Russ Hiebert

[National Defence, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important topic and I appreciate the member's interest in the military. It is important for him to understand that we actually have exceeded our targets. In 2005-06, we had a target of 5,500 enrollments and we achieved 5,800 new members, so 106% of the new goal. We are very much on track. I would appreciate his support for the military.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Wheelchair Foundation Canada, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow 500 wheelchairs will arrive in Kandahar, Afghanistan. A wheelchair can transform the life of an amputee, providing mobility, opportunity and hope.

After decades of conflict and war, several hundred thousand Afghanis are amputees. In response, Wheelchair Foundation Canada, led by a constituent of mine, Christiana Flessner, has worked alongside our Canadian military to provide wheelchairs to Afghanis in need.

Each wheelchair proudly displays the flags of Canada and Afghanistan side by side, symbolizing our friendship and national determination to help them through this difficult time. The wheelchairs will be distributed by our soldiers in Kandahar, giving our troops yet another opportunity to build new and important friendships with Afghanis.

I would like to honour Ms. Flessner for her dedication to this worthy project. I encourage all Canadians to visit the Wheelchair Foundation website, at wheelchairfoundation.ca, to learn more about this exceptional organization.

[Autism Spectrum Disorder, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to complete my thoughts on Motion No. 172 addressing a national autism strategy.

There is no doubt that autism spectrum disorders have an enormous impact on affected families. As the parents of individuals with autism spectrum disorders have attested, the impact is often discouraging, both financially and emotionally.

As the member from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, I have been hearing from constituents on this issue for some time now. I have heard from many parents who are concerned for their children's future and who are concerned about accessing appropriate treatment and therapy.

The primary concern many parents in B.C. have is the level of funding they receive for treatment. Currently, the Province of British Columbia pays up to $20,000 annually for treatment for children up to age six. It pays $6,000 annually for treatment of children six years of age and older.

However, depending on the amount of treatment an autistic child needs, some parents find themselves paying much more than the $20,000 maximum the province currently covers. These parents look around and see some provinces, such as Alberta, covering the full cost of treatment. Other provinces address autism as a component of their public education systems, again, without imposing a financial burden on parents.

As such, many parents in my province have lobbied the B.C. government for additional funding. They have also gone to court to try to obtain more provincial funding.

Late in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed this issue in its unanimous ruling in the Auton decision. The chief justice, writing for the court, determined:

--the legislature is under no obligation to create a particular benefit. It is free to target the social programs it wishes to fund as a matter of public policy, provided the benefit itself is not conferred in a discriminatory manner.

The Supreme Court also found that funding for ABA or IBI treatment was not required under the provisions of the Canada Health Act. As such, the provinces are exclusively responsible for deciding on the level of funding they will provide for autism treatment.

Of course, parents with autistic children are not so much concerned with questions of legal obligation on the part of the provincial governments as they are with the question of whether their children are getting the held they need.

Motion No. 172 is important because it gives federal representatives an opportunity to consider and debate the contribution we can make to help families affected by autism. In doing so, our new Conservative government will continue to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces to make health care funding decisions. We will also continue to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.

However, it is clear that even though the primary responsibility for funding treatment is an exclusive provincial responsibility, there are ways that our new Conservative government can, and already does, help.

First, our government provides general funding to the provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer for the provision of health services. This year we are providing nearly $20.1 billion exclusively for health care, $1.1 billion more than last year. Our budget commits to increasing that amount by 6% per year. Next year the provinces can count on $21.3 billion and, the year following, $22.6 billion.

Also, our new government gives families affected by autism direct financial support through the tax system. In budget 2006, our new government included a number of measures that either were proposed by the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities or that even go beyond its recommendations.

Among these measures were: increasing the maximum annual child disability benefit, effective July 2006; extending eligibility for the child disability benefit to middle and higher income families caring for a child who meets the disability criteria, effective July 2006; and, boosting the maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement.

While direct assistance for families is important, the federal government also plays a key role in medical research.

The search for a deeper knowledge into the causes of autism and for better treatments is an area where our new Conservative government believes it can make a meaningful contribution. For instance, the Public Health Agency of Canada funds Centres of Excellence for Children's Well-Being, two of which are doing important work on autism spectrum disorders.

We realize we can do more, which is why last Tuesday the Minister of Health announced some very important initiatives. These initiatives include: first, funding for a new research chair into the causes and treatment of autism; second, consultations leading to a national autism surveillance program; third, a stakeholder symposium to be held in 2007; fourth, a new Health Canada website focused on autism related information; and fifth, leadership by Health Canada in coordinating our government's response to autism related issues.

Families in my community and across Canada have been waiting a long time for a comprehensive federal response to the challenges posed by autism. I believe the leadership our government has shown in the past week will make a significant difference in the effort to better understand and treat autism.

Therefore, I would like to present an amendment to my hon. colleague's Motion No. 172. This amendment would further reinforce our government's commitment to build a strong, national strategy for autism spectrum disorders.

I move:

That, Motion No. 172 be amended by deleting all the words after the word “include”, and substituting the following:

(a) the development, in cooperation with provincial-territorial governments, of evidence based standards for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder;

(b) the development, in cooperation with provincial governments, of innovative funding methods for the care of those with autism spectrum disorder;

(c) consulting with provincial-territorial governments and other stakeholders on the requirements of implementing a national surveillance program for autism spectrum disorder;

(d) the provision of additional federal funding for health research into autism spectrum disorder.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two copies of reports from the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the CPA UK Branch Parliamentary Seminar, which was held in London, England and Brussels, Belgium from May 7 to 19; my pre-Abuja conference visit to London, England, August 28 to September 2; the 52nd Annual International Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, held in Abuja, Nigeria from September 1 to 10; and the Study Group on Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures held in Bermuda from October 30 to November 3.

[Early Learning and Child Care Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-303, the proposed early learning and child care act, introduced by the member for Victoria.

Canada's new government recognizes that one of the most important investments we can make as a country is to give parents choices when it comes to caring for their children. We take our commitment to support parents' choice of child care very seriously. There are strong reasons why we are pursuing choice in child care.

First, it is one of the key priorities we promised to pursue during the recent election. We work to keep our promises.

Canadians voted for a platform that put choice in child care as a top five priority. We reaffirmed our promise of choice in child care in the Speech from the Throne. We committed the funds in budget 2006. We have delivered on that commitment to Canadian families through our universal child care plan. A promise made, a promise kept.

The second reason we believe in choice in child care is because of the benefits it delivers to every Canadian family.

Unlike the inadequate and ineffective approach envisioned in Bill C-303, our new universal child care plan recognizes that no two Canadian families are alike. We understand that parents with young children balance their work and family lives in different ways and for different reasons.

We are very aware, for example, that the services provided by day care facilities open 9 to 5 are simply not an option for the many Canadian parents whose schedules require that they work evenings, weekends, split shifts or 12 hour shifts. Neither is standard day care the answer for parents taking evening courses to enhance their skills. Standard day care is an equally unrealistic option for farming families, for families working in the fisheries, and for the many Canadians with young children who live in rural or remote communities.

Moreover, as a recent Statistics Canada study confirmed, almost half of Canadian parents continue to find ways to stay at home to care for their preschool children themselves.

Unfortunately, Bill C-303 lacks the flexibility that would enable parents to make the choices they want. While this bill fails to properly respect the expertise of parents, it also fails to respect the established roles and responsibilities of the provinces in the realm of child care service delivery. On the contrary, what Bill C-303 proposes is tantamount to an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

This act would impose singular, one size fits all criteria and conditions on provincial governments in order for them to qualify for federal early learning and child care funding.

I want this House to take note of the irony in this bill. The previous Liberal-NDP coalition in this House had the opportunity to implement this one size fits all day care program this bill reflects, but it did not. In fact, the Liberals were promising one size fits all day care for 13 years and for four elections, and never delivered a single additional care space directly from the federal government.

While I have no doubt the member for Victoria is sincere in her desire to help families, I believe she should look at the reasons why this proposal has consistently failed.

The reasons are that most families cannot, or do not, fit into a one size fits all program, and no government can afford the incredible cost of formal day care for every Canadian child.

Given the wide range of parental situations and needs, and the diverse needs of our provinces and territories, we have developed and, more importantly, acted on a child care plan that responds to the diverse circumstances and real needs of Canadian families. Our plan represents a flexible, balanced approach that would enable parents and communities to develop the child care solutions that work best for them.

This is a plan founded on respect for parental expertise in deciding what is best for their children, and for the roles and responsibilities of the provinces in delivering child care services.

However, it is important to mention that there is another long term benefit to Canadian society of providing greater choice to parents. That benefit is that many more Canadians may decide to become parents or, if they already are parents, they may choose to have an additional child.

Offering Canadian parents greater freedom to decide such important questions for themselves has tremendous importance for the future of our home and native land. That is because our national birthrate has now fallen well below replacement levels. Canadian women are now having 1.5 children, on average. The replacement rate is 2.1. Anything less means a nation begins shrinking rather than growing. This could lead to serious problems.

As the baby boom generation begins to retire, our shrinking birthrate will start to have its impact. Fewer children now means fewer people entering the workforce in the coming years. Fewer workers means fewer taxpayers able to contribute to valued social programs. Our pay as we go public pension plan was predicated on the idea that a certain ratio of workers to retirees was necessary to be self-sustaining.

It is in the interests of Canadian society and our various governments to do what we can to encourage and support family formation and child rearing. Providing families with as much freedom as possible to make the child care choices that are right for them can further this goal.

As the House is aware, our universal child care plan has two parts: a universal child care benefit and a child care spaces initiative. Together these two components represent an investment of close to $12 billion over five years to improve the lives of Canadian families, an investment that is more than twice that proposed by the former Liberal government.

Allow me to elaborate for a moment on the first component of the plan, the universal child care benefit. This direct benefit to Canadian families helps them to choose the type of child care that works best for them.

This past July, parents across Canada began receiving the benefit of $100 a month for each child under the age of six, a benefit they are free to use for the best interests of their own children. For example, they can apply the $1,200 a year toward the cost of formal day care, or they can use the benefit to pay for occasional babysitting, or for child care help from a grandparent or a neighbour. If parents so choose, they can purchase educational resources like books and supplies for their preschoolers, or they can use the benefit to pay for special outings to a museum, a zoo or a gallery. As I noted earlier, we respect parents' choices and this is what the benefit delivers.

I should mention that the day our universal child care benefit came into effect, my daughter Kate was born. I can well relate to the many families who are not able to access or utilize nine to five day care. Like many other Canadian families with the employment or geographical circumstances I just mentioned, my wife and I live with circumstances that make nine to five day care at the same formal day care facility impractical. However, for us, that benefit will come in handy for babysitting and educational supplies for our Canada Day baby.

I have heard from many parents who appreciate the difference those monthly cheques make in their lives. In fact across Canada 1.6 million families with 2.1 million children now receive the benefit. Families who are already registered for the Canada child tax benefit, which account for 90% of those 1.6 million families, receive the universal child care benefit automatically.

However, we want to ensure that all parents with preschoolers receive the benefit. To this end, the government has been very active in reaching out to the families not currently registered for the Canada child tax benefit to encourage them to apply. Our outreach efforts include a special website, radio ads, and print ads in national and local daily papers.

The government is proud to support the choices of all Canadian parents in trying to give their preschoolers a strong start in life.

Canada's new government is equally committed to the second component of our universal child care plan that will provide a flexible approach to child care spaces that meets Canadian parents' diverse needs. The new child care spaces initiative will provide incentives that can be translated into more child care options in large urban centres and rural areas, or for the many parents whose work hours do not fit the standard nine to five model.

In designing this initiative, we have been consulting with the provinces and territories, as well as businesses, communities and non-profit organizations to tap into their expertise. Furthermore, a ministerial advisory committee was named by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to advise her on the design of the child care spaces initiative. The committee, chosen for expertise in child care, work family issues, community organizations and the needs of employers, will present the minister with a report outlining its advice and recommendations later this year.

This responsive, flexible approach which respects parents' choices and expertise and the roles and responsibilities of the provinces is in keeping with our promise to Canadians. For these reasons, we are unable to support the narrow solutions to child care and early learning proposed by the member for Victoria in Bill C-303.

[Autism, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to recognize some constituents of mine who have travelled to Ottawa this week to raise awareness about autism spectrum disorder.

Members of the Families for Early Autism Treatment and members of the Autism Society of British Columbia have come to Parliament Hill to meet members of Parliament and inform Canadians about this disorder.

Autism is a neurological disorder that impairs social interaction and communications skills. Despite autism's sometimes serious impacts, there is treatment available to help many of those affected. For example, applied behavioural analysis therapy has proven beneficial for many autistic children.

While funding for this therapy is at the discretion of Canada's provincial governments, our new government is proud of the $1.1 billion increase in the Canada health transfer that we have provided in budget 2006. Our government is also proud to invest $3.5 million annually in research into the causes and treatment of autism.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, coming from a member opposite who calls our border officers wimps, I do not think he has a lot of credibility on criminal justice issues.

I can assure him that we have tremendous support for this legislation. He may be embarrassed at what his government has not done over the past 13 years and may want us to not refer to its failures going forward. We have no other alternative but to look at the problems that party has left with our society that we are here now to correct. I would encourage the member and his colleagues to support this measure.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, his ears are working fine, regrettably. It is incredibly unfortunate that this is in fact the case. For many months now this bill has been coming forward. I do not know about the hon. member or my colleagues, but I know that during the last election I had numerous debates with members of the Liberal Party and the NDP. They all came forward saying yes, they were going to get tough on crime. They said yes, they supported mandatory minimum sentences. They said yes, they supported dangerous offender legislation.

Now here we are in the chamber with an opportunity to pass the very bill that the member describes, one that would prevent somebody who has already committed horrible offences from being able to recommit those offences, and the members opposite and to my right, or should I say to my left, simply refuse to come along with us and support this proposition when we know Canadians want this.

Last fall, on our safe streets and communities task force, I spent many months with the current finance minister travelling across the country talking to members, police officers, families and people who have been victimized by crime Everywhere we went, at every stop across this country, Canadians demanded that we get tough on crime, that we do not allow people who have committed horrible crimes to reoffend. Once we know they are dangerous, they should not be let out again, yet that is what the previous Liberal government has allowed for so long.

Here we now have the opportunity to correct this huge problem within our justice system. Those members are sitting on their hands in this empty chamber, as I see when I look across, and are doing nothing to support the measures that we have come forward with in a mandate given to us by the Canadian public.

I implore the members opposite, the few who are here, to support this measure.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

Our government has already presented a number of important measures aimed at furthering our key election commitment to tackle crime. Among many other promises in our election platform, we said we would “create a presumption-of-dangerous-offender designation for anyone convicted and sentenced to federal custody for three violent or sexual offences”. Bill C-27 seeks to fulfill this specific election promise. We said we would do it, and we are doing it.

Our Conservative government believes in treating criminals justly, but justice demands that after repeatedly offending against society, violent criminals must be stopped. After three strikes, the onus is on the violent criminal to prove he is no longer a danger to society. We do not believe in the revolving door justice that the Liberals promoted over the past 13 years, a system whereby serious offenders were able to commit violent and sexual crimes repeatedly and then were set free repeatedly to victimize even more Canadians.

We believe the primary responsibility of government is to protect Canadians. That is exactly what Bill C-27 will help us do. Bill C-27 strengthens existing measures that are available to protect our loved ones, our neighbours and our communities from repeat offenders.

I am going to get into some technical aspects of the bill, but they are actually very important.

The first portion of the bill deals with applications for dangerous and long term offender hearings under part XXIV of the Criminal Code. The amendments impose a duty on prosecutors to advise a court whether they intend to proceed with a dangerous or long term offender application as soon as possible after a finding of guilt, and before sentencing, when the following criteria have been met: first, they are of the opinion that the predicate or current offence is a “serious personal injury offence” as defined in section 752; second, the offender was convicted at least twice previously of a “designated offence” as newly defined in section 752 and was sentenced to at least two years for each of those convictions.

Under the current legislative framework, a court will order a designation hearing based on whether the individual has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence and whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the individual will be found to be a dangerous or long term offender.

An amendment recommended by provincial and territorial ministers of justice ensures that a court cannot refuse to order an assessment when it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offender might be found to be a dangerous or long term offender.

As well, an amendment is made to mandate a court, following an application by a prosecutor if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be a dangerous or long term offender, to order a psychiatric assessment before the hearing can proceed. This was previously done at the discretion of the court, but no longer.

Another amendment allows the court to extend up to 30 days the period within which a report must be filed if there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Of particular interest to members of the House may be the amendments in the bill providing for a reverse onus in dangerous offender designation hearings.

The amendments provide that the Crown is deemed to have satisfied the court that the offender meets the prerequisites for a dangerous offender designation once the court is satisfied of the following four principles: that the offender has had two prior convictions from the new list of 12 serious sexual or violent primary designated offences in section 752; that the previous convictions carried a sentence of at least two years; that the current or predicate offence must also be one of those primary offences; and finally, that the predicate offence would otherwise merit at least a two year sentence.

There are some serious hurdles here that need to be overcome, but we are confident that they can be overcome.

However, the amendments give the offender an opportunity to rebut this presumption on a balance of probabilities. The bill also clarifies that even when the conditions to make a dangerous offender designation have been met, the court must consider whether a lesser sentence, including a long term offender designation, would be adequate, and neither the prosecutor nor the offender has the onus of proof in that matter.

These amendments will enable prosecutors to more readily seek a designation for violent and/or sexual criminals. They will also encourage consistency in prosecuting when considering a dangerous or long term offender designation.

I would now like to speak briefly about the amendments to the provisions dealing with peace bonds. Bill C-27 amends section 810.1, dealing with peace bonds for the prevention of sexual offences against children, and section 810.2, dealing with peace bonds for more serious violent and sexual offences.

Peace bonds are tools available to law enforcement for public protection against high risk individuals who are likely to commit a sexual offence against children or personal injury to others. Current sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code may allow anyone who has fears on reasonable grounds to lay an information before a provincial court judge for the purpose of having the defendant enter into a peace bond to keep the peace and to comply with any other conditions the court might impose that are designed to protect the public from future harm.

The section 810.1 peace bond is designed to protect against sexual offences against children under the age of 14, while section 810.2 targets individuals who may commit “a serious personal injury offence”. A serious personal injury offence is defined in the Criminal Code as including offences that are pursued by way of indictment, such as first degree or second degree murder involving violence, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger life or safety, or where the offender could be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment or more.

Alternatively, a serious personal injury offence also includes a conviction for sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon or aggravated sexual assault. Under the current legislative framework, a judge may order that a person enter into either of these peace bonds for a period not exceeding 12 months if the judge is satisfied that the informant has reasonable grounds to fear that another person will commit a relevant offence. This means a sexual offence against a child for the section 810.1 peace bond or a serious personal injury against another person for the section 810.2 peace bond.

The amendments that we are bringing forward significantly extend the maximum duration of these peace bonds, from 12 to 24 months in certain situations.

For the section 810.1 peace bond, this longer peace bond will be available where a judge is also satisfied that the person was convicted previously of a sexual offence in respect of a victim who is under the age of 14.

For the section 810.2 peace bond, the longer duration can apply where the court is satisfied that the offender has previously been convicted of a serious personal injury offence. Currently, the judge can also order that the defendant comply with any conditions that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the offender does not commit harm. These often include conditions to not have contact with potential victims or to stay away from certain places and to report regularly to the police or probation workers.

The amendments that we are putting forward will clarify that broader conditions can be imposed on defendants than those that are currently described. The additional conditions outlined in the amendments relating to both types of peace bonds include requiring a defendant to, for example, participate in treatment programs or wear an electronic monitoring device if the Attorney General consents, or remain within a specific geographic area unless permission to leave is granted by a judge, or remain at a residence at specific times, or abstain from consuming illegal drugs, alcohol or intoxicating substances. Clearly we are placing more options before the courts to prevent people from reoffending.

In addition, the very subsections in the two provisions regarding the types of conditions that can be considered will be amended so that they are worded more consistently. There are a number of wording differences between sections 810.1 and 810.2.

While there are certainly differences in who these provisions target, many of the wording differences have caused some difficulties in interpretation in the courts. As such, all provinces and territories have requested amendments that would provide a more uniform approach.

It is proposed, for example, that the judge must now consider, for both types of peace bonds, where they previously did so only for 810.2, whether it is desirable in the interests of safety to prohibit the defendant from possessing certain items, including firearms, or whether it is desirable to require the defendant to report to the correctional authority of a province or police authority.

The amendments in Bill C-27 will aid prosecutors considering a dangerous or long term offender designation. The bill will also enhance the ability of law enforcement officials to supervise and control offenders longer and more stringently if they are at high risk of reoffending.

Our three strikes law, Bill C-27, puts the protection of the public first, ends revolving door justice for violent offenders, and meets our election promise to Canadians. I ask all members to support this bill.