2005-10-21

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, an act to amend the Criminal Code (vehicle identification number), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-64, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with the tampering or removal of vehicle identification numbers.
The bill has been referred to as being in the memory of Chuck Cadman. Chuck Cadman, as we know, presented a bill to the House after years of imploring the government to deal with the situations of tampering with vehicle ID numbers and the tremendously rising rate of auto thefts across Canada, particularly in the area of British Columbia where Mr. Cadman resided, which was the Surrey lower mainland area where car theft is rampant and has been for years. Mr. Cadman had been imploring the government to deal with this in a substantial way in respect of organized crime that has created these car theft rings. They steal cars and change the ID numbers or destroy them in some way so that they cannot be identified.
The way things are at present is that people who are in possession of vehicles that have tampered ID numbers can be charged with possession of goods obtained through a crime if the crown can prove that case. However the thing that has been missing in the Criminal Code is the crime of the act of changing a vehicle identification number or defacing it in some way that would benefit the criminal involved in the theft of the vehicle.
It is kind of confusing as to why this was not in the Criminal Code because the act of defacing or removing VIN numbers is in fact for criminal intent and not many other reasons, which is why Mr. Cadman was so anxious to get the government for some years to act on this.
Now the government has responded in somewhat of a fashion and has said that it is introducing Bill C-64 to respect the wishes of Mr. Cadman, who was a member in the House. However one has to question the government's sincerity because it has taken the wishes of Mr. Cadman and how he wanted this bill to be dealt with and made some additions to it, which, in effect, have dramatically watered down the original pleas of Mr. Cadman to deal with this.
What Mr. Cadman wanted to have is a bill that said, “Everyone commits an offence who, partially or wholly alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle ID number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse would be subject to an indictable offence”. The crown would have a relatively easy time of proving its case. When someone is charged and appears before the judge, the crown could give the evidence that the person was caught engaged in the act of removing one or more vehicle identification numbers and provide the evidence that he or she did it. Under the wording that Mr. Cadman originally had in his bill, that would be it. The crown's case would be fairly straightforward.
However, the Liberal government, in its wisdom, has altered the bill to make it easier for someone to get off the charge. Instead of the Crown now having to prove in a straightforward way that the people charged were engaged and had altered or defaced, wholly or in part, a vehicle identification number, the Liberals want to give the people charged, despite all the evidence that they did it, some wriggle room in the courtroom.
They want the Crown to prove that the people who took the ID number off the car, defaced it wholly or in part, did it because they wanted to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle. One has to ask, why would someone alter, deface or remove a vehicle identification number unless they wanted to conceal the identity of the vehicle? It does not sound like a popular past time to me to just go around doing it for fun and I am sure that my colleagues, even on the Liberal side, would have to agree with me on that.
It defies even imagination why the government would want to add this piece of legislation to the original thought that Mr. Cadman had to arrest the proliferation of vehicle theft. Why would the government want to add this? Now the Crown has to prove that the people really did it because they wanted to conceal the identity.
By looking at the bill, one has to automatically conclude that this is the Liberals up to their old tricks again, of finding ways to keep criminals out of prison rather than to put them in prison for the crimes they commit.
The addition says, “—and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle.” This addition adds considerably to the Crown's job of proving the offence. It gets away from something that is very straightforward. When people are caught with a vehicle that is not their's and it is proven that the people removed, or defaced wholly or in part the identity of the vehicle, that is straightforward. That is what Mr. Cadman wanted in his original pleas to the government to do something about auto theft.
The government has said it will do that, but it would add a loophole, so people charged can get out. As everyone knows in this country, Liberals have been and continue to be soft on crime and that is why we have the rate of crime in the country that we do. It is like a revolving door in our courtrooms because of the legislation that the government has passed. There are criminals charged with crimes, anywhere from vehicle theft and altering vehicle identification numbers to crimes like sexual abuse, murder and manslaughter. It is like a revolving door.
The criminals in this country have no fear of the courts because the government has continually adopted a no go to jail policy. It is not like Monopoly where people go to court and get proven guilty. It is like landing on go directly to jail. The government does not play that game. It has a no go to jail policy and its reasoning for all the years that I have been in this place, about 12 or 13 years now, is that we do not want to put in jail people in this country who commit serious crimes. We would rather, as we have seen in so many cases, give them a conditional sentence and put them under house arrest.
We just had one case referred to in this place yesterday. Someone was found guilty of sexual assault and rape of a minor. It was brought up in a question to the Minister of Justice. The person had received, if one can believe it, a two years less a day conditional sentence that allowed the person to be under house arrest.
Is that not something? Some eminent politician said, and I think he is in this chamber, that if a government cannot protect our children, then it has no right to claim to govern this country. The children of our country are the most vulnerable. If a government cannot protect them, then how can Canadians trust it to run this country? No truer words were ever spoken and I thank the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
This addition to Mr. Cadman's original intent of this bill is simply another example of how the Liberals have a habit, almost a thirst, to water down the Criminal Code, so that we do not have to put criminals in jail for the havoc they wreak on society. As I said, the government's excuse for that is that our jails are overcrowded. Our courtrooms are overcrowded and behind schedule in every respect. The government's answer to that is not to expand the court system, not to expand the prisons, but simply not put people in jail any more. That solves the problem.
That is the answer that the Liberal government has given to members of Parliament like myself for the last 12 years that I have been here. The Liberals want to solve the overcrowding conditions in our prisons. They want to solve the workload of our courts and our country. So, this is what they will do: they will just simply not put criminals in jail. They will make it easy for them to get out on bail, so, that will ease the burden on the court system. That is what this Liberal government has been all about.
Our official opposition justice critic said that the two bills tabled by the Liberal government, in fact, soften the impact of the proposed laws of the late Chuck Cadman. Mr. Cadman had been asking the government for many years in this place to implement legislation that would provide stiff penalties for the alteration or removal of vehicle identification numbers.
Chuck Cadman was a tireless fighter for the people of North Surrey and the lower mainland, and for the rights of victims of crime across the country. He believed in what he was doing because he saw that crime happening in his community on a firsthand basis. He was aware of the rapid increase in auto theft.
The lower mainland and the Fraser Valley, as we know, are the areas where auto theft has just expanded at an incredible rate. It is controlled by major crime now. It is costing somewhere around $600 million. A $600 million a year business, and a good portion of that is happening right in the lower mainland and the Fraser valley.
One of Mr. Cadman's priorities in the last number of years was to address the growing concern of the misuse of motor vehicles. Like many regions of Canada, Surrey faced an astronomical increase in the number of auto thefts, as well as an increase in death and injuries caused by the irresponsible use of motor vehicles on public roads. With the theft of vehicles, we are not just dealing with, and the Liberals know this, the fact that the vehicle was stolen and sold for parts or sold overseas on the black market.
However, in the commission of an auto theft, far too often we read in the newspapers that there has been a police chase. When a vehicle has been reported stolen, the police have a responsibility to apprehend the person who is driving it. Far too often we see a tragic result or end to the police attempt to apprehend people because the stolen vehicle has gone through a stop light or rammed another car with a death involved.
Let us give the police credit. They have implemented a number of rules that they operate by whereby they decide when to give up on that chase if they feel that the public is in danger. Even operating within those rules, we must understand that the people driving those stolen vehicles have no responsibility. They just want to get away. Far too often we see it resulting in an automobile accident that causes death and serious injury.
What do we do to curb the actual theft in the first place? Mr. Cadman seemed to think that if we implemented some legislation that made it a little tougher on the people who would steal a vehicle and remove the identification number, that might curtail the actual thought of stealing a car in the first place. There is almost no deterrent at all now. If somehow Mr. Cadman could have had his bill passed in the spirit of what was presented with the strictness of the bill, that would have produced a deterrent for people involved in the theft of vehicles.
The government has said that Bill C-64 was respectful of Mr. Cadman and his wishes, but it has been watered down so much it fails in so many ways to respect what Mr. Cadman wanted in a piece of legislation in the first place. The government continues to practice a policy of governing that is soft on crime and we see it again in this case. It practices a policy to leave even violent criminals out on the street rather than putting them away in jails and protecting society. The government believes that a holistic approach to crime is a better way of keeping our community safe.
I can assure everyone that we in the Conservative Party, as the next government of Canada, for the first time in 12 or 13 years, will take steps that will address crime and the criminals who commit crime in this country in a way that the government has abrogated its responsibility to do.
I cannot wait until I see the minister of justice from the Conservative Party stand in the House introducing real legislation to fight crime in this country instead of watered down mush that comes from the Liberal government. Criminals are laughing at the justice system in Canada and they are allowed to laugh because the Liberal government will not do the right things to address crime. The Conservative Party will do just that after the next election.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. friend review the alleged differences between the private member's bill originally submitted by our late colleague, Mr. Chuck Cadman, and the bill that is here now. My friend describes the government bill as watered down. I want him to focus on that and explain to me how is it watered down? How is it his view that it is watered down because it was also the view of a previous speaker from the Conservatives, yet the penalty sections for this new offence are worded identically?
Therefore, if there is some issue here that I do not understand, hopefully the hon. member can correct this for the record. Because if he does not, it is quite possible that his colleagues are going to keep getting up and repeat something that the Conservative Party's research people have produced which, as is so often the case, is inaccurate.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I just love it when Liberal members hand me gifts like that.
The member for Scarborough—Rouge River knows that Mr. Cadman's intention was that anyone who wholly or in part alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle ID number without lawful excuse is committing an offence, when it is proven that the person has done it, period. That is the offence. That makes it very easy for the crown in any court in this country to convict a person on the act of removing or defacing wholly or in part the VIN of a vehicle. That is the criminal offence Mr. Cadman wanted in his bill.
The government said that would make it too easy for any crown attorney to put someone in jail, so the government added “and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”. The crown now has to tell the judge that the case has been proven and the person charged did indeed destroy or remove the VIN.
Because the Liberal government added that obligation, it now has to be proven that the individual did it to hide the identity of the vehicle. More time will be needed because this addition in Bill C-64 to section 377.1 of the Criminal Code makes it necessary to prove the person did it because he wanted to hide the vehicle's identification. His lawyer could be right and say he was doing it just because it was fun. The crown has to prove that he really wanted to hide the vehicle's identification number.
That is the part of the bill that the Conservative Party has a problem with. The government has provided a loophole to people who destroy vehicle identification numbers on vehicles. I hope that is clear.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to let Canadians know that I share Prince George with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George and we make a great team in representing that city.
I listened with great interest to his remarks about this bill, about justice issues in general and about the Liberals' soft on crime approach. I was reminded when I was listening to his remarks that the Liberals always seem to take a good idea and weaken it.
This legislation is a good idea, make no mistake about it, and we are supportive of the idea, but we are opposed because the Liberals have taken a good idea from an opposition member, in this case Chuck Cadman, and they have softened it and weakened it. The Liberals are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than the rights of the victim, whether it is someone who has had their car stolen, or someone who has been harmed and in some cases killed by a street racer, or whether it is someone who has been hurt, raped or murdered. The culprit always seems to get a conditional sentence.
This is something that I and parties I have been associated with have been concerned about ever since the Liberal government brought in conditional sentencing. The justice minister has now made a vague promise to study it and may change it at some point in the near future. I can assure Canadians watching the proceedings at home that when the Liberals change it, they will still leave legal loopholes for criminals to get away with murder.
My colleague from Prince George obviously has followed these justice issues with great interest and has spoken passionately about them over the last 12 years. I wonder if has noticed other areas where the government has left legal loopholes so lawyers can get their clients off without serving appropriate jail time.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes to respond to that question. I am sure we could have a four hour emergency debate on the loopholes that the government has left in the Criminal Code, or in many respects, deliberately put in the Criminal Code so that the outcome of the courts would be more appropriate to the Liberals' philosophy that criminals should not go to jail, but rather should serve time in the community so that they could commit more crimes.
Let me deal with the promise made by the Minister of Justice yesterday. After it was brought up that a child rapist was given a conditional sentence under house arrest, he promised he would fix that.
We only have one thing to say to Canadians, to the House and to the Liberals. The Liberals should hang their heads in shame when they think about this. How many promises since 1993 has the Liberal government made to Canadians time after time after time and how many promises have they broken? That is the response that we give to the Minister of Justice. He should not talk about it if he cannot do it.
The Liberals have talked about getting tough on crime so many times and they have not followed through. They came back with some mishmash watered down addition to the Criminal Code that really means nothing except that it will be easier for crooks to get off. That is what they do. They have broken every other promise they have made.
Before the last election the Prime Minister said, “I will fix health care in this country for a generation and I will do it within a year”. It came out a couple of days ago that one year after the Prime Minister made the promise to fix the waiting lists, the waiting time has improved by one day. Instead of 18 weeks, it is 18 weeks less a day. That is the improvement the Liberal government has made in the waiting lists for operations in this country.
The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They stand up and so self-righteously declare themselves as the saviours of public health care in this country. That is a joke and a fraud. Private health care in this country has never had such a rapid increase. Under that Liberal government with a Prime Minister who was the second most important person in the Liberal government for so many years, the Minister of Finance, who oversees all the money that goes into health care. It is phony. The Liberals' promises to fix health care are phony. They are now and they always have been.
The Liberals' promises to fix the justice system are phony. They always have been and they still are.
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-64, a government bill aimed at combating the involvement of organized crime in the theft of motor vehicles by making it an offence to tamper with a vehicle identification number. I will simply refer to that as a VIN for the purposes of my remarks today.
This important bill was inspired, as has been mentioned earlier, by the late Chuck Cadman and a private member's bill brought forward by him, namely Bill C-287. Of course, while Mr. Cadman would not have claimed to be the originator of the thought, he certainly was the promoter of the initiative to make the act of changing the vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle a criminal offence.
In summary, Bill C-64 would make it an offence without lawful excuse to alter, obliterate or remove a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle under circumstances that gave rise to an inference that this was done to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle.
It is proposed that anyone who commits this offence would be liable, if proceeded with by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or would be prosecuted by a summary conviction procedure. By virtue of section 787 of the Criminal Code, people convicted under the summary conviction provisions can face up to a maximum term of six months or a $2,000 fine.
As previously indicated, Bill C-64 was inspired by the original private member's bill. That private member's bill would have made it an offence for anyone without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon the person, to alter, deface or remove a vehicle identification number. That particular bill provided that if proceeded by way of indictment, the prison term would be five years maximum and if by summary conviction the similar six months' imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
Therefore, there are real similarities between this and the private member's bill. However, there are a couple of differences.
First and foremost, the private member's bill placed what is known as a persuasive burden on the accused person to prove the existence of a lawful excuse for tampering with a vehicle identification number. Therefore, that bill required an accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had a lawful excuse. That is called a shifting onus or shifting burden in the Criminal Code. We generally do not do it very much at all because it shifts the burden to the citizen to prove that he or she had the right to do what they did. That is not the way we generally prosecute our citizens.
There is a fundamental element in our criminal justice system that an accused person will not be convicted of a criminal offence if they raise a reasonable doubt. Therefore, under the private member's bill a person accused of VIN tampering would face the prospect of a conviction, even though they may have raised a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
Therefore, Bill C-287 and the reverse onus provision raised significant charter and other criminal justice considerations.
Instead, the government bill, Bill C-64, borrowing very heavily on Mr. Cadman's bill, would require an accused to raise the defence of lawful excuse based on the usual test in criminal law for raising defences, namely, the test of raising sufficient evidence on each element of the defence for it to be considered by a judge or a jury.
By adopting an offence which would not on its face attract charter litigation, we are contributing to the utility of this offence as a prosecutorial tool. We understand now, after many years of the charter, that to place a real conspicuous charter issue into a new Criminal Code provision would place the Criminal Code at considerable risk as a prosecutorial tool with it facing considerable amount of litigation. I think all members would agree that we want to ensure that the laws we pass can and will be used with reasonable utility for years to come by prosecutors and police.
In addition, Bill C-64 would require that the alteration, obliteration or removal of a vehicle ID number would be done under circumstances that would give rise to a reasonable inference that it was done to conceal the identify of the vehicle. This element was not included in Bill C-287.
The purpose of this element of the government bill is to distance the offence from those people such as legitimate auto wreckers or mechanics who may, in the course of their work, alter, remove or obliterate a vehicle ID number. This consideration was made as it would have been bad policy to craft an offence under which a large body of legitimate workers could have been caught under its scope, just on the straight wording of the section.
I think all members would agree that the manner in which the government bill addresses this issue is sound. I hope that is the case on this side of the House, but not on the other side.
Various key justice system stakeholders have called upon the Government of Canada to enact such an offence for vehicle ID tampering.
First, the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft, which is a multi-stakeholder group established in May 2000 representing stakeholders mainly from police, community and the insurance industry groups, released a report in March 2003 entitled “Organized Vehicle Theft Rings”. This report, among other proposals, recommended the creation of a distinct vehicle identification number tampering offence in the Criminal Code.
In addition, in August 2003 the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution calling on the Government of Canada to create a Criminal Code offence specifically prohibiting the alteration, obliteration or removal of a vehicle ID number.
Finally, the Canadian Association of Police Boards in 2000 passed a resolution calling upon the federal government to enact legislation to combat theft in their communities, which would include the creation of that type of Criminal Code offence.
I am pleased to say that we have answered all these calls with Bill C-64.
In 2004 there were nearly 170,000 motor vehicle thefts in Canada. This translates to a rate of roughly 530 vehicle thefts per 100,000 people. I am pleased to note a slight decline in the rate since 2003. In that year it was 550 vehicles per 100,000.
In order to compare certain provincial rates with the national rate, in 2004 the rate of motor vehicle theft in British Columbia was 889 per 100,000, a significant uptake. In Manitoba it was 1,364, a significant increase above that of the national average. On the other end of the spectrum, Prince Edward Island had a rate of 187 and Ontario was 337.
Despite these variations in the rate of theft from province to province, the crime is still all too frequent in Canada. That is why, in addition to the current bill before the House, the Government of Canada also is committed to examining the issue of motor vehicle theft more generally with our provincial and territorial partners.
In this regard, on January 25 at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice meeting, as brought forward by Nova Scotia, all ministers agreed to send the matter of Criminal Code amendments affecting motor vehicle theft or organized motor vehicle theft, increased penalties and reckless driving to senior officials in each of the provinces for further study. Therefore, the federal-provincial-territorial officials are now working collaboratively on assessing whether a separate Criminal Code indictable offence is needed to deal with this category of auto theft and whether current penalties are appropriate.
In assessing whether the government bill would truly add an additional useful tool for our law enforcement, I should outline the existing ways that motor vehicle theft and related offences are dealt with under the code. I do this so we can see how relatively weak the current code provisions may appear.
The code addresses the crime of motor vehicle theft predominantly through its theft provisions. If offenders are convicted of theft over $5,000, they would be subject to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. In addition, those who engage in motor vehicle theft and related crimes are often charged with the offence of fraud. This offence carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment on indictment.
The offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent, otherwise known as the joyriding offence, is a straight summary conviction offence. Therefore, an offender faces a maximum six month term of imprisonment or a fine of $2,000 or both once convicted.
As other speakers have noted before me, the offence of possession of property obtained by crime is particularly relevant to those who engage in vehicle identification number tampering. Since there is currently no Criminal Code provision against VIN tampering, those who engage in this activity are often charged with the possession of property offence. The punishment for that offence, if the property is valued over $5,000, is 10 years imprisonment on indictment.
All too often those who commit motor vehicle theft flee when approached by law enforcement. In doing so, these offenders, if they are driving when they flee, endanger the lives of innocent third parties, law enforcement officials and even themselves. If no one is injured as a result of such a flight, then the offender would face up to five years imprisonment. In the event that bodily harm results from that flight, the offender faces up to 14 years imprisonment. Finally, if death were to unfortunately result, the offender faces a maximum term of life imprisonment.
I think all members would agree that these existing offences provide a wide range of tools and sanctions, and will be complemented by the addition of a new VIN tampering offence. The broader issue is whether the code currently brings to bear sufficient focus on the whole range of auto theft and organized crime auto theft offences. The FPT officials who are working on this now will bring public policy focus there.
I also am encouraged by recent changes brought forward by my colleague, the Minister of Transport. New regulations regarding the mandatory installation of vehicle immobilization devices have been noted as leading to the significant reduction of motor vehicle theft, especially in cases of younger offenders. I look forward to a time when perhaps all vehicles manufactured in Canada will have these important anti-theft devices installed.
I think all hon. members can agree that the creation of a Criminal Code offence for intentional alteration, obliteration or removal of a vehicle identification number can serve many purposes.
First, it fills a gap in the Criminal Code in a meaningful way. Second, it provides a new tool for police and crown prosecutors in the investigation and prosecution of organized vehicle theft. Finally, it responds to the call of key justice system stakeholders to enact such an offence, while at the same time honouring the commitment of our colleague, the late Chuck Cadman, to those and other justice system issues by bringing forward a legislative reform that was advanced by the honourable and distinguished member who so sadly is no with us any longer.
I would therefore ask all members to join me in supporting this important Criminal Code amendment.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-64, which will provide the police with an additional tool in the fight against networks active in the theft, appearance alteration and resale of motor vehicles. Those networks, too often, enable criminal organizations to finance other criminal activities.
It is important to recall that this bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice on September 28, 2005 and that it is identical, almost verbatim—still, not enough to satisfy my Conservative colleagues—to private member's Bill C-287 tabled on October 17, 2004, by the late Mr. Chuck Cadman, who, until his untimely passing, was the member for Surrey North.
As I indicated, this bill amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to alter, remove or obliterate a vehicle identification number, or VIN, on a motor vehicle. One of the means used by offenders to facilitate the theft, appearance alteration and resale of motor vehicles is VIN tampering. In fact, motor vehicle theft is endemic; it is becoming increasingly widespread. In 2004, approximately 170,000 vehicle thefts were reported in Canada. This is a very lucrative enterprise, one which often enables crime organizations to raise money to fund other criminal activities.
Therefore, by making it an offence to alter, remove or obliterate a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle, it will be possible to lay charges more easily against the perpetrators of this crime. By making it an offence to alter a VIN, we have another tool with which to fight against the crime rings that steal, disguise and resell motor vehicles.
With specific regard to Bill C-64, every motor vehicle in Canada must have its own vehicle identification number. The VIN consists of letters and numbers, each representing a specific piece of information such as the make, category, model, year and manufacturer of that car. The VIN is affixed to various parts of each vehicle.
People who alter a vehicle identification number for the purposes of concealing a stolen car cannot currently be charged with a specific offence under the Criminal Code. The closest offence is the possession of property obtained by crime—section 354—which allows an individual to be charged with possession of a vehicle whose VIN has been altered. I want to read it quickly. Under subsection 354(1):

Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from
(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or
(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

Subsection 354(2) states:

In proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (1), evidence that a person has in his possession a motor vehicle the vehicle identification number of which has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated or a part of a motor vehicle being a part bearing a vehicle identification number that has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, was obtained, and that such person had the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, in his possession knowing that it was obtained,
(a) by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or
(b) by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

Until now, section 357 of the Criminal Code has been used to prosecute individuals found in possession of vehicles with an altered or obliterated VIN. The Criminal Code, however, does not at present include any offence regarding the alteration, obliteration or removal of a VIN. Bill C-64 will therefore remedy that shortcoming.
This new offence would be added after section 377 which deals with destruction, defacing, obliteration, or injury of documents. Anyone found guilty of this new offence would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. There would also be the option of proceeding by summary conviction with a maximum fine of $2,000, six months imprisonment, or both.
The wording on this new offence would be:

377.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, wholly or partially, alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “vehicle identification number” means any number or other mark placed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing the motor vehicle from other similar motor vehicles
(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1): (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Like many bills in this House, Bill C-64 could likely be improved. At this time, however, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C-64.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is probably concerned about the rate of crime, especially those committed by youth and gangs in Quebec. This is a serious problem right across the country when it comes to organized crime running away with vehicles, shipping them off to different parts of the world and selling them there at lower but still very good prices. It is a very lucrative business.
I wonder whether the member would have some comments on how effective, if this bill were to pass, it would be in curbing that kind of activity in his province.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
Let us say that this is a good step forward because, at present, there is nothing in the Criminal Code to bring those who tamper with VINs to justice. As I indicated earlier, I do believe that the bill can be improved. However, as far as the principle is concerned, I think that passing Bill C-64 would be a step forward.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, in light of one of the concerns raised by the Conservative Party with regard to how the government has altered the requirement to prove intent for criminal activity in altering a vehicle identification number, would the Bloc Québécois be willing to support an amendment that would see the legislation returned to what Chuck Cadman had originally intended, which was to remove that section that we have highlighted as a problem area?
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, while it may be difficult to understand why exactly the identification numbers would be altered, I must say that, on the other hand, our judicial system still provides for the presumption of innocence. I would have to think things over before I could answer that question.

Statements By Members
Canadian ForcesMr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I had the distinct honour of travelling with the Minister of National Defence to Afghanistan to visit with many of the Canadian troops serving overseas at Camp Julian, Camp Mirage, as well as Camp Nathan Smith.
Spending Thanksgiving week among the Canadian men and women who are risking their lives to help the Afghan people rebuild their country and their lives was an experience I will never forget.
While in Kabul and Kandahar, I was reminded of just how dangerous life can be in that part of the world and how fortunate we are here in Canada to not have to face similar peril.
Our troops are doing a wonderful job and seeing the positive difference that they are making in Afghanistan made me extremely proud to be a Canadian.
On behalf of all hon. members, I would like to thank the Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan for their hard work and dedication, and pray for their safe return.
VIA RailMr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the government of the day ordered VIA Rail to sell its new tourism service known as the Rocky Mountaineer. VIA was already heavily subsidized and the government believed that the private sector rather than the taxpayers of Canada should take the risk of developing tourism business.
Now that the private sector purchaser, the Great Canadian Railtour Company, has invested millions of dollars of risk capital and successfully built the service into an internationally known B.C. success story, VIA wants back in and has plans to expand its Vancouver to Jasper service to cream off the business developed through private sector investment.
There is no honest business plan to justify this action by VIA. Its train make-up allows for up to 50 cars on its run but it averages less than half that. If there really were a passenger need, why would it not run more cars at a marginal cost increase instead of doubling their frequency and consequently doubling their cost?
VIA is a government operation and it is up to the government to order the heavily subsidized VIA to cease any consideration of expansion and competition with the unsubsidized B.C. company that invested the money and built the business.
Joke Waller-HunterHon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of Ms. Joke Waller-Hunter, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, on October 14.
The world has lost a dedicated champion in the cause of sustainable development. For more than three decades in her professional life, she brought intelligence, goodwill and persuasive skills to help advance the cause of the environment.
As executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change, Canada had the good fortune to work closely with her in the lead up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal this year. Her spirit will be with us as we gather in Montreal and work collectively to seek a more inclusive global approach to combating climate change.
On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to express my sincere condolences to her immediate family and her colleagues at the UNFCCC Secretariat.
Global Television NetworkMr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently Bloc Québécois MPs from the Quebec City area were contacted by employees at Global in Quebec City, who are afraid that 20 permanent jobs at the Quebec City station will be lost.
When it submitted its licence, Global agreed to make Quebec City its main base and create 75 jobs. Since then, their promises have been vanishing into thin air. Quebec City and several socio-economic stakeholders had supported Global's acquisition of the Quebec City station because this company had guaranteed there would be 20 hours of local production and local jobs.
Today, the Quebec City area stands firmly behind the staff at the station who, with the backing of their union, are asking Global to review its decision and the CRTC to require the broadcaster to respect its commitments.
The Bloc Québécois supports the claims of Global employees and it too is asking this broadcaster to review its decision and to keep the jobs in Quebec City.
Victims of CrimeMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government announced a series of new innovative measures to support the victims of crime. The government considers the needs of a victim to a first priority in the criminal justice system and it will now make it easier for victims of serious crime to access relevant information and participate in the parole process.
As of November 1, 2005, victims will be able to apply for financial assistance to attend National Parole Board hearings of the offender who harmed them.
Victims will then be able to attend the hearings in person, make a statement to the Parole Board or just simply be present to observe and be informed.
In addition, the government is setting up a new national office for victims to better meet the needs of victims of offenders under the federal responsibility. These measures represent an ongoing process and commitment to improve the criminal justice system in Canada.
Law EnforcementMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend and neighbour, the member for Yorkton—Melville, on his birthday today. He has been involved with law enforcement issues for a long time. Law enforcement was not an issue in my riding for years but lately towns like Debert and Stewiacke are experiencing enforcement challenges unheard of years ago.
There are several reasons for this, but one thing is clear. The RCMP in Nova Scotia does not have the resources to provide the minimum level of law enforcement required.
Last February, senior RCMP officers confirmed to me that Nova Scotia just does not have the money to hire enough officers. At that time the minister assured me that the money would be made available. That has not happened.
Now small communities in my riding and all over Nova Scotia are experiencing problems and the RCMP just does not have the officers or the money to handle it.
I again ask the minister to help the RCMP to return to a minimum level of acceptable law enforcement in Nova Scotia by simply providing it with the money.
Small Business WeekHon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Small Business Week 2005 is a national initiative but nowhere is it more important than in western Canada.
The spirit of entrepreneurship is strong in the west. Small businesses provide an essential source of jobs and opportunity in local communities, both large and small.
The west has enjoyed a strong economic performance in recent years and small businesses are a major contributor to that success. There are 50% more small businesses per capita in the west and they account for 80% of all new jobs.
More important, it is time to recognize the contributions of the small business sector which is the driving force of the western economy.
This Saturday, an award ceremony will be held to recognize small businesses in francophone communities outside Quebec for their remarkable contribution to the economic development of our country. We wish all the nominees the best of luck.
I ask my colleagues to join us in celebrating the talents, determination and ingenuity of western Canada's entrepreneurs, men, women, francophone and aboriginal people, during Small Business Week.
Gabrielle DeschampsMs. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the success of Gabrielle Deschamps, of L'Ascension, a municipality in my riding.
Ms. Deschamps distinguished herself by getting the top marks in Quebec on the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations national exam.
This young woman earned a bachelor's degree at the Montreal School of Higher Commercial Studies in 2004 and won the human resources award of excellence from the international firm of Hewitt and Associates.
Since graduation, Gabrielle Deschamps has been a recruiting officer at Adecco Saint-Laurent in Montreal.
Congratulations, Gabrielle. The Bloc Québécois wishes you much success in all your future endeavours.
Edmundston Regional Hospital FoundationMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I want to acknowledge the contribution of volunteers and community members who recently took part in the 8th benefit luncheon for the Edmundston Regional Hospital Foundation in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche.
This year, the event raised $28,900, which will contribute to improving the quality of services provided at Edmunston's regional hospital.
There is no doubt that without the foundation, this health care institution could not buy the latest technology required to give our citizens the best of care.
I want to thank all the volunteers and donors who made this 8th fundraising breakfast for the Edmundston Regional Hospital Foundation such a success. Such events cannot take place without them.
Finally, I want to thank everyone from the Edmunston area who attended and showed their unconditional support for the work of the foundation.
Kamloops Chamber of CommerceMrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to host the executive director of the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce, Deb McClelland, and the treasurer, Barry Baker, during their visit to Ottawa. They were here to meet with several of my caucus colleagues to discuss various issues of concern to the Kamloops business community.
The Chamber of Commerce does an outstanding job and tomorrow evening it will host its annual Business Excellence Awards gala. This is a very special evening for the business community of Kamloops. Awards will be presented to one of three finalists in 12 categories. These organizations represent the best of the best in 2005.
I would like to thank chamber president, Tim Schindel, the board of directors, and the outstanding staff for all their hard work. They are all winners.
Public Policy Forum ConferenceMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week in Ottawa, the Public Policy Forum will be holding a conference on the economic transformation in Atlantic Canada.
During the day and a half conference, key national decision makers will address topics, such as human capital, innovation, research and development, the energy sector and ways to foster trade and investment.
Atlantic Canada is well positioned and the transformation of its economy is well on its way. We have a stable and well-educated workforce with over 40 colleges and universities, the highest per capita in Canada. According to KPMG's recent study, we have the most competitive business costs worldwide. We have competitive, reliable and plentiful energy supply and we are geographically positioned as a natural gateway to Europe and the eastern seaboard of the United States.
As Atlantic Canadians, we recognize that there is still much work to be done but we are ready and we will continue to transform our region, building on our strengths, to make Atlantic Canada even stronger.
I would encourage all hon. members in the House to attend the conference next week and learn more about Atlantic Canada.
AsbestosMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Parliament to join our fellow legislators in the United States to declare April 1 asbestos disease awareness day.
There are compelling reasons why Canada should do more to formally recognize asbestos related diseases. For over a century, Canada has been a leading producer and exporter of asbestos, yet we dedicate virtually no resources to diagnosing and treating the devastating diseases that our Canadian asbestos causes.
Canada needs to be aware that our widespread use of asbestos has exposed millions to a deadly hazard and contaminated untold thousands of homes and public buildings.
Better awareness of asbestos related diseases may lead to the recognition that we need to test for and remove Zonolite insulation wherever it is found. It may lead to better medical research, diagnostics and treatment of those who fall victim to asbestos related disease. Hopefully, it will convince Canada to stop supporting and subsidizing a product that is responsible for such misery, both at home and in the developing nations where we export it.
I urge all members to join the growing—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
MarijuanaMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the justice minister recently decided to shelve the government bill to decriminalize marijuana. This is good news for those of us who have been fighting against it.
However, the last impression among our young people, according to drug treatment experts, is that the debate about decriminalizing marijuana has directly contributed to the increasing number of teenagers getting into trouble while under the influence.
According to Mike Beauchesne, clinical program director at Ottawa's Dave Smith Youth Treatment Centre, “The increase in drug and alcohol abuse could be traced to public policy debates about drugs that have resulted in a more benign view of drug use. Many people have concluded from the decriminalized debate that marijuana will soon be entirely legal and is completely harmless”.
What the Liberals do not realize is that they have done a lot of damage by putting this ridiculous idea out there. How do they plan to reverse this damage and educate our youth that marijuana use is still addictive, still dangerous and still illegal?
François LanoueMr. Roger Gaudet (Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 23, the Joliette art museum will open an exhibition on the life and times of François Lanoue.
François Lanoue was one of a dying breed of well-educated clergy who devoted their life to defending their culture, language and roots. Born in Saint-Jacques-de-Montcalm, where the Acadian spirit is still very present, he was ordained in 1943. After a brilliant career at the Joliette seminary, Mr. Lanoue took on various pastoral responsibilities in the parishes of this diocese.
The exhibition offers a profile of this man through works of art and photographs that evoke his remarkable intellectual journey.
Former premier Bernard Landry and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who were both taught by Father François Lanoue, have agreed to be the honourary hosts of this exceptional event.
I invite you all to attend this exhibition and become better acquainted with the great man who was Father Lanoue.
Law EnforcementMs. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my riding of Durham I attended a Conservative Party crime and safety task force session chaired by Jim Flaherty, one of the national chairs of this task force.
It was attended by our new chief of police, the fire chief of Whitby, representatives of law enforcement and organizations who work in our community to keep our streets safe.
The input by the victims of crime had the most impact for me. As one young woman stated, she is a survivor of crime and a survivor she is.
This meeting was held on the 11th anniversary of a devastating crime in Port Perry that changed that community forever. We heard demands for stronger tools for our front line workers, more resources for alternative justice measures, the need to make the justice system more efficient, and the weaknesses of Correctional Service Canada and the parole system. Infringements of parole violations in fact are not criminal offences.
I want to thank the task force for its work and those who took part in the session. They all deserve our support because each day they are working to make Durham a safer community.
Qikiqtani Inuit AssociationMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Qikiqtani Inuit Association is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.
QIA represents the interests of the Inuit of the Baffin region, the High Arctic and Sanikiluaq. Its mission is to protect and promote Inuit rights and values. It is one of the regional organizations under our Nunavut land claim.
Starting out as Baffin Regional Inuit Association in 1975, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association grew from being a non-profit land claim and community organization to an umbrella organization with strong economic development arms, Kakirak Association and Qikiqtaaluk Corporation.
I want to recognize the dedicated people from many communities who have sacrificed many things, especially family time, to work with this organization over the 30 years, whether as board members or staff.
Congratulations to the Qikiqtani Inuit who have been well served by their association over the years.
Pay EquityMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on October 7, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued its decision and upheld the Public Service Alliance of Canada's 22 year old pay equity complaint against Canada Post.
The decision states that Canada Post has violated the law and must pay compensation. Within minutes of the decision being reviewed, Canada Post filed for judicial review. The length of time it will take to resolve this complaint could easily pass the quarter century mark. This is a disgrace.
It is a disgrace that women workers in the federal sector have had to fight for over 20 years for money that they are entitled to by law and it is a disgrace that there is no federal pay equity legislation.
The NDP is calling on the Liberal government to stop forcing women to fight for decades for economic equality and introduce proactive pay equity legislation immediately.
The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has asked for the legislation. The government's own task force on pay equity has asked for the legislation. Where is the legislation?
Marichel Teaching FarmMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Marichel teaching farm in Sainte-Agathe-de-Lotbinière is celebrating its 10th anniversary. This farm is not only introducing children to the benefits of agriculture, it is teaching them the importance of preserving our environment to ensure the survival of our planet.
In celebration, the 2005 student interns wrote a song to raise public awareness about the effects of climate change.
I had the pleasure of hearing this song on September 16, between the two hurricanes that devastated the southern United States. Everyone agrees that these two tragedies were caused by climate change in that region over the last 25 years.
These young people have summed it up as follows:

Such great ideas sung with forceThey do affect my mood, of courseNow tell me what we need to doTo save the earth for me and you

Bravo and long live the Marichel teaching farm.

Oral Questions
David DingwallMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the Prime Minister himself is directly responsible for the decision to pay David Dingwall severance for quitting his expense abusing, high paying job at the Mint. The Liberal culture of corruption has now progressed to the Liberal culture of entitlement.
The Minister of National Revenue told us yesterday that Privy Council lawyers are operating under the instructions of the Prime Minister to pay the legal minimum. Labour lawyers such as Howard Levitt and those in his own caucus have already said there is no legal requirement to pay severance to an employee if he quits.
Why exactly is the Prime Minister directing his officials to pay anything to David Dingwall?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has been exceptionally clear on this point. It is going to be very interesting when we compare the hyperbole of the opposition with the reality of the audit that is coming out soon.
Peter MacKay: There is a buffet of baloney, Mr. Speaker.
David Dingwall clearly said at committee that he was entitled to his entitlements. That includes severance on top of everything else. There are two solitudes in Canada: hardworking, tax paying Canadians and Liberals with entitlements.
The government can produce no law that requires this severance payment, no written legal opinions, and no common law precedents, yet the Prime Minister is directing the Privy Council Office to negotiate David Dingwall's entitlements.
Why is the Prime Minister encouraging this Liberal culture of entitlement with this negotiation with David Dingwall?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, as I responded to the previous question, the minister has been very clear on this particular point and the member has repeated some of his statements. I also think that for a person who has an understanding of the law, to lack such respect for its application is rather a surprise to all of us.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, let us stick to the facts.
On the Prime Minister's instructions, David Dingwall's lawyers are negotiating with the Privy Council Office to secure his entitlements. That would include severance pay. Now he wants the possibility of his cost of living factor on top of his salary to be considered as well. The government has yet to produce all of David Dingwall's expenses. That might include other expenses that will rub Canadians the wrong way.
We know that Canadians who quit their job do not get severance. Why is the Prime Minister taking such a hands-on approach in negotiating a severance package with David Dingwall?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, once again, I would simply point out that given the kind and quality of information that has come across the floor from that side of the House, it is really difficult to give credibility to any of the questions.
An audit will be out next week. Opposition members will be able to judge the circumstances that they are interested in and we will see how that matches up with the statements they have made to date.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, how little expenses are handled tells us a lot about how a person will handle big expenses.
David Dingwall handed in receipts in April of last year for two candies for $1.43, a Globe and Mail for 93¢, a chocolate bar, a bag of chips, and a Winnipeg Sun . On December 16 of last year he handed in a receipt for a massage in Bangkok. This Liberal culture of entitlement has gone far too far.
Perhaps the government could tell us if David Dingwall is entitled to a massage at the expense of Canadian taxpayers?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain what the member's concern is about the Winnipeg Sun . A number of people in Canada buy and read that paper.
He has made a number of statements about the activities of Mr. Dingwall. Mr. Dingwall was before the committee answering that. An audit is coming out. I have been reviewing some of the statements that the member has been making and I think the Winnipeg Sun will have an interesting time comparing reality with what has come out of the mouth of that member.
Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the rules at the Royal Canadian Mint were written by David Dingwall under this government's watch. The rules provide exceptions for David Dingwall. He can except himself on travel. He can except himself on hospitality. There are no fences on David Dingwall's pasture. He can graze at the expense of Canadian taxpayers to his heart's content.
The culture of entitlement that has permeated this government was most evident when David Dingwall testified the other day. Will the government continue and persist to pay David Dingwall severance?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the depth of the unknowing on that side of the House is such that they did not even realize the Auditor General of Canada is the auditor for the Mint, that the policy is set by the board of the Mint, that it is being audited still further against those policies set by the Mint and audited by the Auditor General of Canada.
To suggest that we not respect that I think is a bit much.
Intergovernmental AffairsMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first it was Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs and now it is the Quebec premier who is speaking out in defence of Quebec's jurisdiction. He has said that “If we must work with the federal government, our jurisdiction must be respected. Otherwise, no agreement is possible.”
Is this not proof that things are not going all that well, when a federalist Liberal government in Quebec feels obliged to publicly defend its areas of jurisdiction, in response to repeated threats of federal government interference?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada himself has said that he would respect provincial jurisdictions in whatever he did. We wholly approve of the statements made by federalist premier Charest.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, she ought to have a word with the Minister of Transport so that he will be on the same page.
Jean Charest also criticized the concept of national interest, that new federal invention used to justify its interference. He said “the national interest is not a concept that governs the division of powers”.
Does the government not realize that the introduction of this new concept will turn the concept of areas of jurisdiction into nothing more than meaningless words?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, there the Bloc Québécois goes again with its exaggerations. It is fascinating how they take bits and pieces of quotes from the federalist government in Quebec and forget the rest.
It is odd that they are not quoting today from the words of Carole Théberge or Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, who say they are continuing to work in a positive manner with the Government of Canada. That is exactly what our two governments are doing.
Employment InsuranceGuy Côté: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources suggested that the federal government had not only the right but also the responsibility to evolve EI programs as society evolves.
What are we to make of the minister's remarks? Are we to understand that she is announcing further encroachments on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces?
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say I am very pleased at the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that recognizes and upholds the federal jurisdiction as it relates to EI benefits and maternity benefits. I am also proud to say that there will be no interruption in any of the benefits that Canadians receive. In fact, the judgment does say that we do have the responsibility to evolve EI programs as society evolves, as it relates to the workplace.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, in reality, this new invention of national interest is a tool to justify encroaching on the jurisdictions of others.
Instead of using the national interest as an excuse to encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, should the minister not start by looking after her own responsibilities, by improving the employment insurance program and establishing an income support program for older workers, for instance?
Belinda Stronach: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that I did call Minister Courchesne yesterday and expressed to her that we are going forward with the agreement that we have with Quebec so that Quebec can have its maternity and benefits program in place by January 1, 2006. We are working collaboratively and very well with Minister Courchesne and the Quebec government to achieve this.
National SecurityHon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As justice minister the minister brought in draconian security law that violated civil liberties. As security minister she blocked information from being made public in the Arar inquiry. As part of a government that looks like it has been involved in the sending of Canadians to countries that use torture, I want to ask her, when it comes to the proposed new wiretap legislation, why should we believe that Canadian civil liberties are going to be protected?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I reject the entire premise of the hon. member's question.
Having said that, he has raised an important question around lawful access. As everyone knows, we have had wiretap legislation in this country for years, as have other countries. What we need to do is update that wiretap legislation to take into account the fact that we need to intercept communications in relation to new methods of communications. It may be a BlackBerry; it may be the Internet; it may be a cellphone.
In fact, let me inform the hon. member that other countries have been working on this challenge around law enforcement and we—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Ed Broadbent: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and other countries have violated human security as well.
My next question pertains to what Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and former distinguished member of the Canadian Supreme Court said yesterday. She said, “there are no circumstances that can ever justify torture”.
Does the minister agree, and if so, will she categorically assert that no Canadian will be sent again from our country to a country that indulges in torture?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the hon. member that we are in complete compliance with both international and domestic law, the domestic law as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Suresh case. I can reassure the hon. member that we intend to continue to be in compliance with both international law and the domestic law of this country as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada.
LobbyistsBev Oda: Mr. Speaker, Richard Mahoney is a friend of the Prime Minister. He engaged in lobbying his friend without registering. He was lobbying in Regina with the Liberal caucus in August. He was lobbying at the Prime Minister's cocktail party at 24 Sussex in September, but Richard Mahoney did not register until October 4 after winning a favourable decision for his client.
Is the Minister of Industry directing the lobbyist registrar to investigate Richard Mahoney?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the registrar administers the act in a completely independent manner. The registrar seeks no advice from any minister in the Government of Canada. If the registrar has reason to believe that there has been a contravention, he will take the appropriate steps to ensure that the law is enforced.
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are not satisfied because the facts are that Richard Mahoney is a close friend of the Prime Minister. Richard Mahoney was in Regina with the entire Liberal caucus in August. Richard Mahoney was at the Prime Minister's cocktail party and two days later the government ruled in favour of Richard Mahoney's clients.
Friends of the Prime Minister can register a month after winning. The facts demand an investigation. The Conservative Party, the opposition, demand that the lobbyist registrar investigate the illegal activities of Richard Mahoney.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has obviously put some allegations on the floor of the House.
I would emphasize once again that the registrar is a completely independent officer. The registrar does not take instruction from the government and I am sure that the hon. member would not wish it to be otherwise.
Government ContractsMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Public Works Canada first awarded and then cancelled two contracts with Abotech, a company owned by a Liberal MP's wife.
Can the minister explain why these contracts were cancelled and what the irregularities identified by the KPMG consultants were?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we decided to cancel these contracts as part of an overall review as we strengthen governance and improve competition and value for tax dollars. It is important to note that there was no issue with the services being provided, and in fact, that value was received for tax dollars.
JusticeMr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, internal documents show that there is once again political interference by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on the establishment of a DNA missing persons index. The minister established a public consultation last spring and only through access to information documents we now learn that the most substantive part of the discussion was deleted and replaced with the comment from the minister's office, “the question will not arise because we won't let it”.
Why is the minister wasting everyone's time and money when she has already made up her mind in advance?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure that I know what the hon. member is referring to, but let me reassure the hon. member that when it comes to DNA and the creation of the DNA data bank, this is a very serious matter of law enforcement. We are consulting widely in relation to amendments to that DNA data bank to ensure that it is as complete and useful as possible as an instrument or tool of law enforcement in this country as the law permits.
TaxationMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the Globe and Mail , two of the independent forecasters, including the Conference Board, appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance next week, estimate the federal government surplus to be over $10 billion.
Does the minister intend to use the enormous surplus to address the fiscal imbalance, by increasing transfers for post-secondary education, as students have been asking for, and by substantially improving the equalization program?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the government has already announced in the course of our last two budgets that we are not only taking existing transfer payments to an all-time record level, which they are now at, but over the course of the next decade, we have already indicated the resources that will be added to those transfer payments, totalling in excess of $100 billion.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the enormous surplus shows, once again, that the federal government takes in more revenue than it needs to meet the obligations under its jurisdiction.
Does the Minister of Finance agree that it is high time to sit down with Quebec and the provinces in order to review the equalization program and negotiate a new division of the tax fields in order to correct the fiscal imbalance once and for all?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, a review of equalization is already under way. I expect to receive a report on that during the course of this coming winter.
I would also point out that in addition to increasing transfer payments to the provinces by $100 billion, we have also reduced the tax burden on Canadians by $100 billion.
If the provinces believe that they need more taxes, we have provided them some room that they could occupy, if they think that is the right thing to do.
Oil IndustryMr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the oil companies are raking in the profits. In the third quarter alone, from July to September, Esso expects earnings of $652 million, up 20%. Petro-Canada's estimated earnings are $652 million, up 59%, and Shell's $516 million, up 14%.
Will the government finally assume its responsibilities and impose a minimum $500 million surtax on the oil companies to help consumers, who were left out of Bill C-66 and are struggling with the latest price hike, get through this crisis?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the solution to energy issues at the present time lies in increasing taxation.
I would point out to the hon. gentleman that one of the most severe price spikes actually occurs in the field of natural gas.
If he is going to take his logic as embedded in his question, is he arguing for a major federal tax increase on Gaz Métropolitain?
Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, there has been a transfer of wealth from the pockets of taxpayers, to the pockets of those who control our economy, to the oil companies. It is the government's duty to act.
How can the government sit idly by, given the devastating effects of the spike in gas prices, without asking the oil companies to do their share? It is unacceptable for the government to act like this.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, about a week ago we announced a package of relief measures totalling some $2.4 billion. They include not only payments to reduce the burden on our most vulnerable citizens, but also a very important investment of $1.8 billion in energy efficiency and energy conservation that will make it possible for every Canadian family to save, if they take advantage of the programs, something on average in the range of $400 to $500 not just this year but every year, year after year after year into the future. That is good public policy.
JusticeMyron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians, including myself, are really sick and tired of the law constantly protecting the rights of predators while not considering the rights of victims, especially children. A 14-year-old and a 15-year-old are still children.
The Prime Minister likes to say that Liberal values are Canadian values. I want to ask him, how many Canadians feel their values include adult men having sex with 14-year-old girls?
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, we are well aware that the victims of crime do have concerns about the criminal justice system being in balance. We know that the victims question the amount of money that is spent to train and rehabilitate those who are incarcerated.
The reality is the primary goal that most victims will agree with us on is that they never want to be a victim again, and the government agrees with this goal.
HealthMrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health minister rises daily in the House to talk about our pandemic preparedness, while the public health minister issues dire warnings.
The health minister brags that we have Tamiflu pills for 2.5 million of our population, less than 10% of the population. European countries have 20% and 25% of their population covered.
Why is the Liberal government not preparing to protect more than 10% of our population?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been recognized by the World Health Organization and many countries internationally, or all countries internationally, as being the most advanced in this area of preparation.
What is the right level of one substance as opposed to another that we should have? We work with experts across Canada and internationally to inform us on that.
An organization will be making a recommendation to government within the next couple of weeks. Perhaps the recommendation will be to increase the avian Tamiflu or others.
Next week the Minister of Health is hosting an international conference because this requires an international answer, and Canada will play the lead.
National DefenceMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been over three years since the crash of a CH146 Griffon helicopter claimed the lives of two pilots.
Why is the minister expanding the use of the Griffons for search and rescue missions before the final report on rescue 420 has been publicly released?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the use of the Griffons in terms of search and rescue is a part of our ensuring that we have search and rescue capacity across the country.
The air force, under no circumstances, would be deploying these aircraft if they were unsafe.
The report, of course, will be released in due course, when it has been communicated to the families and when the proper procedures have taken place, but that in no way suggests that the Griffons themselves are not safe. They are safe.
The air force, I assure the hon. member, is concerned and no actions will be taken that will put into peril the lives of our servicemen.
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, four years before the helicopter crashed killing two Canadian pilots, the Auditor General warned that the government's sole sourcing of a commercial helicopter without operational tests would endanger lives.
The department was warned that search and rescue operations pushed the limits of the Griffon helicopter.
Why is the minister needlessly endangering the lives of Canadian pilots?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, why is the hon. member suggesting to the House that our air force pilots and the commanders of our air force would needlessly send our men and women, who fly these machines themselves, into needless danger? This is a ridiculous assertion and it makes no sense whatsoever.
I can assure the House, just as I have always assured the House, that the leadership of our armed forces have, first and foremost, the concern for the safety of our men and women in uniform. They do not put them into needless peril.
I resent the suggestion in the hon. member's question. It is unreasonable, unwarranted and quite unacceptable.
IndustryYasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, this week's newspapers have followed rumours of a takeover of Encana Corporation.
Given the importance of this Canadian company, could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of the government's views on this company and its importance to the Canadian economy?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, Encana is a flagship Canadian and Alberta company. It is one of the strongest in its sector and its predecessor companies have a long and distinguished history.
Since the merger of AEC and PanCanadian, Encana has grown to be the number one supplier of natural gas in the North American marketplace. It plays an important role in our economy and it is an outstanding example of Canadian innovation and competitiveness.
We expect Encana to continue this leadership position in our economy. Canada needs more Encana.
HealthJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, while the minister promises there will be action on wait times before December 31, MPs have waited and waited for the results of a 1996 cohort study on the safety of silicone breast implants.
The minister is only now trying to get permission from the provinces to release this study. How can we trust the deadline on wait times if we are still waiting for the results of a study finished in 2000?
What has the minister done to expedite the release of the cohort study on silicone breast implants?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has made it his duty to ensure we have security in our drug supply, security in our medications and security in our medical devices and, further, that Canadians are confident in the security of the systems we use to evaluate them.
He struck an expert advisory panel to listen to the Canadian public and ensure there was public participation, beyond the expertise in his department, to help him make informed decisions and give confidence to the public of Canada.
It takes a little bit of time but it is fully worth every moment of it.
Veterans AffairsPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the war some 14,000 veterans were deemed never to have served simply because they did not fill out their discharge papers properly.
This is the Year of the Veteran and I sincerely do not want to play politics with this issue. Will the government simply say that it will rescind this order in council so history will show that these veterans did in fact answer the call and serve their country?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, the government at the time did adopt a measure which it understood at the time was to deal with people who were absent without leave or had deserted at the end of the war.
Obviously the hon. member and others have brought forward evidence that some people covered by that measure may have had a valid reason for not fulfilling their demobilization responsibilities.
I can assure the member that my department is working together with Veterans Affairs Canada to examine this issue and figure out how we can make sure that no injustice is done to any Canadian for a mere technicality.
Foreign AffairsMr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, while a senior bureaucrat from CSIS was freelancing his political views, he suggested that as many as 10 Canadians may have joined the ranks of anti-freedom, freedom-hating terrorists in Iraq who are trying to kill off the emerging democracy there.
Just last week, millions of Iraqis courageously voted in defiance of those terrorists. Why has the Prime Minister not published a letter of congratulations to the people of Iraq and why has he not condemned the actions of Canadians who have joined this band of terrorist thugs and murderers who are murdering and killing innocent people in Iraq?
Why is there no statement of condemnation?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, of course we condemn any Canadian who would choose to become an insurgent and join the insurgency in Iraq.
The comments made by the director of CSIS yesterday were not new. In fact, the director of CSIS provided even more detailed information at a special Senate committee hearing on March 7 where he said that the ranks of trained terrorist fighters in Iraq were bolstered by individuals from around the world, including from Europe and Canada. The director of the CIA has regularly made—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
Airline SecurityMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my constituent, John Howard, tried to fly from Vancouver to Toronto and was denied a boarding pass because he has the same name as a Canadian on their do not fly list.
Air Canada has been instructed not to tell Canadians under any circumstances that they are on such a list and to refer all inquiries to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Why has the government sold out Canadian sovereignty so that American authorities now authorize air travel within Canada?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one part of the hon. member's question and it is very important.
When anybody suggests that we have sold out Canadian interests in relation to any other country, let me just underscore that our primary obligation is the protection and safety of Canadians, whether it is a no fly list or whether it is at the border. It does not matter.
The actions we take are taken first and foremost to protect Canadian—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.
Disaster Relief FundsMs. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when the government held its photo ops it gave the distinct impression that any NGO raising money for disaster relief in Pakistan would be eligible to receive matching funds.
Now we are learning that is not how it is going to work. Instead, the Liberals will be putting all the money in one pot before allocating it to groups of their choosing. So, indeed, very few groups raising money will actually receive matching funds.
Why has the government misled Canadians who have given so generously?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the generosity of Canadians and we have been encouraging Canadian generosity. This is precisely why we have this time again proposed to match every dollar that will be donated.
However we have learned from the tsunami experience and we realize that it is better to keep some flexibility in the way we actually match Canadian dollars to ensure it goes to where it is needed most. There are humanitarian emergencies at the beginning and then we have to begin reconstruction and we need to be where—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.
Income TrustsMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, CARP, an organization representing over 400,000 seniors, has recently sent a letter to the Minister of Finance regarding his mishandling of income trusts. This letter states that Canadian seniors are enraged, frightened and panicked, not supportive as the minister may suggest.
In the letter from CARP one senior states:

Many seniors have been hurt by the uncertainty caused by the government’s insensitive handling of the Income Trust situation.

Another senior writes:

The government has taken the solid platform from under our feet and replaced it with an open shaft.

When will the minister stop giving the shaft to Canadian seniors?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we are conducting a consultation process in a calm and unfrenzied way to ensure that the public policy on this issue is correct. I am encouraged to see that we have the support of a number of provinces in that regard.
I would also point out that with respect to senior citizens we have raised the RRSP limits. We have removed the foreign property rule. We are increasing the GIS. We are reducing taxes. We are removing 240,000 from the tax rolls. We have rendered the CPP actuarily sound for 75 years. We have also indexed the entire tax system and the social security system.
Softwood LumberMr. Sébastien Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government does not realize that the softwood lumber crisis has, in the past three years, cost the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region 3,000 jobs. The equivalent in Montreal would be 30,000.
What is the government waiting for before creating a real assistance program to support the businesses and workers in our region affected by the softwood lumber crisis?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Those figures strike me as absolutely incorrect, although I will not challenge them today. Nevertheless, Quebec's forestry sector is suffering for many reasons, among them the softwood lumber crisis, reduced access to the resource, and international competition.
We have already taken action on one front, with mitigation measures to help the Government of Quebec following the adoption of Bill 71, in response to the Coulombe report. We intend to continue our efforts to assist Quebec's forestry sector, as we are trying to do Canada-wide.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the government's recent actions have no connection whatsoever with the softwood lumber crisis, as the minister has said. It is all very well to create support programs for secondary and tertiary processing, and there is nothing bad about these in themselves, but the urgency right now is to save the companies and workers affected by the softwood lumber crisis.
What is the government waiting for before at last making available the loan guarantees the industry has been calling for?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, with all respect for the proposal by the Bloc Québécois, I feel we have an obligation to make sure that any potential measures would not confirm the Americans in their position of imposing duties. Extreme prudence is therefore required concerning this initiative.
That said, the main problem we have to address in connection with forestry is not the softwood lumber issue. There is a whole series of problems. We started with one of the key elements, which is Bill 71. We will then address the others in conjunction with the other provinces.
Forest IndustryMr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a recent $50 million forestry program is restricted to forestry communities in Quebec. The problems of the forestry industry affect hundreds of communities in all regions of Canada.
Excluding hundreds of communities like Prince Albert is just plain wrong. It is not standing up for Canadians.
Why is the Liberal-NDP coalition government designing forestry programs which exclude forestry communities like Prince Albert?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this is a very difficult issue, as the member knows. The Minister of International Trade is at the WTO today. Canada's position is that countries should stand by their agreements, as we do.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on February 23 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada announced a $30 million Atlantic salmon endowment fund. It has now been eight months and not one penny of this money has been delivered.
The Atlantic Salmon Federation and other organizations needed this money 10 years ago. When can they expect to receive it?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his support of the Atlantic salmon endowment. I am very pleased that the government approved this. We are working with the provinces and officials on getting this completed. Obviously it takes time to put in place the proper procedures. I expect that they will be finished very soon.
I appreciate the fact that members recognize the importance of the $30 million investment this government is making to protect Atlantic salmon.
Canadian Coast GuardRodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, on September 6, as part of Canada's hurricane Katrina aid mission, the Canadian Coast Guard vessel the Sir William Alexander left Halifax harbour destined for the gulf coast region.
After the crew playing an important role in the disaster relief efforts and being asked to stay for another month, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, when will the crew members of the Sir William Alexander be returning home to family and loved ones?
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the captain yesterday. They are about four days from Halifax. The crew is anxious to be home. They are tired, but proud of the job they have done.
Canadians are also proud of their work and their assistance is deeply appreciated by the U.S. In fact, the commander of the U.S. Navy's northern command has written a letter to thank the officers and crew for this historic operation.
I know that all members of this House will join me in expressing our pride and thanks to the crew of the Sir William Alexander for a job well done.
AgricultureMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the northern portion of my riding has been hit hard with 17 inches of rain since August 23, just as grain producers were preparing to harvest. The result is a disaster. This is the third year in a row that farmers have been hit hard, first by drought, then by frost and now by flooding.
Grain producers have creditors pressing them hard for payment. Government support programs are not working. Many farmers have not even received their 2000 CAIS payment, so my question is this: what is the Liberals' acceptable waiting time for CAIS payments?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we recognize very seriously the concerns from the farm community over their income situation over the last number of years.
The CAIS program is in fact there for producers. There is the production insurance program as well. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food moved very quickly in March in conjunction with other members of the Government of Canada to put out the $1 billion program to assist farmers in getting a crop in the ground.
We will be depending on production insurance and CAIS to assist them this fall, as well as looking at other measures. We are always concerned—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Farmers are concerned that the Canadian Wheat Board has set artificially low prices for initial payments on crops sold through the board. In fact, the current price for feed barley, after freight and elevation charges, nets the farmer 18¢ a bushel. It costs more to deliver the barley than the farmer receives as payment. Not only is this appalling, but it has to be an embarrassment to this government.
At a time when farmers are cash strapped, will the minister take the necessary steps to ensure an increase in the initial price for all grains to put some extra cash in the pockets of farmers and to do that without administration costs?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering for some weeks now when this question was going to come, because the farmers on the board of the Canadian Wheat Board, the farmers who run the Canadian Wheat Board, have been deeply concerned about this and are taking action as we speak to address this issue.
It is because of the Wheat Board that those farmers are getting some needed cash in their pockets in addition to the considerable assistance that this side of the House has offered them.
JusticeMrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in June, the Bloc Québécois called on the government to make a commitment to afford justice before Canadian courts to victims of torture in foreign countries. At the time, the Minister of Justice said that he was studying the matter. But yesterday, Louise Arbour criticized the Canadian government for being soft on the subcontracting of torture, as did the UN Commission Against Torture and, just recently, Amnesty International.
Four months later, has the minister had enough time to think? Will he finally act now?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would suggest to the hon. member that she actually accurately reflect what former Madam Justice Arbour said yesterday in her comments. As I said earlier in relation to a question from a member of the New Democratic Party, this country intends to respect international law and domestic law. We have always done so and we will continue to do so.
UnescoJean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, recently, Canada was elected to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, whose mandate involves the identification, protection and conservation of natural or cultural heritage sites around the world. This is the committee that approved Quebec City for inscription on the World Heritage List in 1985.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House whether Canada intends to campaign for Quebec City to host the World Heritage Committee's annual general assembly in 2008?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the appointment of Ms. Cameron, who will be representing Canada at the World Heritage Committee. This appointment is the result of a solid effort by Canada, and particularly by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche and the Minister responsible for the Francophonie.
Ms. Cameron will indeed promote Quebec City's bid to host the World Heritage Committee's 2008 assembly, a gathering important for Quebec City, for the Government of Quebec and for the Government of Canada.
Foreign AffairsStockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised by the government's soft approach to Canadians who go abroad to murder innocent people because at home we do not do anything about Canadians who murder innocent people.
I want answers to these questions. Why did the Prime Minister not publish a statement of congratulations to the Iraqi people for their bold democratic move last week? Why will the Prime Minister or the government not condemn the actions of Canadians who joined terrorist thugs in other countries? Why does the government continue to call them insurgents and not terrorists? Did the CBC tell the government not to use the T-word?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, in fact I am very happy to explain again to the hon. member that indeed we do condemn the actions of any Canadian who chooses to go abroad and join an insurgency on the ground in any country, including Iraq.
In fact, I think the director of CSIS and I are very clear in relation to the fact that we do view the actions of these people as terrorist activities and we condemn them. We have condemned them. We will continue to condemn those actions.
Public TransportationMr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has finally given in to the idea of helping individuals who are struggling with the spikes in fuel prices. The Bloc proposes reducing fuel consumption by giving public transit users a tax credit for their transportation costs.
Since the House of Commons has adopted this tax credit in principle, does the government intend to adopt this measure?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we have a broad variety of energy efficiency and energy conservation measures already implemented, some of which I referred to earlier in question period. We have another broad range under review and examination.
It is our view that energy efficiency, energy conservation and energy innovation are simply the hallmarks of an intelligent society and we intend to make Canada the smartest in the world.

Routine Proceedings
Indian Specific Claims CommissionHon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2003-04 annual report of the Indian Specific Claims Commission.
Genome CanadaHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, the annual report of Genome Canada for 2004-05.
Committees of the HouseMr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour of presenting, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, April 13, 2005, our committee has considered Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French), and has agreed, on Thursday, October 20, 2005, to report it with amendment.
Hazardous Materials Information Review ActAnne McLellan: 
moved that Bill S-40, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
PetitionsHelena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to present to the House some petitions on behalf of my constituents. In the first petition, the petitioners are asking that the Income Tax Act be changed to allow for income splitting. There are a lot of seniors who will have problems coping with rising energy costs, which this government is doing nothing about. I will continue to champion this cause.
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition that deals with the Criminal Code and the age of consent. It is from the people of Alliston and my hometown of Angus. It is legal for adults to have sex with 14-year-old children. I do not know why the government thinks that is okay.
Helena Guergis: Finally, Mr. Speaker, from across Simcoe—Grey, I have four petitions regarding the definition of marriage. I am quite happy to present them, because I know that when our party becomes the government we will finally have a free vote on that issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind hon. members not to express an opinion on the petitions they are presenting.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition on behalf of thousands of my constituents who support the Queensway Carleton Hospital in its efforts to avoid a massive Liberal rent increase.
Of course the hospital sits on federal government land and the Liberals have been charging it rent. The hospital has paid nearly $1 million in rent thus far. The Liberal government is threatening a massive increase, but thousands of petitioners have signed a petition indicating that they will not accept a massive rent increase. I am proud to introduce their voices in this House of Commons.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition yet again, as I have been endeavouring to do at every opportunity this fall. This petition is signed primarily by citizens from Toronto, Brampton, Scarborough, Etobicoke and Mississauga, Ontario. The petitioners note that, on average, about 2,000 children are adopted from other countries and brought to Canada by adopting families, and that, unlike other countries, the United States and Great Britain, these children are not granted automatic citizenship. These petitioners feel that they should be. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to immediately enact legislation to grant automatic citizenship to these minors adopted from other countries by Canadian citizens, with this citizenship being immediately granted upon the finalization of the adoption.
I have literally dozens of other petitions on the same subject, but unfortunately, as well-intentioned as they were, the people did not have the opportunity to put them into an acceptable form. I seek unanimous consent of the members present this afternoon to add these to this petition.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George--Peace River has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to table a petition that is not in a standard format. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the petition?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Questions on the Order PaperDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (vehicle identification number), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, for two days in a row I have had the pleasure to reflect on Bill C-65 and now Bill C-64. The government claims these bills to be representative of what Mr. Cadman, the former hon. member for Surrey, was trying to accomplish during his tour here.
As I said yesterday with respect to Bill C-65, Bill C-64 has been altered with a few words that reflect the mushy, soft on crime Liberal attitude. The bill probably will be supported by my friends to the left, the softy Bloc. The Liberals have watered down both bills because they appear to be too harsh for their souls to comprehend.
Many years ago Mr. Cadman recognized how serious auto theft had become. It is a major problem in many cities all across Canada. Close to 200,000 vehicles are stolen every year. This bill is supposed to make it an offence to alter, or remove, or obliterate vehicle identification numbers, or VIN, on motor vehicles. That was the purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill, which he presented quite some time ago in the House. However, in the opinion of the Liberal government and other softies in here who support being soft on crime, the bill was too harsh.
The government has taken Chuck's bill and added a few words. Section 377.1 states, “everyone commits an offence who wholly or partially alters, removes, or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse”. Chuck Cadman's bill would have made the onus on the person indicted. It would not be up to the Crown to try to justify the altering of the VIN in any way, shape or form.
The government added, “and under circumstances that give rise to reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle”. That sentence destroys the entire purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill. It has changed his bill completely, even to the point that a number of people who were very supportive of his initial bill are not supportive of this one.
Members of Chuck's family and his campaign team back in Surrey are livid with Bill C-64. I understand that letters have been written by the campaign chairman of his committee to editors of various newspapers. Those people are livid that the government would dare change these things, water down the bills and say that Bill C-64 is in memory of Chuck Cadman. By making these alterations, the government has strongly dishonoured his memory by saying that this is Chuck Cadman's bill when in fact it is not.
It is pretty clear in people's minds that Bill C-64 will put the onus on the Crown to prove someone caught with an altered VIN intended to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle rather than to explain themselves, which was Mr. Cadman's original intention. That is a very strong point.
I was here during Mr. Cadman's tenure. Over the years Chuck fought so hard for these kinds of bills and amendments. The government consistently rejected any form of mandatory licence prohibitions similar to the type that Chuck constantly proposed.
The government ignored the recommendations related to VINs. It ignored the recommendations related to street racing. It continued to soft pedal on all of these efforts to confront crime. Mr. Cadman was definitely committed to seeing that crime fighting efforts were made law in this great country to bring more emphasis to the value of victims rather than constantly seeing perpetrators receive a lot more attention.
Today in question period even the answer that I received regarding the constant idea that the rights of perpetrators seemed to override the rights of victims in all cases indicated that there was an imbalance and that there were efforts to do something about it. When a bill on some very stringent issues regarding Chuck Cadman's ideas is watered down, that is just the opposite. Once again the focus is on the predator and not the victim. The government needs to wake up and realize that is the case.
What is even more disturbing is if this bill were amended, if it passed and became law, where would it go next?. I am really disgusted when I look at some of the things that have happened in regard to decisions that are made in the House of Commons. Let me provide some short examples.
Last week, while visiting my constituents in my riding, I ran across three people who were suffering from hepatitis C. One of them does not have very long to live. I believe some time around April the House concurred in a motion put forward by our health critic, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, that would implement the recommendation in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health that called for compensation to all victims of hepatitis C. It was passed in the House and all victims of hepatitis C were to receive compensation.
When these three people asked me when they would get their money, I was shocked. I knew it had been approved long ago by this place. What is going on? The House of Commons made a decision that all hepatitis C victims would be compensated, yet to this date they have not been. In other words, the government of the day is refusing to take any action. It is ignoring the decision of the House.
Let me talk further about that to illustrate my worry about these kinds of bills that may pass, and even if they are amended, but do not go anywhere.
Bill C-2, the child exploitation act, has been approved by the House of Commons. It has gone where it is supposed to go. It is supposed to be implemented and become law. This is about child exploitation. Where is it? It is my understanding it is still sitting on the Prime Minister's desk and is not going anywhere. The House of Commons passed that law and it is supposed to happen. Why has it not?
We need answers to these kinds of questions. The decision on hepatitis C was unanimous. Nobody voted against it. Everybody in this place was in favour of giving the victims of hepatitis C a cheque. Today they still have not received them, and I would like to know why. After eight months, the government cannot achieve that? Are the Liberals waiting for everybody to die and then they will not have to bother with it? That is extremely disturbing.
On November 30, 2004, the House approved another motion by the leader of our party which called upon the government to take appropriate measures to sell 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose lands were expropriated to build the Mirabel airport. Guess what? The government has refused to comply with the wishes of the House. It has not done that.
On April 5 the House adopted a motion by the member for Red Deer, concurring in a committee report disqualifying Glen Murray's appointment as chairman of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Today, Mr. Murray still continues to chair the round table. Once again, the government completely ignored the decision of the House of Commons.
On February 15, Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 were defeated in the House of Commons. The trade minister shrugged off the defeat of these two bills that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs. He said that the two branches of government would continue to operate independently, even though Parliament did not give its blessing to do so. Even though they were defeated, the two bills were implemented. I find this amazing. Bills that are defeated are implemented and bills that are passed are not, because they do not suit the attitude on that side of the House.
Bill C-2 on child exploitation was approved and is laying dormant. Will the Liberals get on with it? Is it too harsh? It might be.
I was at committee on Tuesday and one of the witnesses was from the justice department. Guess what one of his statements was when the department objected to a private member's bill, which had been brought forward by my colleague, regarding the penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime? What did the official of the justice department say loud and clear? The bill was opposed because it was cruel and undue punishment. The punishment was too severe for people who would dare break the law in the commission of a crime using a gun. Yet the victims of these crimes never get to cry out about the harsh impacts on their lives from the actions of these perpetrators.
There is way too much of that going on, and it is no wonder. Every time a bill is brought in like Bill C-64, the outfit over there has to water it down because it is too harsh on the perpetrator. Never mind the guys who lose their cars to theft. Let us not get too harsh on those who steal them. How nonsensical can they get? Common sense does not prevail anywhere in the House of Commons. Decisions do not prevail in the House of Commons. It does not matter whether a motion passes, it does not get done.
I do not know if members would like more examples, but I have a ton of them, examples where the Liberals refuse to accept the decisions of the House. I do not know contemptible they can get.
Our health critic also had a motion in regard to the funding required to fight cancer and a few of the other serious diseases we are facing. He introduced a motion calling on the government to fully fund and implement a Canadian strategy for cancer control in collaboration with the provinces and all stakeholders. That was approved by the House, but there has been no action. Nothing is happening. The government refuses to give any effect to the motion. Why?
I am glad to see two or three Liberals here. I hope they are listening closely. Do they know of all the decisions that they took part in making but are not being done? Do they not care about the fact that hepatitis C victims are not being compensated, even though those people over there had a voice in that and voted yes to having it done? Does it not bother those members a little bit that people living in their ridings who have hepatitis C are not being compensated? Are they not bothered that the House is being ignored by whatever little group of individuals who do not care about decisions made here and that they will do it anyway?
Does it not bother those members that two bills designed to split a department were defeated and yet the government went ahead and created the two departments? Does it not bother those members the slightest little bit that these undemocratic, dictatorial decisions are going on right under their noses? Does it not make them squirm in their seats just a wee bit? If it does not, then it ought to make it really hot to sit in those seats. It is absolutely shameful.
And to hear the answer to my question today, that the government realizes there is an imbalance in our law and order and fighting of crime. That was the government's own admission in the answer. Why are we not doing something about it? We have an opportunity to get tough on crime. When we have a chance to get tough on street racing as Mr. Cadman wished, on the stealing of automobiles and the removing of VINs, why do we not do it?
When the Liberals make a statement that there is an imbalance, why does more favour always go toward the predators rather than the victims? This is constantly happening. When they make those statements, why do they allow it? Why do they want to amend those bills to make that happen again?
Why do the Liberals not fess up and look to the people in their ridings? How many people in their ridings are happy that we have a law in the land which says that adult men can have sex with 14-year-old girls? How many people in their ridings are happy about that? About 99% of the people in my riding are not happy about that at all, but that is the law and there is not the courage to change it because somebody over there does not want it to happen. Some soft, mushy idealist over there says that it would be too harsh, that we could not do it because it would make it difficult for those adult men who like to prey on young women who are kids. Like it or not, 14 year olds and 15 year olds are still kids. They are young girls just coming to the point of life where they can enjoy things, yet we dare allow the possibility of endangering them.
I know that questions are going to come up after this speech but boy, I would like some answers to come out of the mouths of those people over there before they ask the questions. I would like them to explain to me why they do not honour democracy, that when a decision is made in the House it is done. If they doubt it, I will give them a copy of the 14 things I know about that have been decided on but which have not been accomplished. They could take it up in the Liberal caucus if they wanted to, but it would not make any difference because they are puppets of a regime that refuses to honour the decisions of the House. That is what has to stop.
Then above all things, the most absolutely ridiculous, the most undemocratic decision I have ever heard of was to stifle the opposition by coming back in the fall and saying that there will be no opposition days. What a shameful, undemocratic disgrace the government brings to the House of Commons.
The Liberals ought to be apologizing to their constituents on a daily basis for their inaction on decisions made here and for their unwillingness to come down hard on criminals and help victims to a larger degree than they ever imagined. That is what a Conservative government would do and I would love to be part of that.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, as did a number of others, I listened with great interest as I always do to my colleague from Wild Rose. I would add to his comments that despite his challenge, I did not see any Liberals on the other side rising to defend what we would consider to be the indefensible, or try to defend the indefensible, when it comes to the completely undemocratic actions of the government.
I recently had the opportunity as House leader for the official opposition to write a couple of newspaper columns that were published, in which I declared that I believe that this is the most undemocratic Parliament I have seen in my lifetime and maybe in the history of Parliament itself.
My colleague cited a number of motions that were passed. The reason they were passed is that we are in a minority Parliament. It is not easy to get agreement among the three opposition parties in order to pass something. To get the agreement of the Conservatives, the separatists and the socialists is quite an accomplishment on any given day.
As the member indicated, with our opposition days last winter and early spring we passed a number of motions in the House that we felt were in the best interests of Canadians. They were supported sufficiently, in some cases by the Liberals themselves, to pass in this chamber and they should have been acted upon.
Instead, the government creates this illusion of democracy. As the member indicated at the closing of his remarks, the Liberals have replicated this fall what they did in the spring out of fear that the opposition may use an opposition day to bring forward a motion of non-confidence in the government which, if passed, would cause the government to fall. Out of fear of that the Liberals have postponed all of the opposition days. Normally we get roughly one opposition day every seven to nine days.
The Liberals postponed all of the opposition days until mid-November or later knowing two things. One is who wants an election on Boxing Day? That is what would happen if the government fell after the middle of November. Obviously that is a serious consideration for any party in defeating the government, even though we inherently believe, and have steadfastly believed since late last winter, that the government is corrupt and should be removed from office. We have never deviated from that.
The other reason is what my colleague from Wild Rose alluded to which is if the Liberals can put off the opposition days, they will not potentially be embarrassed, the way they should be embarrassed right now. Opposition days resulted in the passage of some really good motions, which the member listed, which should have been democratically acted upon by the government because the majority of the elected representatives in the House of Commons voted for them. It should be incumbent upon the government to enact those motions, but it is ignoring them.
If the Liberals can push that back until the winter, obviously with an election coming in the spring at the latest, they will not have to act on those. Even if we bring forward more good motions that we believe are in the best interests of Canadians, even if the majority of members crossing partisan boundaries support those motions, the government will not act upon them.
I wonder what my colleague has to say about a government in a minority situation that will use every possible parliamentary procedural tool at its disposal, and actually brag about it, to avoid the challenge of confidence of the chamber. Our parliamentary system is based upon the premise that on any given day the Prime Minister must be able to demonstrate to Canadians that he has the confidence of this place. That is what it is based upon. The Liberal government, more than any in the past, is avoiding that responsibility to prove to Canadians that it has the confidence not just of its own backbench, not just of its own cabinet, but that it has the confidence of the majority of members in this place.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say right off the top that I for one would love to vote on Christmas Day or Boxing Day and give Canadians the greatest gift we could give them, which is to get rid of the mob of corrupt people on that side of the House. I really would not care what day the election was held as long as we got rid of that corrupt, undemocratic mob that has been acting as the government of this country. I do not know how else to put it.
As the member said, it is a minority government. If we as a group give the confidence to the Prime Minister of the day to continue operating as is, that is one thing, but not to even have the opportunity to test that confidence through a supply day motion is as undemocratic as one can get. It is pathetic. The government should stand the test of confidence.
Time and time again the NDP leader has stood up and said, “We must make this work. This minority government will work. We will join the Liberals in decision making so nobody gets defeated and we will make it work”.
I listed a few things that happened. They were pretty good things. I think everybody would agree that they were good things. Is it not a good thing to give the people with hepatitis C compensation? They deserve it. All victims of hepatitis C should be compensated. We made that decision, but it is not happening. It will not happen. There is a group somewhere in that mob over there who hope that it all dies out before the next election so they do not have to implement it. I really find that disturbing.
The leader of the NDP supports that corrupt, indecisive, dithering mob who will not abide by the decisions of the House day after day. The Liberals just will not abide by the decisions that are made here.
I do not want a government that does not do what we decide it should do as members of Parliament. I do not want that government. There are countries that have that kind of government. They are called dictatorships. I do not want that and I do not think my colleagues anywhere in the House want it. I know the residents of Wild Rose do not want it.
Let us have a vote of confidence. Let us give Canadians the best Christmas gift we could give them. Throw the government out of a job. The Liberals need to be on the unemployment line.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): May I remind hon. members to be careful with the vocabulary they use.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the rabble over there is rousing for us to speak. The House leader over there has invited us to speak to the democratic deficit. The member for Prince Albert is encouraging me to get up, so I am delighted to have this opportunity.
Yesterday I gave an interview on the democratic deficit and I explained how this is the most democratic Parliament in history and I outlined a number of reasons. We appointed the first independent ethics counsellor in history. The House of Commons now has its own conflict of interest code. We have added more committee resources so that the committees, where a lot of work is done in Parliament--
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am just wondering, is there not a parliamentary rule against using this chamber for comedic joke telling?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park has helped me decide that I will let the hon. parliamentary secretary continue.
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, that is a good indication of the level of sophistication of the debate on the other side. Members opposite talk about jokes when we are talking about serious procedures.
I will go on. We have added more resources to the Library of Parliament which does research on issues to ensure that they are properly dealt with in Parliament. We have some nominations for positions, such as the heads of crown corporations, which are sent to committee for review.
The two items that have increased the democratic operation of the House more than anything in history are: first, this is the first time that more bills than ever are being sent to members in Parliament for review after first reading. We can actually change the nature of a bill. When the bill is at second reading, the whole principle or nature of the bill cannot be changed.
Second, the Prime Minister has given this side of the House a three line whip, which means that for most of the votes members on this side are voting more freely than ever. I have voted against the government numerous times because our Prime Minister thinks that members should have that democratic right. The Prime Minister has democratized the House in that respect.
The member believes in democracy. I hope he does not support his House leader's suggestion that our House leader do something in his power that would precipitate an election. He used his democratic right to schedule the opposition days. The opposition is getting all its opposition days.
If the opposition likes democracy, why would the opposition party support going to war with Iraq when most Canadians democratically did not want to go to war with Iraq?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I am going to ask the hon. member for Wild Rose to respond very briefly please. We are running out of time.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief, particularly in response to the member's last comment.
All I can say about the war in Iraq is that the world is sure a whole lot better off without Saddam Hussein. If he thinks that Iraq is not better off and that Hussein should still be in charge, then I am sorry for him because that is the kind of country that I have been talking about.
The member failed to mention all the crony appointments that the government has made, including Dingwall, including Ouellet who still has not produced some millions of dollars worth of receipts for expenses that he made. There are all of these things and the member has not talked about them.
The member failed to mention most of the decisions that were made in this House. The member opposite may have been part of making a good decision that has not yet been implemented. Perhaps the member could stand up sometime and give us some information as to why hepatitis C victims are not compensated. I would like to hear the reason. That was a decision made here. Perhaps the member could explain to this House of Commons why a department was divided and split in two, even though the bill to do so was defeated.
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for Bill C-64, a government bill that would provide a new offence for altering, removing or obliterating a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle. This bill is important as it addresses a gap that currently exists in the Criminal Code.
At present, there are offences in the Criminal Code that can and are being used to address the problem of automobile theft in Canada. These include, notably, the specific offences of theft and possession of stolen property. There is also the offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent, sometimes referred to as the joyriding offence. Also relevant is the offence of fleeing in a motor vehicle to evade a peace officer, an offence that is frequently engaged in by persons who have stolen cars.
However, while these offences can be and are being used, they do not fully address the activity that is proposed to be directly criminalized in Bill C-64. Currently, the activity of altering a vehicle identification number is most closely associated with the offence of possession of property obtained by crime, in section 354 of the Criminal Code.
When people are found to be in possession of stolen vehicles, it is not at all uncommon to find that those vehicles have had their vehicle identification numbers tampered with. Indeed, section 354 already includes a provision with respect to vehicle identification numbers. In particular, section 354 includes a provision stating that evidence that a person is in possession of a motor vehicle which has had its vehicle identification number wholly or partially removed or obliterated is considered to be evidence that the vehicle was obtained by an offence.
Why then is it worthwhile to also provide for the offence proposed under Bill C-64? The answer is that the proposed new offence does not address possession itself, which is already criminalized, but the actual act of tampering with the vehicle identification number.
A further understanding for the rationale underlying the proposed new offence can be found in part in the very placement of the proposed new offence in the Criminal Code. The offence would be added as new section 377.1. It would not appear adjacent to the possession offence at section 354 but rather adjacent to provisions such as the illegal damaging of documents and offences in relation to registers of information. These offences are designed to protect the integrity of certain important documents and registries of information in Canada.
The vehicle identification number system is itself an important record of information. Each vehicle is given a unique number to confirm its identity and origin. This number, properly remaining in place, plays a vital role in respect of detecting and retrieving a stolen vehicle after a theft. In addition, it can also be used to track recalls, registrations, warranty claims and insurance coverage. It has been referred to as the automotive equivalent of human DNA.
The government has a clear interest in protecting the integrity of this system. Therefore, it is proposing the offence under Bill C-64 which would address the altering, removing or obliteration of a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle.
This proposed new offence would clearly and directly recognize that tampering with a vehicle identification number for this purpose is wrong. The offence would recognize the act as a key and central aspect of a chain of activities involved in the theft of a motor vehicle and the reselling of vehicles or their parts, activities that are frequently engaged in by well organized crime rings.
This chain of activities, that also includes the transportation of stolen vehicles or their parts to foreign countries for resale, generates very considerable profit for organized crime in this country and abroad. It also deprives Canadians of their motor vehicles, which are, of course, extremely significant physical possessions, in monetary and practical terms, for individuals and families.
While insurance can provide compensation for this theft, the amount of theft contributes substantially to insurance costs that are a burden to society at large. The government has a clear and direct interest in addressing this chain of activities and, therefore, indirectly criminalizing one of the central acts that facilitates it.
The additional proposed offence may perhaps be seen as a subtle addition to the already existing offences in the Criminal Code, such as theft and possession of property obtained by crime, but it is an important and justified one for the reasons that I have outlined.
I observe as well that the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have called upon the government to pass a distinctive offence of tampering with a vehicle identification number.
It is important to note as well that the creation of a distinct offence of this nature would more clearly help to indicate a perpetrator's potential involvement as part of an organized vehicle theft ring. In this regard, the fact of charges and prosecution under the proposed new offence would be of value to police and the Crown prosecutors in subsequent investigations and prosecutions.
It is also important to observe in this regard that the proposed new offence, with its maximum punishment of five years imprisonment, can qualify as a criminal organization offence under the Criminal Code. Where this is demonstrated, additional criminal law provisions can come into play, including the possibility of an additional conviction for one of the core criminal organization offences found in the Criminal Code, such as participation in the activities of a criminal organization, the possibility of consecutive sentencing for offences arising out of the same transaction, and a deeming of an aggravating factor on sentencing and reduced parole eligibility.
I recognize that questions have been raised as to whether appropriately severe sentences would be available for the proposed new offence where the offence has been committed in connection with organized crime. It should be underlined that this would be available by virtue of these additional criminal organization provisions of the Criminal Code that are designed for this very purpose. I would also underline that another piece of legislation currently before this House, Bill C-53, would provide for aggressive additional proceeds of crime measures in respect of criminal organization offences.
Therefore, these aggressive new proceeds of crime measures, if passed by Parliament, would also be available for the proposed new vehicle identification number tampering offence where it is demonstrated that this tampering was done for a criminal organization.
It must be recognized that not every person who alters, moves or obliterates a vehicle identification number necessarily does so in a criminal context. There may be innocent, lawful explanations for such activity. In recognition of this, the offence criminalizes the act of tampering with the vehicle identification number only where circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so for the purpose of concealing the identity of the vehicle. Further, the provision would recognize the possibility of lawful excuse. These are appropriate safeguards in respect of the offence.
I recognize that questions have been asked as to why it was advisable to add the words “under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”, if the proposed provision also makes reference to the possibility of lawful excuse. The reason is that in certain cases, like legitimate wrecking of an automobile, VINs are regularly obliterated.
In view of these regular circumstances, it is appropriate to more clearly identify a specific wrongful purpose in the definition of the offence itself. The defence of lawful excuse, as appropriate, would be left for circumstances where persons engaged in the act with the apparent wrongful purpose but nevertheless had an excuse for doing so.
It must also be acknowledged that a private member's bill, Bill C-287, introduced by the late Chuck Cadman, provided a critical part of the inspiration for the current government bill. It contains somewhat different language with respect to the lawful excuse element. In particular, Mr. Cadman's bill proposed including the words “the proof of which lies on the person” in the reference to lawful excuse. These additional words are now part of the government bill.
The inclusion of such words would put a persuasive burden on an accused to prove a defence. This is contrary to general traditions under Canadian criminal law under which the persuasive burden remains on the Crown with respect to guilt or innocence.
This is also, in particular, a concern under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In general, whenever an accused is required to disprove, on a balance of probabilities, any factor affecting the verdict of guilt or innocence, charter concerns can arise with respect to the presumption of innocence.
It is not the general practice under the Criminal Code for reverse burdens to be put on an accused with respect to guilt or innocence itself. Convictions are regularly obtained under existing provisions of the code with the full persuasive burden remaining on the Crown.
This is a normal part of our legal tradition in Canada. The government had no intention of leaving the proposed new measure open to a charter doubt. A reverse burden in this case was considered by the government not to serve any necessary purpose. Defence can be effective without it and so it was not included in the government bill.
This bill is an important addition to the criminal law tool kit. It will fill the gap that currently exists in the Criminal Code of Canada. It will address an activity that is part of the cycle of auto theft for profit, frequently engaged in by organized crime. It provides for an appropriate sentence of a maximum of 5 years' imprisonment for the offence itself. Further, in conjunction with existing and additional proposed measures with respect to criminal organization offences, it allows for the imposition of serious additional consequences where a link to organized crime is shown.
At the same time, the drafting of the offence provides for appropriate safeguards so as to accurately describe the criminal nature of the activity captured and so as not to impose a reverse burden on an accused with respect to guilt or innocence that could affect the charter viability of this particular offence.
The government is confident that this will be an effective and justifiable new provision of the Criminal Code. I call upon members of the House to support it.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the member's presentation conflicts with other areas of the law and I know those members are sticklers for that.
Is he aware that under the Criminal Code possession of a certain amount of marijuana, for example, automatically brings the court charge “for the purposes of trafficking”? It is assumed that the possession of that amount of drugs is for the purposes of trafficking. There is no grey area there.
This member is saying that there is a question as to whether someone who is caught with a stolen vehicle with the VIN removed did it for some legitimate cause or not. I would like the member to stand up and tell me about one lawful, innocent removal of a VIN, as he mentioned in his speech, that is likely to bring a criminal charge against that person. I would like just one example.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite had listened carefully, he would have heard the example I listed during the speech, that of auto wreckers. There is great concern in those industries, because through their work they regularly obliterate VIN numbers.
What the fundamental issue is with this bill is the onus of proof and this whole concept of the probabilities: whether or not a person has to prove their innocence or whether it is up to the prosecutor, the Crown, to prove the guilt of a person. That comes back to the fundamental pillars of our judicial system and how our judicial system has been built up over decades and in fact centuries. One of those pillars is an assumption of innocence.
If we were to change this in a case of this sort and say that the balance of probabilities means that if the probabilities are 50% plus one that the person may be guilty, then in fact the person will be sentenced. Fifty per cent is almost fifty-fifty. It is a coin toss. That undermines the very fundamental basis on which our judicial system has been built.
The Crown has tremendous resources at its disposal so that it can in fact prove the guilt of someone who has been convicted. To shift that responsibility onto someone who would have to prove his or her innocence would be incredibly onerous. In fact, it comes back to some of those very democratic principles on which our society is built, which are that government apparatus, government departments and the prosecution have an obligation to prove guilt and that innocent people will not end up in prison.
Of course, as was pointed out, that is not a Conservative principle. I guess the principle of vigilantism, et cetera, is closer to the principles on the opposite side.
Let us return to this whole fundamental principle of institutions of the government and of the Crown not having the onus on them to prove guilt. Let us look at it being up to an individual citizen to have to do it. In fact, we see that in a lot of places in the world. In the former Soviet Union, that is exactly how things worked.
Even in Canada, in situations where the burden of proof lies on the Crown in very serious cases, murder cases, where beyond a shadow of a doubt we have to prove guilt, quite often with new evidence as the years go by we find that people who were convicted and have spent a great number of years behind bars were in fact innocent.
If we shifted to a coin toss, balance of probabilities, 50% plus one—and that is what we are talking about, basically fifty-fifty, a coin toss—that would be a fundamental shift, not just in how our judiciary has been built up but also in our democracy.
Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, this individual must have gone to a different law school than I did. If a person is caught for speeding, the Crown proves in court from the reading of the car that the driver was going 80 miles per hour in a 60 mile per hour zone. The Crown sits down, having proven its case. If the accused has a valid reason for driving 80 miles per hour, the defence lawyer introduces a case and makes the argument.
If a person is found with a vehicle on which the VIN has been removed, comes into court and it is proven that the offence has been committed and the VIN is off the vehicle, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the individual feels that he has a justifiable reason for having it removed from his vehicle, it is then up to his lawyer then to discharge his or her responsibility and introduce evidence for why it was justified.
What I have heard in this chamber today is truly astounding. If that is the depth of the intellect that is involved in creating the criminal justice system in this country, we are in for a whole lot of problems in this society, a whole lot of problems, because it is thin soup if I have ever seen it. Any law professor in this country giving the diatribe we heard today would be literally laughed out of the classroom.
The Criminal Code is full of provisions that shift the burden onto the accused at certain stages. That is as old as the hills too. It is old as the common law and the Magna Carta.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj: Mr. Speaker, I will not get into a game of comparing intellects. I will not take part in that sort of dialogue within this august institution. Members of the electorate can judge on their own the intellectual level of debate that takes place in this forum.
Let me refer to the example used, a conviction on speeding. In most of these cases there is very clear evidence and clear proof. There is a driver who has been stopped. The measurement is by certified radar equipment. That is why the proof in that particular set of circumstances is very clear. The balance of probabilities does not entail that sort of requirement. The balance of probabilities would allow for a case where someone sees someone zip by, says it looks like the person who lives in a house where that car is parked, and convicting on that sort of basis.
We are talking about a very serious piece of legislation. We understand that the legislation would have a very difficult time surviving a charter test. Our judiciary is built upon a tradition that calls upon the Crown to prove its case and on a presumption of innocence.
The balance of probabilities undermines those very principles, so it would not survive a charter test. If it does not survive a charter test, we have in fact defeated this whole exercise. Instead of having a bill that addresses a specific loophole that exists and being able to criminalize that particular activity, we would be passing laws that would be ineffectual and that would, in the worst case, undermine our judicial traditions.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member across the way had been allowed a little more time for questions and comments I would have asked him if he knew about the change the government made in Bill C-64 from Mr. Cadman's bill, to place the offence under rights of property, under section 377.1, as opposed to what Mr. Cadman intended which was to put it under fraudulent transactions in section 397. By moving it to an offence against rights of property, the government removed all charter provisions as a mitigating factor. However that was the argument he was just resorting to so obviously he has not read the bill and does not understand the bill.
I wish to notify the Chair that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.
We have spoken at some length here today to why we find ourselves in opposition to Bill C-64. Obviously the intent to bring down legislation that alters our justice system and holds those who would alter or obliterate a vehicle identification number is something we support. However, as has been pointed out by a number of my colleagues, the legislation is not in the form intended by the original sponsor, our colleague, the late Chuck Cadman.
We have been through that in a number of speeches today that we believe this has been watered down. We were into a debate with a Liberal colleague a few moments ago where we clearly showed our concern that by changing the definition to include the phrase “without lawful excuse and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”, that would put a double onus on the crown to prove this was an illegal action.
To be quite honest, I do not understand why the government always sides with the criminal and always wants to handcuff our crown attorneys, our prosecutors, by making it so difficult for them to do their job. We see it with legislation the Liberals bring forward all the time. As the Liberal member just said, they are so worried that the accused might actually have to prove that he is innocent at some point that they make it virtually impossible for our crown prosecutors to get a conviction.
I want to move beyond this legislation in the sense of looking at what would likely happen if the crown actually did get a conviction under this. The Liberal who just spoke said that he would be supporting this, that it is getting tough on crime and that it would come with a maximum sentence of five years in prison. We are going to get tough with these guys because a lot of the time when people obliterate or change the vehicle identification number, it is because it is a criminal activity that is involved. It is not someone out joyriding. In many cases it is organized crime that is heisting very expensive motor vehicles for profit in a very organized manner. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles are stolen in this country and we need to get tough.
The Liberals bring in this bill that says a maximum of five years. I want to talk about what will likely take place even if we haul a Hell's Angel into court. What will likely happen is that they will receive a conditional sentence.
What is a conditional sentence? A conditional sentence is something the Liberals brought into being less than a year after they took office in 1993. I believe it was half way through 1994. I and a lot of my colleagues in the Reform Party at that time raised concerns that conditional sentencing might be used for violent crime and drug trafficking, things we felt, and I think the majority of Canadians felt, were totally unacceptable.
People who commit horrific crimes, especially violent crimes, such as sexual assault, common assault, manslaughter and murder, should do jail time, not just because they may or may not be an additional threat to society were they to be left at large, but as a deterrent, to send the message that those types of activities are totally unacceptable in a civilized society. We need to send the message that when people do those types of crimes they do serious jail time.
What did the Liberals do? By September 3, 1996, they brought in what I would classify now as their infamous conditional sentencing. The justice minister at the time was a fellow by the name of Alan Rock, he of the infamous gun registry. If we believe the Liberals, it was with the best of intentions that they wanted to bring it in. They said repeatedly in debate and in committee where it was studied that they wanted to ensure that people, especially young people who made one error in judgment, whether it was vandalism, shoplifting or something like that, would not go to jail and be mixed in with hardened criminals. It was an admirable objective. Nobody had any problem with that.
However we said at the time that the Liberals should specify those crimes where judges will not be able to use conditional sentencing because they are so serious. We asked them to put that in.
I went beyond that as a private member in this place. I drafted a private member's motion, first introduced in early 1998, less than a year and a half after conditional sentencing came into existence in our country. I specified which crimes would be excluded for use by the courts for conditional sentencing.
What is conditional sentencing? Conditional sentencing is imposing certain conditions. What are those conditions, usually? It is like Paul Coffin. He stole a million dollars from the taxpayers and was given a conditional sentence. What was it? It was a curfew, something we would give to a wayward teenager, telling them they must be back home by 9 p.m., or some silly thing. Conditional sentencing usually means house arrest. Instead of going to jail, a person has to serve his or her time sitting at home. That will certainly provide a great deterrent.
After some nine years that conditional sentencing has been law, I have introduced motions and bills to limit the use of conditional sentencing and exclude violent crime from its use. Now the justice minister is saying, in the dying days of this Parliament, which we all know will end, at a maximum, by next spring, that he will bring in some changes to conditional sentencing. I will wait to see what those are. I can almost guarantee the House that they will be just like those in the bill we are debating today, Bill C-64. They will perhaps restrict but they will provide enough legal loopholes that defence lawyers will be able to keep their clients out of jail. I would almost guarantee that is what will happen because the government always comes down on the side of the accused, the criminal, and Canadians are getting more than a little bit tired of it.
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to some of the questions just raised by the hon. member who just spoke.
He was off on a bit of a rant about not having enough tough mandatory minimum sentences. I want to take this moment to give him an opportunity to reflect on those that are in the Criminal Code that deal with those who would use a firearm. It is very important to get on the record that there are some very serious consequences for those who use firearms and there are mandatory minimum penalties.
We all know there is a mandatory minimum penalty associated with murder. Criminal negligence causing death has a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. Manslaughter carries a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. Attempted murder carries a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. The mandatory minimum sentence for causing bodily harm with intent is four years. Sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault both carry a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. Kidnapping and hostage taking both carry a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. Robbery and extortion both carry a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. There are many other mandatory minimums within the Criminal Code but those that I have recited have four year mandatory minimums.
There are strong tools within the Criminal Code and I have just outlined some of them. I would like the member's comments on that.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, that was unbelievable. I believe he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in this country so it is hard to believe that is the extent of his understanding of what is happening in the real world outside this chamber.
I never mentioned mandatory minimums. If he had actually listened to my remarks before he rushed into the chamber to stand on his feet he would have heard me talking about the use of conditional sentencing. He said that manslaughter carries a mandatory minimum of four years. We have had hundreds of cases in this country involving manslaughter or second degree murder and the people have not served one day in jail.
About a year or so ago there was what I consider an infamous case in my riding in a small community close to the city of Prince George. The sentence only came down in the last month or so. Norman Wicks of Vanderhoof was not a perfect fellow. He had a number of lovers, in addition to being married, but I do not know whether that was a reason to murder him. One of his lovers, Teresa Senner, found out about his affairs and became enraged. She stabbed him in the groin and he bled to death.
Paul MacKlin: If this were with a gun.
Jay Hill: A gun? Oh, I see. If she had used a gun and shot him and he died it might have been different. Well, she was convicted of manslaughter but because she stabbed him and he died she was given house arrest. She did not serve one day in jail.
There have been thousands of cases like that over the last 9 years, and yet that member has the audacity to stand up and pretend that our justice system has any justice in it.
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for allowing me to share his time.
He mentioned “out there in the real world”. It made me think of my case. I was first elected in 1988. I am the longest serving member of Parliament in my province, and I have seen a dramatic change in the last five or six years in the way law enforcement is handled.
When I first became a member of Parliament, there virtually were no law enforcement issues. Now it has become one of the major issues I deal with and one of the most complicated simply because the government shortchanges the RCMP. It does not have the tools, or the funds or the police officers to do the minimum level of law enforcement and it makes everybody's life very difficult. I think it reflects on everyone's attitude on law enforcement and the justice system, as does this bill.
We really area proud that at least Chuck Cadman's initiative is recognized. However, we are not happy with the way it has been recognized. Chuck's initiative was to establish a law that would make it illegal to remove, obliterate or change serial numbers of vehicles. It was a clear and simple law. It would be up to the person to explain why the VIN was obliterated.
However, the Liberals have take the onus off the owner. It is up to the police now to prove the owner did it for wrongful purposes. It takes away the whole purpose of the bill. That is why the Conservatives will not support it.
What is wrong with asking owners to explain why they are driving around in cars with VINs that have obviously been scratched out or changed? It is their responsibility. They should be charged and held responsible to prove that it was for legitimate reasons. Why the government would not do that? If it did, I would support the bill. However, it reflects its whole attitude on crime.
When the last speaker talked about the real world, I was in the real world a couple of weeks ago. I went to a meeting of scared citizens in Stewiacke, Nova Scotia. This is a community where people do not usually lock their doors. They leave their keys in their cars. It is a very safe community and it has been that way for decades. Now all of a sudden they are faced with property damage and thefts, a scary atmosphere for them to live in and raise their kids. What impressed me the most was that speaker after speaker got up and said that they were scared for the well-being and security.
There were two big issues. One is the RCMP is not available like it used to be. There was a detachment in Stewiacke, Nova Scotia. The building became unusable because of mould. The RCMP has not replaced it because it does not have the funds. Stewiacke has lost its RCMP presence, the only police presence in the community.
The other issue is the Youth Criminal Justice Act is simply not working for the people in Stewiacke. It is causing them a great deal of grief.
Last week a person from the community of Debert came to see me. This is another traditional small community in Nova Scotia where people did not lock their doors and they would leave their keys in their cars. They cannot do it any more because of inadequate police protection. People have had their cottages burned and windows smashed. They have had things stolen from their garages and yards. The RCMP has said that it has done the best it can, but it does not have enough manpower. It also does not have the proper equipment. If the RCMP had the equipment and the manpower, it could do it.
I have spoken to RCMP officers at every detachment. They have said that if someone is on maternity leave, or on sick leave or is seconded on a murder investigation somewhere else, there is no replacement. An RCMP detachment, which supposedly has six people on record on the job, may have as little as three or none. There is no allowance for replacement officers. We have to deal with that.
In February I raised the question with the minister of public security. It came up because there was a rumour that the northeast drug section would be disbanded, one of the most successful drug enforcement offices in eastern Canada. The reason was the RCMP did not have the resources and the manpower to run this important drug enforcement agency. A moratorium has been put on the closure, but still the drug section is not there the way it was. The RCMP says it is back again, but the officers have been seconded and, again, we do not have the people we need.
The most senior RCMP officers in the province have told me they simply do not have the money to hire the RCMP officers to provide a minimum level of law enforcement in Nova Scotia.
I asked the minister on February 3 to ensure that it had the resources. I brought up the business about filling the vacancies. She said:
However, let me reassure the hon. member that we have provided additional resources not only to the RCMP, but to other of our programming as it relates to a national drug strategy. The RCMP resources have been augmented nationally...
It certainly does not show. The RCMP tell me not only has it not been augmented, but it has been reduced, plus its workload has dramatically increased. With the advent of 911 and all the other cutbacks in government services, the front line for many people on whatever the issue is the RCMP, and it simply cannot handle it. The RCMP needs more resources.
As I did in February, I call upon the government to enhance the resources, to improve and increase them. The RCMP is trying to stretch its meagre resources now to cover our part of Nova Scotia. I read every day in the newspapers that there are other parts of the province suffering the same problems.
I have experienced them myself. In the case of Stewiacke, the RCMP has put a used mobile home in front of the former RCMP station, which is a temporary facility, and I am pleased it has done that. Since it is used, it will be converted. The Minister of Public Works has agreed to upgrade it as quickly as possible to ensure it is available. However, it is just a mobile home. It is not good enough for the long term, but at least we will have a police presence again.
I know this is not all due to the RCMP or to one single thing, but we have to address the RCMP. It needs the tools, the resources, the money and the manpower to do the job. We need a more aggressive approach to law enforcement and the justice system.
Bill C-64 is a good example. The bill came forth originally as Bill C-287, and it was a strong bill. The government watered it down and taken the onus off the criminals again and put it on the RCMP.
In my view it is an amazing development. When I first started in Parliament, I had no justice or policing issues. Now it is one of my biggest problems and it is difficult to solve because the Liberals will not provide the resources to supply a minimum level of law enforcement.
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague from Nova Scotia, particularly about priorities and police issues. I too have raised in the House issues of inadequate funding and support for our RCMP and other police and law enforcement agencies.
As I listened to his comments about the priorities of the government, I thought that is precisely what these priorities are about.
With the recent news about a $200 million contract for computers for the gun registry, what does the member think that says about the priorities of the government relative to other law enforcement priorities?
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that the member raises that question. Today is the very distinguished member's from Yorkton—Melville's birthday and he has been advocate for wise government spending, away from the gun registry.
The gun registry money has been a total waste. This money should have gone to the RCMP and other justice procedures.
Some people in my riding are being required to pay a fee to be re-licensed. It is absolute chaos. The government could put another $200 billion or $300 billion into the gun registry and it will all go down the toilet. We need the money for real law enforcement. We need money for the RCMP so that its has the tools with which to work.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): On Tuesday, September 27 the hon. member for Lanark--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington moved an amendment to private member's business Motion No. 135. At the time the Chair took the amendment under advisement.
On Thursday, October 6 the Speaker concluded in a ruling presented to the House that the amendment was in order and that it could be put to the House.
This afternoon's debate will now be on the amendment.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment and its context once again. I continue to find it scandalous that the member for Nepean--Carleton and his provincial colleague, John Baird, persist in trying to score political points with health care in our community.
Let us look at John Baird's record on health care.
John Baird was a cabinet minister in the Mike Harris government, the senior minister for eastern Ontario, when 8,000 nurses were fired, a hospital in our community was closed and not one MRI machine came to Ottawa, despite $3 billion transferred from the federal government specifically for that purpose. When we transferred $250 million to the province, not one cent came for primary health care to the Nepean community--
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have a private member's bill and an amendment which we are trying to debate. This is totally irrelevant. If she wants to fight an election battle in her riding with someone who is not in this House, let her deal with that, but we need to stick to the issues here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): May I remind the hon. member that the hon. colleague has the floor. I am sure that she will bring the subject to a point where he will be interested in listening. The hon. member for Ottawa West--Nepean.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite legitimate to speak to health care and to the credibility of those who are proposing this particular measure. Let me continue.
Despite a promise from the Mike Harris government, no money came for two years to the Queensway Carleton Hospital for its promised expansion until the federal government transferred additional money to the provincial government.
Let me also point out that our hospital board was fired while John Baird sat at the cabinet table. It is simply not credible to accept that this is about health care. This is a current publicity seeking stunt that has everything to do with Mr. Baird's political ambitions.
Let me now speak to the issue as I see it. The hospital is extremely important to our community, too important to be made into a political football.
It is also important to our community and to this country that the greenbelt be preserved in its integrity. This is something that was part of a plan developed after the second world war to honour our returning veterans. It contributes to making the capital a symbol of pride and unity for all Canadians, a capital that will be passed on as a legacy for future generations.
Whether we like it or not, the NCC is obligated under legislation and regulations to charge market value for any land it leases or sells, as is every federal government department and agency. This was a rule brought in by a Conservative government pursuant to the Nielsen task force report of the mid-1980s.
This is a policy that is also overseen by the Auditor General, who is scrupulous about ensuring that the taxpayers' interests, the people of Canada's interests, are looked after.
I want to put on the record some things that have been brought up in this debate.
There has been a claim that no other hospital pays rent for its property. That is simply not true. The simple fact is that another hospital in this community pays rent to the NCC for property. The simple fact is that a third hospital in this community pays substantial rent to the City of Ottawa which is now in fact increasing that rent for the land it uses. It is also true that the Queensway Carleton Hospital, like every other hospital, pays $75 per bed in taxes to the City of Ottawa. Surely the mover of the motion is not suggesting that the city should forgo its taxes on the hospital as well.
The member has also spoken publicly about this lease costing potentially 40 nurses at the Queensway Carleton Hospital. He knows that is simply not true. He is going on figures that he himself made up and that have nothing to do with the likely real rent that might be agreed to between the NCC and the hospital.
He has also referred to the lease with the Pine View golf course. This is a lease with the City of Ottawa for the land on which it operates the Pine View golf course. In fact the city paid up front for that lease over $200,000, has invested nearly half a billion dollars in assets which now belong to the people of Canada to be leased at market value whenever the current lease expires.
The NCC is being as flexible as it can be within the rules and the laws it is bound to abide by. The hospital and the NCC are in discussions about reaching a mutually agreeable lease. I encourage those discussions to continue. I encourage all members of the House to support those discussions.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in today's debate. Motion No. 135, tabled by the member for Nepean—Carleton, states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider transferring the land currently leased by the Queensway Carleton Hospital from the National Capital Commission to the Hospital at a cost of one dollar.

Before I state our position on this, I want to go over a number of facts that need to be considered when it comes time to vote.
First, here are the facts. The Queensway-Carleton Hospital leases 50 acres of land from the National Capital Commission at an annual cost of approximately $23,000. The 40-year lease will expire in July 2013. The hospital authorities fear, as they have already stated publicly, that this rent will skyrocket in 2013. The government and the National Capital Commission are refusing to transfer the land in order to preserve the national capital greenbelt and national interest land mass.
On November 29, 2004, the sponsor of this motion condemned the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, saying she was steadfast in her refusal to transfer the land.
I will talk briefly about the motion, but I will indicate to the House the factors that should, in our opinion, guide the government's action on this matter. First, we believe that we must continue to negotiate in order to reach agreement on the terms of renewal. We are convinced that both parties will reach a suitable agreement by 2013. We are also convinced that the new lease payment will be reasonable, since it is established in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. We must remember that the conditions of this lease must comply with Treasury Board guidelines. So, we must allow the negotiations to run their course. We are quite hopeful that the parties will reach an agreement by 2013.
Furthermore, we believe that any future selling price needs to correspond to the market value of the land, as the hon. member has just said.
It is a matter of determining how an exception can be made for this location when, in the past, land has not been sold for $1 in certain instances in Quebec. Take the case of the Wakefield hospital, which is located in part on NCC property. Since this property was not part of the national interest land mass, the National Capital Commission literally sold it to the hospital. The property in question, 3.5 acres of land, was sold for $5,000 an acre, a total of $43,500. So a hospital on the Quebec side bought land from the NCC, not for $1, but rather for $5,000 an acre.
Hon. members may recall the situation in Montreal, where some social and community groups wanted to build social housing on CBC land. Was that land handed over to them for $1 so they could do so? No. The parties negotiated and an agreement was reached.
Treasury Board guidelines are quite clear. There are, moreover, precedents in place, including the Wakefield hospital in Quebec, where negotiations took place and the land was sold properly, not handed over for $1. We therefore believe a new precedent must not be created.
We feel that negotiation must be the cornerstone of any agreement between the hospital in question and the NCC.
The Bloc Québécois will, as you will understand, vote against this motion. Laudable as the idea may seem, we continue to believe that negotiation is required. We also believe that an agreement will be signed in the next few weeks or months with respect to 2013.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 135 brought forward by my colleague and neighbour from the riding of Nepean—Carleton. The motion urges the government to continue leasing NCC land to the Queensway Carleton Hospital at a rent of $1 per year, starting at the end of the current lease in the year 2013.
My colleague has worked tirelessly for the past several months on this initiative, along with provincial member of parliament John Baird. He has successfully raised awareness of the hospital's situation in the greater Ottawa area and is putting a commendable full court press on the government to solve the problem. As we know, the solution lies in its hands.
I stand today on behalf of my constituents in Carleton—Mississippi Mills to support my colleague's motion.
When the Queensway Carleton opened its doors in 1967, it was designed to serve approximately 125,000 residents who called the west end of Ottawa home. Over the past 30 years western Ottawa has become one of the fastest growing areas in the country. The hospital is now dealing with an area population of 400,000 in western Ottawa and in the Ottawa Valley, stretching its capacity to the maximum.
My constituency includes three wards in the west end of the city of Ottawa, West Carleton, Goulbourn and Kanata, the latter of which alone has a population of approximately 65,000. My riding also includes the Lanark County township of Mississippi Mills, where even with its very fine hospital, the Almonte General, residents often find themselves using the services of the Queensway Carleton.
At least 100,000 of my constituents, including my family, are served by the Queensway Carleton Hospital. The hospital's catchment area, western Ottawa and the Ottawa Valley, is one of the fastest growing areas in Canada with a high proportion of seniors and young families. As one can imagine, the value of the hospital as the primary health provider to my constituents is absolutely immeasurable.
The Queensway Carleton Hospital is west Ottawa's only full service community hospital providing essential medical and surgical programs and services. Employing over 1,400 health care professionals, the 240 bed hospital is the secondary referral centre for the Ottawa Valley. In 2004 and 2005 the hospital took in over 59,000 emergency patients.
The hospital staff, along with over 400 committed volunteers, focus on maintaining and enhancing their cornerstone programs: emergencies, childbirth, geriatrics, mental health, rehabilitation, as well as medical and surgical services. The Queensway Carleton Hospital's health care team provides expert care and puts patients and families first, giving an unparalleled standard of care for our community.
As with much of the health sector, the Queensway Carleton is suffering a funding shortage and is in constant need of financial assistance and stability.
In the 1990s the Liberal government began attacking its budget deficits by reducing funding to the provinces. As a result hospitals were closed, physician fees were frozen or cut, nurses were laid off, and spaces for medical students and medical technicians at government funded universities and colleges were cut back. The cut by the Liberal government of $25 billion from health care precipitated the current nationwide medical crisis.
During the 12 years of Liberal rule, the health care system has continued to deteriorate. It should be noted that Canadians were not concerned about the health of their health care system in 1993 when the Liberals took power, but now the crisis in health care ranks as Canadians' number one concern. It is no coincidence. It is the handiwork of the Liberals.
As finance minister, the now Prime Minister unilaterally cut health transfers to the provinces as well as the federal Department of Health's budget. It was the cuts then by the then finance minister that created problems such as the extremely long waiting lists that we have today.
On Monday the health minister insisted that wait times have decreased across the country, yet a report released yesterday by the Fraser Institute indicates that in at least five provinces, wait times have actually increased. The Fraser Institute's annual report on wait times indicates increased waiting times in a variety of areas such as orthopedic surgery and joint replacements. The report's release comes only days before the federal and provincial health ministers' scheduled meeting this weekend to discuss medical service benchmarks that are expected to go unmet.
When I recently asked my constituents if they knew anyone who had trouble accessing medical care, 54% of the respondents said yes, they had. This simply should not be. Canadians should be able to have confidence in their health care system and Conservatives will bring positive change when we form government.
The Conservative Party of Canada supports the Canada Health Act. Canadians should have reasonable access to timely and quality health care services no matter where they live or their income level. We support a publicly funded health care system.
Canadians should never be called upon to use their own funds to receive the services covered by the Canada Health Act. This is absolutely unacceptable, but many Canadians, who cannot get timely service, are forced to pay for medical care in places such as the United States because of the Canadian health care crisis precipitated by the Liberals.
Conservatives respect provincial jurisdiction over health care and a Conservative government will work collaboratively with the provinces to ensure that Canadians have access to the quality health care they deserve. An important part of having a viable health care system is ensuring that our hospitals are on a sound financial footing. There could not be a more perfect example than the situation facing the Queensway Carleton Hospital.
The Queensway Carleton Hospital occupies 50 acres of federal land on the Ottawa Greenbelt which is owned and operated by the federal government's National Capital Commission, a crown corporation. The hospital entered into a 40 year lease arrangement in July 1973 with the National Capital Commission, requiring the hospital to make an annual lease payment of approximately $23,000. This assessment was based on the market value of land in 1973.
The current arrangement expires in 2013, at which time the hospital has the option to renew. The renewal clause stipulates an annual lease obligation of 6.5% of the current value of the land pursuant to the Treasury Board of Canada policy. This means that the hospital will need to divert substantial resources away from patient care to cover lease payments to the NCC that could reach a million dollars.
Most hospitals in Ontario do not pay rent since funds are derived from philanthropists or municipalities who have given the hospitals land. The Queensway Carleton is the only hospital paying rent of the six hospitals in Canada located on federal government land. Why is there one set of rules for the Queensway Carleton and a different set of rules for the other five?
Even if we eliminate a comparison between the Queensway Carleton and the other hospitals on federal land, the government, through the National Capital Commission, is allowing a golf course to rent federal land for $1 a year by merely making a down payment of $200,000. Compare this to the Queensway Carleton which had to pay rent for 32 years and still pays some $23,000 per year. If the National Capital Commission lease agreement is unchanged, the hospital stands to pay millions in the coming years. Where is the justice and sense of this?
Speaking of sense, and more specifically nonsense, just follow the money trail. The federal government transfers funds for medical services to the provinces which in turn provide hospitals with funds partially financed by the federal government to cover the cost of their operations. Then the federal government, through the National Capital Commission, charges the Queensway Carleton Hospital rent to, in effect, recover part of the medical funding to the provinces. The money has made a complete circle back to the originator, namely, the federal government. Why would the government want to maintain such a nonsensical arrangement and at the same time deplete the resources of the hospital? It just boggles the mind.
The National Capital Commission is under the control of the cabinet and the government. That side of the House can simply tell the National Capital Commission to maintain the precedent that has been set with the other five hospitals and treat the Queensway Carleton with the same set of rules.
Nearly everyone will agree that the health care system is in crisis throughout this country. It needs stable funding, better management and reform. The major building block of the health care system is the General Hospital, which backs up all the other health care providers and services.
If this level of government is serious about improving health care, one of the concrete measures it could take is to authorize the National Capital Commission to reduce the rent of the Queensway Carleton Hospital to one dollar per year.
Therefore, I support my colleague's motion.
Marc Godbout: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today an amendment to a motion recommending that the government should consider amending the lease between the Queensway-Carleton Hospital and the NCC, to make the hospital's rent $1 a year, instead of $22,909.
First, listening to the member for Nepean—Carleton, one would think that the lease is about to expire in a matter of hours or weeks. I would like to remind the House that this lease will not expire until 2013. There is therefore no cause for panic; there is no real rush, no emergency. We have time to examine this whole issue much more calmly and in more depth than the member for Nepean—Carleton might like.
As I told the hon. member in committee, I am not unsympathetic to the idea of looking at all that is involved when non profit organizations lease buildings or lands from the federal government. We may have to review the whole issue.
What we cannot do is take a case by case approach or put a motion before the House of Commons to deal with a contract between an establishment and a crown agency. It seems to me that, if we get into that and start reviewing the hundreds or thousands of lease agreements entered into by the federal government, not much else will get done in terms of legislation for this country.
Allow me to give an overview of the management framework of crown corporations, including the NCC, particularly where real estate transactions are concerned.
The National Capital Commission was assigned by the Government of Canada the mandate of managing federal real property. Subsection 15(1) of the National Capital Act states:

Except with the approval of the Governor in Council, the Commission shall not
(a) acquire any real property for a consideration in excess of a value of twenty-five thousand dollars; or
(b) enter into a lease enduring for a period in excess of five years [including amendments to existing leases of over five years] or grant an easement enduring for a period in excess of forty-nine years.

And subsection 15(2) states:

The Commission shall not dispose of real property for a consideration in excess of ten thousand dollars—

This same provision of the National Capital Act stipulates, among other things, that the transactions must be done in accordance with subsection 99(2) of the Financial Administration Act, whereby the National Capital Commission may sell or otherwise dispose of any property held by the corporation and may retain and use the proceeds of disposition thereof, but only in accordance with the regulations, or on the authorization of the Governor in Council. In similar cases, Crown Corporation General Regulations, 1995 applies.
The legislation and the regulations in place reinforce the need, when there is disposition of real property—including leases—to respect the principle of “market value”, which I will discuss in more detail in a few minutes. Applying this principle to crown corporations also complies with the framework of the Treasury Board policy that governs federal departments and agencies. I must say that, knowing the provincial government of Ontario as I do, this province is acting in an almost identical fashion.
The proposals made by the minister responsible, in this case, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, are governed by a regulatory framework that requires a series of approvals from the special committee of council, the Treasury Board and possibly from cabinet.
The motion before us today outlines a scenario in which the Government of Canada plans to change the lease signed between the Queensway-Carleton hospital and the NCC that would require the hospital to pay $1 a year rather than $22,909, as it currently does.
I must say that, as the former director of education for the French language Catholic school board in eastern and central Ontario, we had similar leases with the National Capital Commission, at the Sainte-Geneviève school, for instance, and we too would have liked to have paid $1. I do not think we can start having a double standard that depends on whether or not an issue becomes politicized by an MP.
Because of possible ramifications, decisions of this scope require high-level approval. As we examine this motion, it is important to clearly understand the underlying principle of market value, and to recognize that a decision concerning one single transaction in the National Capital Region would have repercussions Canada-wide, since this principle applies to all federal departments and agencies, including crown corporations, in keeping with Treasury Board policies.
In 1985, under another government, the Nielsen task force on program review released its report on the federal government property management program. It described property management as one of the most politically-charged functions of government. That was back in 1985.
The motion by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton would make it even more politically charged. This is even the case already, since we are discussing it in the House of Commons.
The report went on to say that property management issues were behind the multiplication of government programs and were used both in pursuit of socio-economic objectives and in the distribution of governmental largesse.
The task force also found that property management decisions at the time were being made with higher socio-economic objectives in mind, rather than the economic considerations of the best possible use of real property or any consideration of acquisition and maintenance costs . The resulting system was a bloated system and politicized with no controls and no direction.
The current Treasury Board policies on property management were intended to remedy those shortcomings. If we do what the member for Nepean—Carleton is asking, we would end up back exactly where we were then, with purely political case-by-case decisions being made to the disadvantage of the community as a whole.
The fair market value system is a matter of impartiality, equity and above all uniformity. I would also like to draw the hon. members' attention to the fact that the land on which the Queensway-Carleton Hospital is located is part of the green belt and the national interest land mass. It is managed according to the green belt management plan, which sets out policies and principles to ensure the long term management and preservation of this land.
The greenbelt and other federal land that contributes to the capital experience have been designated NILM. They are indispensable to achieving the NCC mandate for the long term, which is to ensure that the capital region presents a physical coherence, works effectively and has a symbolic significance to Canadians.
Let us look at the whole picture. I believe there may be some merit to re-examining the entire issue of property or land that would be sold or leased to not-for-profit agencies. Of course, I have some sympathy for this cause, having directed a school board. Nonetheless, we cannot do this in a vacuum. We cannot do what we are doing right now, which is to target a specific issue and present it to the House of the Commons. If the government took this approach, as I was saying earlier, for each of the 200 building leases and sales, we would end up with 200 individual motions. This issue would become politicized. It is a slippery slope.
Furthermore, a transaction of this kind would lack transparency in terms of projected revenue, which would be hard cash, especially after 2013.
In closing, if the committee were to submit a recommendation, the Minister of Canadian Heritage should first present a brief to the Treasury Board. I respectfully propose that the Treasury Board Secretariat base the advice it will give the ministers and members of the Treasury Board on the strategic and regulatory framework that governs such transactions, by taking into full account the repercussions such a precedent would have.
I will close by encouraging the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the National Capital Commission to negotiate in good faith a lease for this hospital that is so dear to us all, but without the sword of Damocles the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton would like to see hanging over us.
Hon. David Anderson (Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate as someone who does not live in Ottawa and whose constituency is far from Ottawa, because of my concern about the clear unfairness this proposal presents to all of us in this country, to members from Ottawa as well as elsewhere.
The proposal is that in communities where there is a lot of federal land the federal government inevitably will be turning land over to the province for hospitals. That, we know, will be the result of allowing this particular area, the capital of Canada, to have this kind of benefit which will not be available to the rest of us who have constituencies that may not have federal land.
What will be the result of this? The result will be that the constituencies that have the federal land--and let us face it, Ottawa is likely to be the area of the country where there is the most for such purposes--will of course be able to get, as the member suggests, very, very low cost land. The 50 acres will come down to $1.
By contrast, other parts of a province and the rest of the country will not have that opportunity. They will have to go elsewhere to find the land for their hospitals.
What will be the response? First of all, provinces, which will be responsible for deciding where hospitals go, will say, “Hey, we will get a real benefit if we put hospitals in areas where there is federal land because there is no cost for the land”. The province can get the feds to put up the money, it can put in the hospital, it can take federal money to build it and therefore it will be cheaper there than elsewhere in the province.
That is a logical position for a province to take. I am not suggesting that it is not logical, but the result for the citizens of Canada will be that some communities get far more in the way of medical services than others. They will get it with federal dollars and that is not fair.
Whether we are from the Prairies or the Maritimes, the Pacific coast or central Canada, Quebec or the north, we should have systems that treat us with some basis of fairness. The result of the proposal put forward will inevitably be the precedent for making sure that hospitals are clustered in communities that now have federal lands.
Of course there are other hospitals that may have been on federal land. We all know about veterans hospitals. Most of us have at least some memory of the turning over of some of those hospitals to provincial or regional hospital boards. Of course there will be anomalies in the system, as no system is perfect, but we are being asked to create an anomaly which will have a major future impact to give less fair medical systems to the population at large.
I would just like that point to be clear to members here when they consider this bill, to members on all sides, opposition and government. Are they going to vote for something that is so much in the self-interest of people who have federal land in their ridings and so much to the disadvantage of the rest of us constituents who may not have such federal land available for hospital purposes? I ask members not to forget that if it is for hospital purposes, the same principle will be used for other facilities as well, for schools, for example, and other public facilities of that nature.
The other thing I would like to quickly comment on is the way the member proposes to do it. On the one hand, here we have the law, as was carefully explained by the member for Ottawa West—Nepean who sits behind me in the House. She explained the law that the National Capital Commission must follow. But the member's suggestion is that the government can tell a crown corporation to ignore the law and ignore the contract and just do what the government wants. I do not think a government should do that.
That may be the way the Tories think government should operate. That is the way they operated in Canada during the Mulroney period and that is the way they operated in the province of Ontario with Premier Harris, but that is not the way they should act. They should not direct crown corporations to ignore contractual obligations that ignore the law. That is wrong. I think that is another important point for voting against this particular bill.
The final point I would like to make is about the nature of the land itself. This land was purchased by all the citizens of Canada as greenbelt. Furthermore, there were many farmers and others in this area who had their land expropriated for the greenbelt and then were paid by the citizens of Canada according to the expropriation price. Those people had their land taken away from them for a specific purpose.
We can argue back and forth about whether it was the right purpose. That is long gone, decades and decades ago. There is a long history to that. Now, though, we can ask if it is right to have the purpose changed to something else entirely in the manner that is being proposed. Or whether, where there is the use of the land for the hospital under that contract signed in the 1970s, I believe, there should indeed be, in accordance with the contract, a commercial price paid.
That is another important question of fairness. It is the issue that the public of Canada paid for those lands. It is only fair that in this process they continue to be treated in a commercial way so that in fact the public of Canada and its dollars get treated fairly, not favouring a particular part of the country over any other.
I do not wish to go on about this, but I will say that when the vote on his motion comes to the House, we are going to be looking closely at those who vote for such a clearly preferential bill to aid just a few people in the nation's capital to the disadvantage of everybody else who lives elsewhere in this country. We are all Canadians, not just the people who live in the hon. member's riding.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Will the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton be debating on the amendment or using his five minutes in right of reply?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I will be debating on the amendment. Let me tell members very bluntly, I will never apologize for fighting for the interests of my constituents just because they happen to live in the national capital region.
That member should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that people who live in the national capital region should not have effective representation on the floor of the House of Commons.
He wants to talk about history, so let us talk about history. The land that he discusses, which is held by the federal government, by the National Capital Commission, was confiscated at a third of market value.
I can recommend to him a good book called The Spirit of Nepean by D. Aubrey Moodie, the founder of the community of Nepean, wherein he describes how this land was originally confiscated.
Now, as a result of that, we have a hospital that sits on federal government land, is paying rent, and has paid almost $1 million in rent thus far. It is the only hospital in Canada that is forced to pay rent to the federal government. It is the exception.
Excuse me, but the people of Nepean--Carleton are not asking for special treatment. The nurses who work on their feet 12 hours a day are not asking for special treatment. The patients who wait in line for treatment, for ankle fusions, for hip replacements or for cancer treatment, are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness. They are asking for the same degree of treatment that every other hospital in this country gets.
I see here today that there is an unholy alliance forming between the Liberals and the separatist Bloc Québécois. We have seen the separatists rise and use some sort of historical injustice as an example of why they should continue to perpetuate a modern injustice in the House of Commons.
The separatists say they were mistreated in Quebec by the National Capital Commission, and perhaps they were, but they then use that as their justification for perpetuating another injustice on a hospital near my constituency. The Liberals have used this sense of historical indignation, this hysteria that has propelled the separatist Bloc to its current stature. They have used that as a method of building an alliance with the separatists to defeat my motion and to oppose the hospital.
As with any injustice, one can find a bureaucratic excuse, a rule or some regulation that is hidden deep and dark under the dusty books that the government would never otherwise open. The Liberals can find some excuse for mistreating the hospital so they point to a regulation that was passed, the Treasury Board guideline that was passed some years ago.
And do members know what? It turns out that it is a good regulation. Generally speaking, governments should charge market value when they rent to commercial enterprises or other organizations. But this is a hospital. The vast majority of hospitals across this country get dispensation from provincial or municipal governments. They get their land for $1 because those governments understand the need to support institutions that provide health care to the local citizenry.
Here in the national capital region we have a unique problem where our hospital sits on federal land and has paid nearly $1 million thus far. It is the only hospital to face such an injustice.
I am simply asking for the cabinet and the Prime Minister, who himself has been the number one obstacle to this hospital's advancement, to merely do what they can do this Tuesday at their cabinet meeting to render my motion irrelevant. He could decide this Tuesday to give the hospital its land for $1 a year. He could do it through order in council. He has the legal authority to do it.
If he does that, I say here and now that I will withdraw my motion from the House of Commons and I will applaud him for having done so. That is the kind of non-partisanship I am willing to engage in on behalf of my hospital.
It is funny to hear the Liberals talk about all these rules that get in the way of helping a small hospital. What rules have stopped them from intervening to give a half a million dollar severance to their close friend, David Dingwall?
The rules did not matter when it came to handing out illegal contracts to the ad companies in Quebec, did they? Those rules did not matter. They broke all the rules. When it comes to shovelling money into the pockets of Liberal cronies and Liberal friends, there are no rules.
But when it comes to helping a community hospital, a hospital that serves 400,000 people, many of them seniors, people who are ill, vulnerable and in need, then there are rules. Those rules can see no dispensation from that gang of Liberals.
What this debate has made very clear, especially because we have heard from two Ottawa area Liberals, one from Ottawa—Orléans and one from Ottawa West—Nepean, is that there are two Ottawas. There is the Ottawa of downtown Parliament Hill where the cronies and the lobbyists make all the decisions to pocket the dollars of Canadian taxpayers and help their friends, where we look out for the interests of well-connected Liberals, and then--
Marc Godbout: Mr. Speaker, I call a point of order. I did not hear a single word during the member's remarks about the amendment to his motion. Mr. Speaker, could you remind him that he is here to talk about the amendment to his motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I think that the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton will address the amendment without further delay. He now has the floor.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there is that Ottawa that seeks to use rules to obstruct honest debate. There is the Ottawa that helps Liberal cronies and Liberal friends. It is that Ottawa for which the Liberal member for Ottawa West--Nepean speaks. It is that Ottawa for which the member for Ottawa--Orléans speaks. But there is another Ottawa--
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you may very well rule this to be a point of debate. I speak for my constituents and my conscience.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we must be striking a nerve here. We might be getting a little too close to the truth.
There is a second Ottawa as well. The Liberals do not want to hear about it, but there is a second Ottawa. It is where people work hard, play by the rules, pay their taxes and stand up for their community. That is the Ottawa that I want to speak up for as the member of Parliament for Nepean--Carleton.
I will remind the members in this House of a few of the facts in this matter.
The Queensway Carleton Hospital has paid $1 million in rent to the federal government. The rent increase that is expected at the termination of the current lease could result in the termination of 40 nurses, according to the former chairman of the Queensway Carleton Hospital, who speaks up honourably on behalf of his people, on behalf of his patients--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: That statement is simply untrue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Order, please.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that last statement is untrue. The member was told a year ago it is untrue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): That is not a point of order. The hon. member should know better.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, they seem very nervous at hearing the truth. These are the words of Jeff Polowin, the former chair of the hospital. He said that the Liberal rent increase as scheduled at the end of the current lease could cost as many as 40 nurses. But it is worse than that. It could prevent the construction of the new cancer care centre.
The only thing standing in the way of solving this problem of simply giving the hospital the assurance that it will control its own land for the price of $1 is the Prime Minister who has the legal authority to make this decision at any time he wishes. I am calling on him to make that decision today.
It is too important to be left to partisanship. That member over there who continues to interrupt me has the opportunity to change her tune. She knows her community wants her to represent the hospital and not her Liberal friends. I ask her that she do the right thing just once for the hospital. The community in her riding has been crying out for her to stand up for that hospital and so far, she has chosen the other Ottawa, the downtown Liberal cronies, her friends. Choose the patients over your friends, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I presume that the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton was not talking about my friends. May I remind the hon. member that he must address his comments through the Chair, please.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we have a classic case of the people versus the powerful, a group of community members who are rising up to support a local community hospital versus an unholy alliance between the separatist Bloc and the governing Liberals.
The New Democrats are supporting us and I thank them for doing so. They have shown conviction. I thank my colleague from Winnipeg and the member for Ottawa Centre. They have shown their support. I thank all the members who rise for the hospital.
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate, especially for those of us who have served on a hospital board, and probably many in the House have at one time or another given up their own time and energy to do this. In my previous role as mayor I served on four hospital boards over the course of my terms.
It is wonderfully appealing when someone says that they have a wonderful idea, that they will do something for free. Of course, the hospital board would say that yes. Of course, the residents of that riding would say yes. The constituents would say it was a wonderful idea . Then we would realize that in terms of fairness, and it seems this debate is about fairness, what about all the other hospitals?
Some hospitals make PILs, payments in lieu. There are those which do pay taxes and those which are in other situations. We are talking about one simple case. It would be a wonderful world if we were able to do this, I agree. However, I think it is patently unfair to every citizen of this country to assume that we could say to one riding that this is federal and it would be wonderful to do this. In this life, it just does not happen that way.
We talk about hospital situations throughout the whole country with each hospital trying to manage its budget in an equitable manner. Then we have the federal government addressing--
Brian Fitzpatrick: You are doing it for golf courses.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Order. I would enjoy hearing the comments of the member.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, I think I was extremely well mannered and practised decorum when listening to the other side. I do not understand why members opposite would not want to hear someone who is rational and logical. At least this is what I am offering to the House.
When we discuss issues such as medical care and all of those things, they are volatile emotional concerns. Everybody wants to be on the right side of this and I hope we are for the right reasons. However, we cannot mislead people. We cannot tell them that they could have such a wonderful thing--
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member knows very well that we cannot accuse another member of the House of misleading somebody.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member will understand that this particular debate has been very heated. There is leeway. I will give the floor again to the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, in trying to present facts on the issue, we understand the roles between federal, provincial and municipal governments. We understand the special role of the National Capital Commission.
This is a situation where, if we took this example, it would apply throughout the nation. A precedent would be set. It is not that anyone is trying to be unfair.
If I lived in that particular constituency and someone told me that I should get something for free, I would certainly take up that cause. However, once we settle down and understand the real rationale behind it, which is that we have to administer a whole nation, then it starts to make much clearer sense. I think the fair-minded people of that riding would understand that quite convincingly.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The member moving a motion has a five minute right of reply to conclude the debate.
The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that this is a very unique situation. The Queensway Carleton Hospital is the only hospital that pays rent to the federal government. As such, it is impossible to create any kind of a precedent that could be repeated. Why? It is because there is no other similar situation in the entire country.
However, a golf course, which sits on National Capital Commission land, pays $1 a year; $1 a year for a golf course to rent its land from the federal government. If it is impossible for the hospital to rent its land for $1 a year, why is it possible for the Liberal government to rent its land to a golf course for $1 a year? The answer again is that is a quintessential example of the people versus the powerful.
I had a chance as a member of the common people, who we are supposed to represent here in the House of Commons, to work at the Queensway Carleton Hospital as a nurse's assistant for one day throughout the summer. I spent 12 hours on my feet with the people who work in that facility, and they do work hard. They work hard every day with 180 patients who come through the emergency triage every day. They go home bone tired. They give. The community gives. The community raises millions to support that hospital because it cares about the people around them. The people want the government to care too.
Yes, my colleagues across the floor might attack me for fighting for my constituents but that is my job. It is my job to fight for Nepean—Carleton, from Barrhaven to Bells Corners, from Kars to Kenmore and from Manotick to Metcalfe to Manordale, and fight for them I will.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): It being 2:30 p.m., the time provided for the debate has expired. The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 26, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:32 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 24, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)