Shawn Murphy

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak to this motion this afternoon.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Toronto Centre.

This motion involves the basic freedom of speech enjoyed or shared by all members of Parliament and a recent ruling by the Ethics Commissioner of the Parliament of Canada. Again, freedom of speech has been with us for many centuries now. It is well understood. It is consistently applied. It is part of what I consider to be parliamentary law. It is part of our Constitution. It was adopted when our Constitution was drafted in 1867 and the previous speaker referred to that, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

I will be the first to admit that there have been certain instances in this assembly where that right has been abused.

That is as opposed to civil law, where if a member of Parliament, outside the chamber, says something that is not true, which is defamatory against another member of the public, that member is subject to the same obligations, the same sanctions, and the same rights as any other person.

Those are the factual circumstances that led up to this particular investigation, apparently. I do not know all the facts but the member for West Nova said something outside the chamber that was offensive to a former prime minister. A lawsuit either has been threatened or has been started, and again that all took place outside the chamber.

A complaint was made to the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner adjudicated that because of the real or threatened lawsuit, the member for West Nova can no longer participate in the debates of this assembly concerning that particular issue.

I think that is wrong. It just ignores parliamentary law. It ignores the Constitution of this country, but having said that, the Ethics Commissioner, in a ruling where she knew she was opening a can of worms, invited Parliament to make the amendment that we are making right now.

I should also say that this rule is not a Canadian rule. It is enjoyed by all Commonwealth countries, including Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, et cetera. However, we have to consider the ramifications for anyone who wants to argue against this motion, the ramifications to this assembly and the rights enjoyed by the members of Parliament.

If that ruling of the Ethics Commissioner were allowed to stand for any length of time at all, we would all receive these letters of libel, and I have received them and I have written them. They are very easy to prepare. One just writes a letter stating the facts, that one is offended, that one is going to seek damages, general damages, special damages, pecuniary damages, costs, and that an immediate apology is sought.

The letter is generally no more than a page or a page and a half. I would think one could get one done tonight for $50 if one were so inclined, and could have it issued by anyone in the assembly by 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Once that is done, if we were accept this ruling to its nth degree, that would mean the recipient of that letter could no longer participate in the debates of this assembly concerning that particular issue.

The abuses, if that were allowed to stand, are unimaginable. We could actually shut down debate on any issue by issuing these letters. The manufacturing sector could have a letter on the Minister of Finance's desk tomorrow morning complaining about statements that he made, and unfortunately, he would not be able to speak tomorrow about the crisis in our manufacturing sector.

The people who own and operate the tar sands could have a letter of complaint about certain remarks made about our Minister of the Environment, and then unfortunately, he would be shut down from participating in any of the debates or deliberations concerning that particular issue, and it goes on and on.

If anyone were to suggest that this is not a very serious issue and suggest that this should not be dealt with immediately, I would submit they are wrong.

A number of academics have spoken to this issue, and I have read at least six or eight columns of their comments. All of the academics unanimously agreed that this decision was either wrong, or, if it was right practically, it should be immediately amended so the rights, as we understand them, are restored so there is no disagreement.

I am not aware of anyone, except certain Conservative members of Parliament, who would disagree with that. I am surprised we are having this debate. I thought the motion would have gone through by consent but we are here today having a debate.

I have sat here for the last two hours listening to the arguments against the motion and most of it boils down to the fact that the Conservatives really do not have any kind of rational or logical argument against the motion, other than to suggest that it requires more debate because it is a serious issue, and I agree.

However, they then make the argument that the last speaker made, that it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I also agree with that argument but that committee has been basically shut down for the last seven months, like a number of other committees in the House.

What went on in that committee was that the majority of the committee voted to have hearings on the in and out scheme. Obviously, the Conservative members did not want to deal with that so they filibustered. They read books, magazines and transcripts. That went on for seven months so eventually half of the committee was shut down. That would be a situation if it were one committee, but we have a situation where at least four committees are on the very same basis.

Once an issue comes before the committee, it is debated, deliberated and voted upon. If the Conservative leadership in the Prime Minister's office does not want it to go ahead, they filibuster the committee, which is what happened yesterday in what I believe would be the Standing Committee on Government Operations. That is suspended also.

That is what is behind it, which is why it has now come to the House for debate and a vote. I understand that every member of Parliament, except the Conservative members who have been told not to vote for it, will be voting for the motion so that the issue can be resolved as soon as possible.

The argument the Conservatives make on why they do not want to deal with these things when they go before the committee is that they say that it is the tyranny of the majority. I do not understand that. That is how they are in power in a minority government. They are here representing 36% of the people. When a motion goes to committee, it receives the motion, debates it and rules on it but Conservatives will not go along with it, which is why we are in this position. Again, we are talking about three, four or five different committees of the House, which is a very unfortunate circumstance.

The previous speaker made a comment that I found troubling. The member said that the committees of Parliament should defer to the courts or other adjudicative bodies. I have been in the House for eight years now and that is not the way the system operates and it is not the way the system should operate.

I have sat on the public accounts committee when we went through the sponsorship hearings. We certainly were not going wait for a court hearing to go on for seven, eight or nine years to adjudicate. Every last issue involving those is still going on six years after the fact. I would think it will go on for another six years.

If we ever get into the situation where this assembly and the committees of this assembly thought for a minute that they had to wait for every court decision to be concluded, every appeal to be exhausted, every other avenue of application and injunction, we basically would not do anything. It would be so simple for anything to be gutted from the committee. All someone would need to do is make an application to the court. We all know it would be tied up for at least three or four years and nothing would happen in Parliament. I did find that rather troubling. It offends the law of Parliament and the supremacy of Parliament.

This motion should receive the support of most members of the House. It should be concluded soon and, hopefully, we can move on.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, I will be supporting this motion. It goes to the very heart of why we are here.

I should point out that the Ethics Commissioner, in her report, invited the House to make the amendment that we are making today. All it takes is $50 lawyers and they are off the committee, off the topic, and off the issue. Anyone could be thrown off any case or any issue if this ruling were allowed to stand, including of course the very first person, the Prime Minister, who started a claim against the Liberal Party of Canada. He would not be able to participate in debates in this House, if this ruling were allowed to stand, which I do not agree with.

We have a situation here, and the members across seem to debate this issue but do not seem to have any logical or rational argument against the motion except that it should be studied further. To that extent, I have a certain amount of sympathy for that argument. Yes, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be the logical committee, but as the member has indicated, it has been basically shut down for seven months and I would ask her to elaborate to the House as to why this committee has been shut down for seven months.

What are the circumstances that led up to the committee being shut down? Is there anything that the majority of Parliament, the majority of Canadians, can do to stop this? Does the Speaker have any supervisory role? Just why is it that this state of affairs has been allowed to continue?

[Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize Helen MacRae, who last Friday received the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation award.

Mrs. MacRae is a teacher, choir director, musician and composer who has been entertaining servicemen and servicewomen since the mid 1940s.

She is currently the accompanist for the Canada Remembers Chorus, which entertains veterans in legion halls, nursing homes and other locations around Prince Edward Island.

For the past five years, Mrs. MacRae has also found the time to organize free concerts, featuring wartime music entitled “We'll Meet Again”. These concerts are an eagerly waited afternoon of singing, dancing and reminiscing by veterans.

The commendation is awarded annually to individuals who have contributed in an exemplary manner to the care and well-being of veterans or to the remembrance of the contributions, sacrifices and achievements of veterans.

I ask all members of the House to join me today in congratulating Helen MacRae, a great Prince Edward Islander and a great Canadian.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon.

I, like a majority of Canadians, when I get up every morning and I read the newspaper I see what is going on. I have certainly come to the conclusion that this country is very much headed in the wrong direction.

It is my view, it is my vision, that the only way this country is going to work is with a strong central government speaking for every region, every province, and every person who lives in this country. That is not what we are seeing right now. We are basically seen as a phrase from another prime minister. This government is basically not even a head waiter. I would call it an ATM or a butler to the other provinces in Canada.

What we have is ill-conceived tax cuts. We have the highest spending government of any government ever elected in this country. We seem to have a lack of direction, a lack of leadership, and it would appear to me that we have lost our way.

This is said because it has happened in a short period of time. We all know, as Canadians, that we went through a very rough time, beginning in 1993. When the Conservatives were kicked out of office in that year, we all know that the annual deficit was $45 billion. We know that interest rates hovered around 11%. We know that unemployment was over 10%. We know that the debt to GDP ratio was 73%.

Decisions had to be made both monetary and fiscal. These were not easy decisions. These were decisions that took a lot of leadership, but these were decisions that were done. They were done by a strong central government.

As a result, we had 10 consecutive surpluses. There was a $100 billion tax cut. The debt to GDP ratio decreased to somewhere in the vicinity of 37% and all Canadians in the House, all Canadians in every province, and all Canadians in every region have every reason to be very proud.

However, if we do not pay attention to history, history will repeat itself and that is what I think is going on right now. Last week, Statistics Canada reported that in the first quarter we are back into negative growth after a long period of time. Every day we pick up the paper there are more job losses. We have a finance minister who is in a full frontal attack on the province of Ontario, stating that that province is the last place in the world where anyone should invest.

Confidence is such an important matter. It drives business. If there is no consumer confidence, consumers will not spend. If there is no business confidence, businesses will not invest. It is so important.

If the finance minister of this country does not have confidence in the province of Ontario, how do we expect General Motors to have any confidence? How do we expect any other business to have any confidence in this particular province?

When I looked at the budget, I was hoping to see initiatives that would be indicative of a strong central government, such as the productivity agenda, innovation, and the need, and I will admit there is some work being attempted on this, of a national securities regulator.

We want to see smart tax decreases, ones that encourage investment and savings. We would like to see something in affordable housing. We would like to see something that would try to eliminate or at least attempt to eliminate the interprovincial trade barriers that we see across Canada. We would like to see something in early childhood education, skills training, post-secondary education, research, especially research done by our important post-secondary institutions, and climate change. We would like to see something on Canada-U.S. relations.

To speak of Canada-U.S. relations, the worst that we have seen is the Conservative Party interjecting itself into the Democratic nomination process about a month ago, leaking information to the press about one of the candidates, Barack Obama. I just shudder to think if Mr. Obama becomes the president of the United States, what that will do to the relationship between Canada and the United States.

The reason why we are not seeing that is because these are so-called provincial jurisdictions. It is not our business. It is not our concern. Again, that disturbs me. I find it troubling and we have to question where this thinking comes from, who is developing this agenda, whose vision is it? When I talk to people from every part of Canada, that does not seem to be their thinking. We are a large geographical country with a relatively small population. People are looking for a strong central government with a pan-Canadian vision speaking for every person in every region of this country.

Where is this vision coming from? Who is developing it? I would suggest it is coming directly from the Prime Minister and maybe to a lesser extent from the Minister of Finance. He set his vision out a year or two before he was elected prime minister in this so-called firewall letter. He urged and pleaded with the then premier of Alberta to get out of medicare, get out of the income tax system that we have in the Canada, and get out of the use of the RCMP. He said to put a firewall or a moat around the province and go on its own without Canada.

The people I talk to from Alberta do not associate themselves with that vision. I do not associate myself with that vision. Most people in this House, I would suggest, do not associate with that vision or that agenda for Canada. People are looking for a strong central government and they do not see that at all.

One of the biggest issues facing Canadians right now is the need for action on climate change. We waited for the government for the last two and a half years. There has been nothing. It views it as a communications issue, not a real issue. We had the spectacle of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec coming together to their great credit and coming forward with a plan. Of course, we know what happened. Once that plan was announced, it was attacked by the federal Minister of the Environment.

They would not have had to do that if the Government of Canada took this seriously and did something, but that is not happening. Then, of course, we have the fight between the Minister of the Environment and the premiers of Quebec and Ontario. That will go on for quite a while I would assume and, of course, nothing is going to happen certainly from a pan-Canadian basis on the whole issue of climate change.

As one member of Parliament speaking in my little corner here, I find it disturbing. I find it troubling. I come back to the situation which I find a troubling spectacle with the Minister of Finance attacking the families, the workers, and the companies that live, work and invest in the province of Ontario.

Again, it is destroying confidence. I find it troubling that no other Conservative members of Parliament from the province of Ontario will get up and disassociate themselves with those remarks. They just clap when the Minister of Finance makes these statements. I am over here just shaking my head because I do not know how long this is going to go on. I am deeply concerned as to the further erosion of confidence from the remarks made by the Minister of Finance. I do hope they stop soon.

I want to add my words to the debate. I believe the government is going in the wrong direction. It is on the wrong path. It has lost its way. When we look back at history, this was not the vision of previous Conservative governments. It was not the vision and agenda of Sir John A. Macdonald. It certainly was not the vision and agenda of Brian Mulroney. It was not the vision and agenda of Joe Clark and I believe Canadians understand that.

[Aeronautics Act, June 2nd, 2008]

Quite briefly, the simple answer to that question is that there is no movement here to deregulate the industry. This is not complementary. The Department of Transport is, and shall remain, the body responsible for regulating that particular industry.

[Aeronautics Act, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my remarks, the committee devoted 70 meetings to this hearing. There was a whole host of stakeholders and witnesses, and some were opposed but most were in favour. Some had concerns but that is why we had many amendments. Most of the amendments that were made by the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party were passed, and form part of the legislation now before the House. The committee has done its work. We should move forward with the bill, have a vote, and see if members of Parliament support it or not.

To the credit of the Office of the Auditor General it did a performance audit, and I have it in my hand, about what is going on at Transport Canada. It had a number of concerns and it made a number of recommendations and suggestions. The Department of Transport agrees with the suggestions that the Office of the Auditor General made and that will move forward as well.

As I indicated previously, with the increase in the number of people travelling by planes there has to be, and this is following what is going on around the world, a change in the methodology of safety. This is not deregulation. The primary regulatory requirements have to continue to be within the Department of Transport.

[Aeronautics Act, June 2nd, 2008]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

During the 38th Parliament, I think the committee spent most of its time on this legislation, and I congratulate the members for that.

We have a situation now, as everyone in this assembly knows, wherein a lot of the committees are breaking now. They are not working at all. A certain matter comes before the committee, it is moved, a majority of the members of the committee vote in favour of it and then the Conservative Party filibusters it or, in one case, the chair walked out. We had the Cadman affair and the in and out election scandal.

I assume by the end of this week we are going to have, if the situation involving the previous minister of foreign affairs comes before a committee and if the other situation involving the leak on the NAFTA issue during the democratic primaries in the United States comes before the committee, two additional committees in the House dysfunctional.

However, going back to the legislation, this is a complex change in the whole system of aeronautic oversight, bringing us in line with emerging international standards, standards, which are mandated by the International Civil Aviation Organization. It states that each member country must establish a safety management system. I believe those systems have to be in place by the year 2009. Under that general oversight system, each company must implement a safety management system that is acceptable to the regulatory body in that country.

Work has been ongoing. This is not starting now. I believe the Department of Transport started it at least five years ago. Initial work went on. Some pilot projects with certain companies in certain regions were implemented. It is an ongoing process.

The Office of the Auditor General did an extensive performance audit on this work. It was released in the March 2008 report of the Auditor General. I believe five recommendations were made to the Department of Transport. I would not consider that a bad report. I would not consider it a good report. However, it did make some good recommendations as to this ongoing work, which is basically a change in the safety methodology as to how the Department of Transport undergoes it.

However, as I pointed out previously, the bill has been with this assembly for three years now, in various forms. The committee listened to the stakeholders and it deliberated and debated every aspect of the bill over what I consider to be a very extended period of time. Prior to prorogation, when the bill, at that time was known as Bill C-6, the committee began hearings on February 12, 2007, and concluded in June of that year, after devoting 17 meetings to the legislation.

In the 38th Parliament, it was the single piece of legislation to which the committee devoted the largest amount of time, which is apparently a rush job. Again, I want congratulate the committee for the excellent work it did on the legislation.

The committee during its hearings heard from the International Civil Aviation Organization, Transport Canada, the Department of National Defence, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, the Air Canada Pilots Association, the Canadian Business Aviation Association, airline companies both big and small, Teamsters Canada, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, Justice Virgil Moshansky from the Dryden air crash review, and the list goes on.

After these presentations, amendments were made to Bill C-7 by all members and a majority of these amendments were passed in committee, based on the testimony that came forward from the many stakeholders and other witnesses, who presented before the committee.

Some of the key amendments to the bill made by the committee were: providing a definition to explain safety management system and updating the International Civil Aviation Organization's standards. There have been several amendments made to the Aeronautics Act over the years, but none of these amendments actually seemed to address the matter of bringing Transport Canada's standards and regulations up to the ICAO standards. The amendment was put forward by the Bloc, NDP and Liberal members of the committee.

Another amendment was having the minister be responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters related to aeronautics. Therefore, making aeronautical activities meet the highest safety and security standards.

Finally, ensuring that regulatory oversight is not replaced by safety management systems, so that safety management systems that have to be implemented by each company that operates in the aeronautics industry in Canada, whether it be the carriers, the maintenance companies or the supplies would have an additional layer of safety available to Canadians who use the airplanes.

The facts speak very clearly, the number of people using airplanes in Canada is increasing dramatically. I believe the last figure we have is for the year 2006. In that year there were 99 million passenger flights taken in Canada, which was a 6% increase over the previous year, 2005. Industry estimates indicate that that will increase by about 40% between now and 2015. There is a tremendous challenge out there for our regulatory authorities.

Back to Bill C-7. I submit that this bill was under extreme scrutiny from all members of Parliament on this particular committee. Safety was the fundamental question addressed by members on the committee when examining this bill.

The new safety management system addressed in Bill C-7 focused on ongoing improvements to safety measurements in the aeronautics industry. Safety management systems would allow companies to have an internal way of operating which will enable employees to report safety violations confidentially within the company.

I should point out that was a point of contention within the committee debates, whether it should be confidential or it should be open. Finally, it came down that it should be confidential because of course we knew that employees would fear losing their jobs or being reprimanded by management for reporting safety violations. That ties in with the recent whistleblower legislation that was introduced. These matters can be dealt with confidentially.

We do not want people to be allowed to abuse the system. If they were involved in any way with the violations of any safety code, we certainly would not want them being allowed to report that violation in a confidential manner.

With Bill C-7, Liberal members on the committee felt it was necessary to have an environment that would encourage people to come forward voluntarily in reporting safety errors, which would therefore create an effective preventive system against any future aviation accidents.

In addition, Liberal members wanted to ensure federal representation would always be present to guarantee the regulatory process would still be in place. A safety management system is not deregulation in Bill C-7. Members on the committee made certain when examining the bill that Transport Canada would have regulatory oversight of that particular industry.

That is why, in my humble assertion, this bill really ought to have received royal assent last June. That is why I am surprised to see the bill still here in this House. The NDP has now decided it is not willing to support Bill C-7, despite hearing a number of witnesses and stakeholders in committee and despite the desire of members to have this bill go forward in the House.

Committee members have done a good job. The motion we are debating today is with respect to Bill C-7. It is, in my view, just another attempt by the NDP to filibuster in the House to delay the bill, to see it not come to a vote. I hope it comes to a vote soon. I do hope that the House can move forward on Bill C-7 and allow all members to vote on the bill as soon as possible.

[Aeronautics Act, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The bill is very similar in most respects to its predecessor, Bill C-62, which was introduced in the House in September 2005 by the previous Liberal government. Therefore, the bill and its predecessors have been kicking around for approximately three years now. For those who doubt the Conservative government's approach to environmental issues, and that list is growing every day, I would remind them of the government's unusual commitment to recycling, that is to recycle legislation from the previous Liberal government. This is a situation which reminds me of an old saying “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.

Unfortunately, the previous Bill C-62 died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament, without having gone beyond first reading. Bill C-6, which was the predecessor to Bill C-7, was introduced before prorogation by the minister of transport in April 2006 and came up for a vote at second reading. Members of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party did not vote in favour, yet Bill C-6, which is now Bill C-7, still passed 195 to 71. Then it was sent to the House transport committee for further study and deliberation.

In preparing for these brief remarks, I reviewed certain segments of Hansard. I talked to some members of the transport committee and I was encouraged by the work that the committee did. I was very encouraged by the actions of the Bloc Québécois, which originally voted against the bill. After hearing from many witnesses, that party proposed amendments in committee, which addressed its concerns. When the bill came back to this assembly, the Bloc at that time voted for it. That is the manner in which the House ought to operate and that is the manner in which our committee system ought to function.

Members of the New Democratic Party, on the other hand, were unable to convince committee members of the merit of its concerns or arguments and amendments and it voted against it, instead of respecting the work done at committee. The NDP members moved a hoist amendment. Essentially they have taken their ball and gone home. If they cannot have their own way, no one can. In effect the work done by the parties that represent in excess of 80% of Canadians, as per the results of the last federal election in January 2006, is being stalled by the New Democratic Party.

Marleau and Montpetit teaches us:

The hoist amendment originated in British practice, where it appeared in the eighteenth century. It enabled the House of Commons to postpone the resumption of the consideration of a bill.

An analysis of hoist amendments moved in the House of Commons since Confederation shows that the cases in which this procedure has been used fall into two specific periods. The first was from 1867 to about 1920, and the second from 1920 to the present day.

The first hoist amendment was moved on November 28, 1867. Prior to 1920, it was the government, not the opposition, that used hoist amendments most often. Because the House had only a little time for government business during the short sessions of that era, the government sometimes felt obliged to dispose of a great number of private Members’ bills by using the hoist procedure so that it would have more time to devote to its own legislation.

Since 1920, the period set aside for government business has grown to take up the largest share of the time in the House, and hoist amendments have gradually come to be used almost exclusively by the opposition.

From an examination of the precedents, it is clear that hoist amendments were moved to motions for second and third reading during periods when there was considerable tension between the parties. Those amendments rarely passed: of the scores of cases recorded in the Journals, only four succeeded. In each of those four cases, the hoist amendment was moved by the government with the intent of defeating a private Member’s bill.

As members can see, in order to block the work done by the other parties, and not only the other parties but by Parliament itself, the New Democratic Party had to invoke an obscure parliamentary tactic, which is a rarity in the House and these times.

Again, dealing with the bill itself, it was dealt extensively and at length by the transport committee. I congratulate all members of that committee. The committee did its job. It took the appropriate time to consider, to deliberate on the bill, amendments were moved, debated, some were passed, some were not passed. That is the way the committee system should work.

There is a lot of noise in the House. I can hardly hear myself. Is there anyway you can restore order, Mr. Speaker?

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the member's views on what is happening internationally. Canada, for quite some time now, has not had a new nuclear facility, nor have that many been built in the United States. However, in other countries there have been quite a number of new nuclear facilities and new technologies vis-à-vis the disposition and storage of waste, especially in France.

We are certainly under no obligation to follow what is going on in some of the G-7 or G-20 countries but would this legislation conform to what is going on in this area in other developed countries?

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to say a few words on Bill C-393.

The bill has three points. It would invoke a mandatory minimum for the commission of a criminal offence with a concealed weapon. It would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide victims and their families more information on release applications. It also seeks to codify the remission for time served. I do not think it is in the Criminal Code now, but a lot of the judges use the two for one formula and this would go one for one.

At the outset, although I respect the member for Leeds—Grenville and I appreciate the work he has put into this and I appreciate his motivations, I cannot support the bill, mainly because of the implementation of the mandatory minimum sentence for this offence. It appeals to certain individuals, but the bottom line is it takes away or it fetters any use of judicial discretion.

In any case, coming before a judge, the judge is required to apply the fundamental accepted principles of sentencing, the established ones being retribution, deterrence, possible rehabilitation of the offender, protection of the public, circumstances surrounding the offence, circumstances surrounding the offender and others.

No two cases are alike. A judge could practise for 40 years and he or she would never see two cases that are the same. I had the privilege of practising law for 25 years. I acted both as a part time prosecutor on these cases and as defence counsel. I have looked into the eyes of these individuals. There are no two cases alike.

It has been done in certain cases, but the imposition of a mandatory minimum in offences such as this would, in my opinion, be a step backwards.

We are dealing with a first offender, and this again goes back to the fact that no two cases alike. It is perhaps the person's first real run-in with the law. I have seen situations of younger people getting in with the crowd or they are under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The judge has to take into account deterrence, retribution, circumstances of the offender and protection of the public. However, in that case, as in a lot of the cases, rehabilitation of the offender has to be a primary consideration.

The circumstances change fundamentally if we are dealing with a person with a record of three or four criminal offences. Then those other principles give way to protection of the public.

I do not suggest that sentences be lenient or that there be no sentences. What I am saying is no two cases are the same and we cannot throw out of the back of the truck the fundamental principle of judicial discretion. I am like everyone else in Canada. I see situations. Sometimes I up the paper and read that somebody convicted of an offence, which sounds terrible, and probably is, gets what I consider to be a light sentence. Now that could be one of two situations. The first is that in actual fact the sentence was quite a bit lighter than it should have been, maybe there was an appeal or maybe the judge screwed up. The second, and more likely, is that the media got the facts screwed up totally. It does not describe the offence or the offender, and we are left with an erroneous impression that this has come about.

The bill does not take into consideration regional differences. We have the northern communities. We have east and west. Everyone has different crime rates, different causes of crime. This would be an amendment to the Criminal Code and would be binding on all regions in Canada.

The bill does not take into account differences in cultures. We have a situation where people who come from the western province, where you come from, Mr. Speaker, where the first nations population has a certain percentage, but the percentage in prisons is five or six times that. Why is that? Why do we have five or six times the percentage of first nations in our prisons? Is there a reason? Will imposing the mandatory minimum sentence improve that? Everyone knows it will not. What is the cause of this? It is early in the game, but I believe some things such as healing circles and restorative justice are working. Once we pass this legislation, a lot of that may be go out the back door.

I have concern about the whole administration of justice. A lot of these cases are bargained. Literally the system cannot handle the cases before it, but if there is a mandatory minimum, no defence counsel will agree to anything and we will go to trial.

Those are some of the considerations. In principle, it sounds great, but there is fundamentally one problem: it does not work.

The previous speaker talked about the situation in the United States. This was a movement, which started in the United States about 20 years ago, where once it invoked the mandatory minimums, the crime rate would go down and everything would be great. It did not happen. The previous speaker said that some states had repealed their mandatory minimums. I actually know the number of states. Since 2003, 25 states have repealed the legislation dealing with mandatory minimum sentences. That probably represents half of the people living in the United States. The research indicates that it generally does not work. Our southern neighbours are realizing this now and that is why they are repealing it.

I make these comments with the greatest respect to the member for Leeds—Grenville and the motivations behind this draft bill, but I cannot support it.

On the principle of the so-called two for one formula, as far as I am aware, that is not in the Criminal Code now. It is a practice that has developed over the years. It is generally widely accepted. I am not saying I agree or disagree with it because every case should be dealt with on its merits. We had the high profile case of Brenda Martin back from Mexico and there was speculation a judge would be hearing the case in Canada and would give her the so-called two for one credit. Again, it comes back to the judicial discretion in a particular case.

The two for one is not codified now. It is just a rule of thumb. If we had the one for one codified, that would go forward with the actual sentence the judge gave. Every circumstance is different. If people were in jail for protection of the public, that is one situation. However, if they were in jail for two years because they could raise the $20,000 bail, that is an entirely different situation. I would argue in that case probably they should get more credit than one day for one day. Do not forget in that two year period they were in jail because they could not raise the bail, they would not be eligible for parole. If it worked the way it often does, people might be eligible for parole after serving half the sentence, but the two years they were in jail would not apply.

The point is that we will never have two cases that are the same. Each case has to be dealt with on its merits and on the circumstances surrounding the case. In a situation like this where we are trying to invoke mandatory minimums, I suggest it is a step backward.