on the subject of the protection of human life.

These petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that Canada is a country that respects human rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that everyone has the right to life. It has been 40 years since the decision on May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion. Since January 28, 1988, Canada has had no law to protect the lives of unborn children.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.