Rick Dykstra

[Criminal Code, April 9th, 2008]

He is certainly not afraid to bring forward the will of his constituents here in the House of Commons.

My colleague is inviting us to discuss what I believe is a very important and a very serious issue.

This bill asks us to examine how bail decisions are made in certain cases where the prosecutor and defence counsel have agreed to the release of the accused. Ultimately, this reform would not only ensure greater transparency and openness, but it would also ensure that the safety of the victim and the public were fully considered.

Bill C-519 proposes that the prosecutor be required to present evidence that is relevant to the release of the accused before a judge or justice of the peace makes an order for release on bail.

Therefore, it appears that this bill seeks to ensure that a bail court receives all of the relevant information that it needs in order to make an informed decision about the pretrial release of an accused.

This new obligation would not apply in all cases but rather only in cases where the accused has been charged with a serious personal injury offence and where the prosecutor and the defence have agreed that the accused can be granted bail.

Serious personal injury offences are defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code as indictable offences that involve the use or attempted use of violence against a person, or conduct endangering the life or safety of another person, or conduct inflicting severe psychological damage on the person and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum of 10 years or more. It also includes sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and aggravated sexual assault. Bill C-519 is correctly limited to addressing these serious offences.

It should also be noted that Bill C-519 does not alter the existing standards with respect to bail. It does not change the grounds for detaining an accused. The presumption of innocence and the constitutional right not to be denied bail without just cause are not affected by this proposal.

The law provides that in general, accused persons benefit from a basic presumption in favour of release. As detention results in a complete loss of liberty, the law states that bail shall only be denied when there is just cause to do so.

The current Criminal Code provisions set out specific grounds to justify keeping someone in custody before trial.

Under what is commonly referred to as the “primary ground”, bail can be denied when detention is necessary to ensure that the accused does not flee from justice and appears before the court when he or she is required to do so. Under the “secondary ground”, bail can be denied to protect the public. As an example, if there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will reoffend or interfere with the administration of justice if released, bail can be denied. Last, bail can be denied under the “tertiary ground”, which is when the court considers it necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The prosecutor normally has the onus of demonstrating why it is justified to detain an accused before trial.

This bill does not change these basic tenets, nor does it require the prosecutor to seek to detain an accused charged with a serious personal injury offence.

The summary of the bill clearly states that it is intended to apply in what are commonly referred to as consent release cases.

I would like to take a moment to describe the process around the arrest, the release or detention of accused persons in order to clarify at which stage Bill C-519 would apply and to put it into context.

When a person is arrested without warrant by the police, officers must release the person from custody unless they believe, on reasonable grounds, it is necessary to have that person detained. The purpose of detaining the individual may be based on the need to protect victims of, or witnesses to, the offence.

Officers must decide when to release the accused with or without conditions, or to detain the accused so that the accused may be brought before a judge or justice of the peace for what is referred to in the Criminal Code as a judicial interim release order, commonly referred to as bail.

When police officers believe that there are reasonable grounds not to release an accused, they are required under the law to bring them before a judge or justice of the peace within 24 hours, or as soon as possible if a justice of the peace is not available within those 24 hours.

Generally speaking, the type of information that will be available at this stage is the police incident report. The police report is a summary of the offence and the accused's criminal record and prior incidents that required police attention or intervention.

The accused's conduct since being detained may also be taken into account if the accused has displayed aggressive or threatening behaviour, or made statements that raised concerns about the safety of victims or witnesses.

In addition, the accused's lawyer or defence counsel on duty in bail court often provide additional information, which is of course relevant to the release of the accused. For example, they will indicate what measures have been sought in order to ensure that the accused will be able to respect the conditions of his or her release.

Depending on the relevant concerns, they will provide information such as the following: whether the accused will have a surety or a person that will help them to comply with their conditions; whether the accused will provide a cash deposit as a bail security; whether the accused will agree to comply with specific conditions such as reporting to police as required or residing at a particular location, just to name a couple.

Therefore, with information coming from both police and defence counsel, there are cases where prosecutors will be satisfied that the accused can be safely released with those conditions. In these instances, the Crown can decide to consent to the release of the accused and not seek to show cause why it is justifiable to detain the accused in pretrial custody.

It should be noted that in certain situations and causes, the law states that the accused shall be detained unless he or she shows cause why detention is not justifiable. These are commonly referred to as reverse onus. We have talked about this at the justice committee on a number of occasions in the last couple of years.

These situations apply in specific cases, such as where the accused is charged with breaching his or her bail, committing another indictable offence, trafficking or smuggling in drugs, and as of May 1 of this year, trafficking or smuggling in weapons as well. Therefore, Bill C-519 would only apply where the prosecutor has decided to consent to the release of an accused charged with a serious personal injury offence.

In conclusion, the bill seeks to ensure that in such cases, all evidence that is relevant to the release of the accused is put on the record before the judge or justice makes the bail release order.

I certainly stand here in the House today to lend my support to this bill and get it to committee. I look forward to having the member present at justice committee, of which I am a member. I know it will be a great day when the member is there and is able to present his thoughts on the bill and any positive changes that may be made to it. I think it is indicative of the House that all parties at least support it at second reading so that Bill C-519 has the opportunity to be presented at committee.

[Criminal Code, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-519, which proposes to amend the bail provision of the Criminal Code to address serious personal injury offences.

The member who sponsored the bill represents the riding of Palliser. He is a fine addition to this side of the House. He does an amazing job here in Ottawa on behalf of his constituents, even though it is a bit of a plane ride back to Pallister, Saskatchewan.

[Human Rights, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this coming weekend the minister of trade for the province of Ontario will be travelling to China to open up an Ontario trade office in Beijing.

When questioned on this issue, the premier of the province of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, said that it is not the province's role to get involved in issues of human rights. Trade Minister Pupatello actually agreed with her boss and stated, “We do defer to the federal government in matters of human rights”.

Can the justice minister please tell the House what this government is doing with respect to human rights?

[Doping in Sport, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 466, which asks the government to continue to engage in the anti-doping movement and encourage other nations to ratify the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport.

Like UNESCO, Canada is aware that sport must play an important role in the protection of health, in moral, cultural and physical education and in promoting international peace and understanding. Canada is also convinced of the need to encourage and coordinate international cooperation to eliminate doping in sport.

In Canada, the act to promote physical activity and sport, which was passed in 2003 acknowledges the importance that sport and the promotion of physical activity has for the health and welfare of all Canadians. That act is based on high values and ethical principles, particularly regarding the elimination of doping from sport.

Like the act to promote physical activity and sport, the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport condemns the use of doping in sport as a result of its consequences for the health of athletes and quite frankly, for the principle of fair play.

The UNESCO convention is also intended to be an international instrument that forms the basis of national anti-doping policies and intergovernmental cooperation in the field. Its aim is to protect ethical principles and educational values.

In this perspective, Canada proactively adopted the Canadian policy against doping in sport which is grounded in the fundamental commitment to safeguard the integrity and values of our athletes and of our sports. The purpose of this policy is to prevent the use of substances and methods prohibited in Canadian sport in order to protect individuals who participate in sport in accordance with the rules and spirit of sport. We are going to make sure that those who play by the rules and those who act by the rules have the opportunity for fair play.

Based on the Canadian policy against doping in sport, the Canadian anti-doping program which is managed by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, embraces the many national and international developments in the field of anti-doping.

The Canadian anti-doping program is consistent with the world anti-doping code. Its purpose is to deter and detect the use of prohibited substances and methods and thus to protect the right of athletes to participate in fair competitions that comply with the rules of ethics and to ensure the integrity of all of our amateur sports.

The UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport also reflects an awareness of the influence that high level athletes have on youth and of the importance of education to prevent doping.

We in Canada have developed a Canadian strategy for ethical conduct in sport which was approved by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of sport in April 2002.

That Canadian strategy for ethical conduct in sport which is based on a partnership between the Canadian government and the provincial and territorial governments very clearly reflects one of the principles of the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. It is that the elimination of this phenomenon depends in part on a gradual harmonization of anti-doping standards and practices in sport and on national and international cooperation.

This strategy, which has been rebranded as the true sport strategy, contains guidelines for a voluntary, collective exercise designed to change attitudes, values and behaviours at various levels of sport in Canada. The True Sport Secretariat coordinates the implementation of this strategy and since May 2003, has been guided by a steering committee of experts from various areas of sports, which include the following: AthletesCAN, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, the Canadian Olympic Committee, the Coaching Association of Canada, national sports organizations, officials, three provincial and territorial governments, the federal government through Sport Canada, and provincial and territorial sports organizations through the Canadian Council of Provincial/Territorial Sport Federations.

The collaboration in Canada between governments and the Canadian sport community attests to a complementary effort in the prevention of and fight against doping in sport. It makes it possible to ensure the proper conduct of sports events in a spirit of fair play and protects the health of those who take part in them, a principle conveyed by the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport.

At the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympics and Paralympic Winter Games, the eyes of the world will be on our country. Our ability to hold clean and ethical major games will depend on national and international cooperation.

With its research expertise and the Canadian government's commitment to anti-doping in sport, Canada has all the ingredients to provide the Canadian public and the world with high quality games in the spirit of anti-doping in sport.

The UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the Canadian strategy for ethical conduct in sport, the Canadian policy against doping in sport and the Canadian anti-doping program are all tools to guide the development of sport in Canada through exemplary ethics.

The support of the governments of all countries is essential to our common objective of eliminating doping in sport. We will continue to encourage those countries that have not yet ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport to do so and, to the extent of our capabilities, will offer the expertise and resources necessary for its implementation.

There are a couple of things that I think bring this to light, and I want to explain them.

I am a member of the finance committee. The prebudget consultations took place in October of this year in Victoria, very close to Vancouver where the games will take place, and went right across the country to Halifax.

One of the places we stopped to hear a presentation was in Montreal. The presentation was made by the Canadian Olympic Committee, which is headed up by Mr. Alex Baumann. Most of us will remember that he was the gold medal swimmer for Canada in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. He has done a great deal of work on behalf of the organization and his organization has done a great deal of work on behalf of athletes in our country. Most important, it has done work and wants to do more work on behalf of potential athletes.

His organization's request was for this government to continue to fund the winter Olympics, but also to establish a new protocol and a new funding system for the summer Olympics. To that end, over the next two years, we are investing upward of $28 million in the Canadian summer Olympic program, under Mr. Baumann's direction.

That commitment is not only about the athletes who are competing today. It is about the potential young people who will engage in sports. They will find it to be a great opportunity for them, whether it be for an education, or learning how to play the sport, or simply being involved with their friends and with athletes of the same ilk.

This is a symbol for the type of commitment the government has to sport in our country, the commitment we have to our athletes and the commitment we have to our children. It fits perfectly well with the motion in front of us today.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on March 14 you gave clear direction to the House for what you called serial anarchy within our parliamentary committees. In particular, you noted a tyranny of the majority overriding the correct rulings of committee chairs.

Our procedure committee already had its chairman removed because he said no to a political witch hunt. The new chair was elected against his will by a tyranny of the majority.

Now at justice committee, a coalition of Liberals and separatists is threatening to remove another chairman because of his correct ruling on a motion. Again, it is tyranny of the majority.

Their own Liberal chairman made an identical ruling on this matter in another committee but they are sending in the wrecking ball to justice committee. The opposition has already shut down four justice committee meetings because they refuse to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

These bully tactics must end. I ask all members to respect your ruling, get down to the business they were sent here to do, not destroy our parliamentary committees and not--

[Gerard Kennedy, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring up a fella who seems to have fallen off the face of the earth. This person is Mr. Gerard Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy is now the Liberal intergovernmental affairs critic and the critic is absolutely correct. When Mr. Kennedy was minister of education in the province of Ontario, he was very critical of the former Liberal federal government.

He said to the Liberal government and to the member for Markham—Unionville:

I think what's dangerous for Canada is a country that doesn't show the capacity to solve problems.

He also said:

There's a billion dollars missing in transfers on health and post-secondary education from the federal government.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Kennedy was right, but the former Liberal government did nothing to solve this problem. Do you know who solved it, Mr. Speaker? This Prime Minister and this finance minister.

So now that Mr. Kennedy is the Liberal intergovernmental affairs critic, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to stand in his place and apologize to Ontarians and poor Mr. Kennedy for never listening and never addressing Ontario's financial needs.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the member added the last three points. They really do not have anything to do with the issue we are dealing with today.

I have a couple of things on which I want to ask for the member's comments and ask him to interpret a couple of things that will show the error of the Liberal Party's ways.

First, when $22 million is to be spent on working through an 800,000 persons problem, created by the previous government, over the next two years, leading to $37 million the year following, it is entirely appropriate for that decision to be made within the framework and the context of a budget.

What is as fundamentally important is the fact that we have an immigration policy that is being supported by Canadians across this country. The Winnipeg Free Press editorial states:

For the Liberals to exploit this, however, not only ignores the national need for the party's own political advantage, but also ignores the ugly truth that it was the Liberals who created this problem. In the years 1993-2006, the immigration backlog grew from 50,000 to 800,000.

Those are people who want to move and live in this country and become Canadian citizens.

The article goes on to state:

Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

Is it the right thing or is it the wrong thing to tell immigrants who want to become Canadian citizens to have their names and their files put on a list and simply wait?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will make no apologies with respect to this government's commitment to energy and the delivery of that energy in this country over the next number of years.

The member is not from Ontario, so I understand that the question may not necessarily be about Ontario, but let me bring him back to the motion of the day, which is about the impact on the state of affairs here in our province. When it comes to energy, quite frankly, the province of Ontario is going to benefit significantly from this budget. To support nuclear energy and maintain nuclear safety, $300 million will be invested in the province.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the member opposite. I certainly appreciate his comments. I am not sure if there was a question in there at the end, but I certainly would like to respond to his thoughts or comments.

First, he and his party certainly stood and supported the budget. In fact, if they felt that this was not the type of budget or aggressive action that was necessary, then he and his colleagues would have stood in this House and voted against this budget. I find it interesting that on the one hand he speaks against what we are doing but on the other is quite prepared to stand up and support it when it comes time to vote, or certainly to not vote at all.

Second, I know there is some trouble in the Liberal Party right now, and I understand they have had some difficulties in Quebec. There are issues around the rest of the country, but specifically in Quebec over the last few days. Perhaps it is difficult for some of the members opposite to listen to their leader, but in fact their leader not just suggested this but recommended it, and he did not just recommend it but said that it would be in their party platform in the next election, and it is that in fact corporate taxes need to be reduced more aggressively than the approach we have taken.

When the member stands in this place today and says the only thing necessary is not to cut taxes, I suggest that he take issue with his leader. There are a few Liberals in this country who are taking issue with the leader of the Liberal Party right now, so I will leave that for them to decide.

However, there is more. It starts with the community development trust. I will be happy to respond to that in the next question.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Simcoe North who is obviously working extremely hard on behalf of his constituents and is one of the brightest and best of the new members we have here in the House of Commons. I am proud to be sharing my time with him.

I find it interesting, listening to the speech and responses to questions from the member for Richmond Hill, when he speaks about accountability, finance and his concerns around the province of Ontario and about the financial affairs of the country, when in fact today he stood in his place along with his Liberal colleagues and could not have cheered more loudly to welcome the member for Toronto Centre, the former premier of the province of Ontario.

The very issue we are talking about today he brought in year after year after year the highest deficits that the province of Ontario faced in its history. So the member stood today and gave a speech and tried to lecture members on this side. There are a few members on his side of the House, including the former finance minister of the Liberal Party, who can listen a little bit to the words of encouragement he was giving because they certainly apply most emphatically to the former NDP premier of the province of Ontario.

We have in front of us a motion moved by the member for Markham—Unionville which talks about working with the province of Ontario. I did a bit of research on that and I want to bring a few things to light.

Ingenuity and an industrious mindset allowed the province of Ontario to remain the engine of the Canadian economy. Ontario is a land of opportunity with a promise of prosperity so alluring that it has drawn, and continues to draw, people from every corner of our globe.

The province's vitality is not defined by its politicians, whether provincial, federal or municipal, but by the determination of its residents to build an ever more prosperous community. It is a community that includes global leaders in science, technology, research, development, manufacturing and processing, culture and finance. Quite frankly, the list goes on.

Those leaders are backed by the most hard-working, innovative and creative workforce in the industrialized world. Make no mistake, this government and this finance minister have absolute confidence in Ontario's ability to succeed, not just here in our country but in the world. But we cannot ignore the reality that Ontario's economy faces challenges.

The global economic volatility threatens to install Canada's economic engine. Ontario has been severely challenged by a weakening U.S. economy, soaring energy prices, increased competition from emerging markets like China and India, and a strong Canadian dollar. Its situation stands in sharp contrast to a Canadian economy which has remained largely healthy.

In the midst of the second longest period of economic expansion in Canadian history, Ontario's share of the national nominal GDP has dropped from 41.4% in 2002 to 38.6% in 2006. Nationally, business investment has been on the rise for more than a decade and Ontario has fallen below the national average.

The national unemployment rate is at its lowest in 33 years, but for the first time ever in 2007 Ontario's unemployment rate rose above the national average. Private sector economists have echoed these concerns noting that the Ontario standard of living may fall below the Canadian average and make it a have not province.

Jack Mintz has stated, “Ontario is facing a major challenge...its per-capita GDP has already tracked down to be close to the national average”. Don Drummond warns that Ontario's falling GDP growth “does suggest that it is getting closer to being an equalization recipient”.

While factors outside the control of governments are significant contributors to Ontario's woes, there are partial solutions available to them.

For instance, our government is cutting business taxes deeper and faster than ever before. We are reducing corporate taxes to 15% by 2012. We have eliminated the federal capital tax. We are eliminating the corporate surtax in this fiscal year, 2008. We are providing targeted tax relief to the manufacturing sector through an accelerate writeoff for new equipment, not 8 or 10 or 15 years, but 2 or 3 years. We are providing provincial incentives to eliminate its capital tax.

As a result of our actions, Canada's corporate taxes will soon be among the lowest of the major industrialized economies.

We believe these tax reductions will provide long term, broad based support for employers. We believe this support will attract investment, create jobs and make Canadian businesses more competitive. We have called on our provinces to follow that lead. As the Canadian Council of Chief Executives recently declared:

The federal government clearly has done everything it can to reduce tax rates within the boundaries of prudent fiscal management. The next major steps in forging a more competitive corporate tax system must come at the provincial level.

In that spirit, the federal government has been working with the provinces to brand Canada as a low-tax jurisdiction to help attract investment and jobs. We are happy to report that some provinces are responding.

We have applauded governments of all political stripes, whether they be in Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan or New Brunswick, for their recent efforts to lower taxes. We have called on Ontario, and we will continue to call on Ontario, to follow in that path. That low-tax message must be heard there more than anywhere.

As the Ontario government's own task force on competitiveness, productivity and economic progress has found, Ontario has the highest taxation on new business investment among developed economies. If no action is taken by 2012, Ontario's marginal effective tax rate will be over 30%, one of the highest in country and well above Quebec's rate of under 19%. That high tax burden is putting additional pressures on Ontario businesses as they try to compete with businesses in provinces and in other countries.

If the member for Markham—Unionville doubts such claims as mere partisan rhetoric, I will quote verbatim from a report released by the Royal Bank of Canada earlier this year. I remind the House that the member once served as that institution's chief economist.

The RBC report stated:

Despite laudable recent initiatives by the federal government to reduce the overall rate, our corporate taxes remain high relative to other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. This is particularly true in Ontario and newer industries (like communications and other services) relative to more traditional ones (forestry and manufacturing)....

Ontario will continue to pay the price for prohibitively high tax rates, whether it is in the form of an ongoing reduction in living standards or weaker performance in manufacturing relative to other provinces such as Quebec or a declining investment trend in the province itself....

More aggressive action is needed on reducing statutory rates to continue to move the overall tax burden down--particularly in Ontario.

The federal government has appealed to Ontario's government to take action. We ask that it begin by reducing the provincial business income tax rate with a goal of meeting a combined 25% business tax rate in this country by 2012.

We would like and we ask Ontario to make a commitment to fully eliminate capital taxes for businesses in each and every sector. We have asked Ontario to take steps toward harmonizing its retail sales tax with the ever-lowering GST or, at the very least, transitioning Ontario's retail sales tax into a value added tax.

We applaud the Ontario government's elimination of capital taxes for business. There is no question that when the province makes a right move we are going to acknowledge it and congratulate the province on it, but we simply encourage further action. By lowering the province's high business taxes, we believe Ontario's economy will be strengthened to the benefit of its businesses, its individuals and, most important, its families.

This would be especially helpful for Ontario's hard-hit manufacturing sector. As indicated by a recent survey of Ontario manufacturers conducted by the provincial Chamber of Commerce, “(R)educing corporate income taxes was identified as the most effective measure the Ontario government can undertake to improve the competitiveness of manufacturers”.

There is no question about it. The province I represent and the city that I am elected to represent, St. Catharines, both know the feeling of needing to move forward and make sure that manufacturers and industries in our community have a chance to move forward.

I simply ask that the Liberal Party of Canada join with us in recognizing that this issue is about strengthening Ontario's economy and, by extension, our Canadian economy.

It is all about the future of individuals and families who call Ontario home, a future that even the Liberal leader knows would be made brighter and more prosperous through lower business taxation.