2010-03-19

Government Orders
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):  moved that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, for almost 100 years, Canada has provided separate laws and procedures applicable to youth who commit crimes. The fair and appropriate application of criminal accountability to our youth is one of the most challenging areas of justice and social policy. 
The law must be adequate to hold them appropriately accountable for the offences committed, consistent with their degree of responsibility in a manner that protects the public. 
Canadians look to their government to ensure that the justice system is working effectively and that the country's citizens are safe. Since we were first elected, our government has taken action to tackle crime and protect Canadians.
 Our approach is balanced. It includes: prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation. But there is more to be done. 
We recognize that we need to strengthen the way the young offenders system deals with violent and repeat young offenders. 
I am proud to speak today in this House to Bill C-4, which will bring amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Sébastien's law will make the protection of society a primary goal of our youth criminal justice system, and it will give Canadians greater confidence that violent and repeat young offenders will be held accountable through sentences that are proportionate to the severity of their crimes.
Bill C-4 proposes amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that would make the protection of society a primary goal of the act; simplify pretrial detention rules to help ensure that, when necessary, violent and repeat young offenders are kept off the streets while awaiting trial; strengthen sentencing provisions and reduce barriers to custody for violent and repeat young offenders, where appropriate; and require the Crown to consider seeking adult sentences for youth convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault.
The Crown would also be required to inform the court if it chooses not to apply for an adult sentence. We will require the courts to consider publishing the name of a violent young offender when necessary for the protection of the public.
We will require police to keep records when extrajudicial measures are used in order to make it easier to identify patterns of reoffending, and ensure that all youth under 18, who are given a custodial sentence, will serve it in a youth facility.
I would like to make a couple of comments about the changes that we are proposing.
First, we would make the protection of society a primary goal of the act. As it currently stands, the objective of protecting society is not stated strongly enough in either the preamble to the YCJA or its declaration of principles. This deficiency was identified by the Hon. D. Merlin Nunn in his report entitled “Spiralling Out of Control: Lessons Learned From a Boy in Trouble”. This was a comprehensive review of the youth justice system in Nova Scotia. 
Justice Nunn concluded that highlighting public safety as one of the goals or principles of the act was necessary to improve the handling of violent and repeat offenders. Highlighting this objective within the principles of the act would give the courts a necessary tool to ensure that the protection of society is taken into account in sentencing youth who commit violent and repeat offences.
Again, related to one of the recommendations of the Nunn report, we will simplify the pretrial detention rules to help ensure that, when necessary, violent and repeat young offenders are kept off the streets while awaiting trial. 
The current law on pretrial detention has been viewed by some as confusing and has, on occasion, been inconsistently applied. As a result, the system is often powerless to hold violent or reckless youth in custody, even when they pose a danger to themselves and to society.
The act therefore will be amended to simplify pretrial detention rules to ensure that youth can be detained while awaiting trial if they are charged with a serious offence, and there is a substantial likelihood that the youth will commit a serious offence if released.
A serious offence will be defined as any indictable offence for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, including: violent offences; property offences, such as theft over $5,000 which can include car theft; and offences that could endanger the public such as public mischief, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm, sexual exploitation, robbery and, of course, murder.
The third provision will strengthen sentencing provisions and reduce barriers to custody where appropriate for violent and repeat young offenders.
Canadians lose confidence in the justice system when a sentence is insufficient to hold offenders accountable for their actions or to protect society. The law will be amended to broaden the sentencing principles and remove barriers to custody to ensure that violent or repeat young offenders will receive sentences that reflect the seriousness of their offences.
The government is proposing to strengthen the sentencing provisions by adding specific deterrence and denunciation to the principles of sentencing to discourage a particular offender from committing further offences. 
As it stands now, deterrence and denunciation cannot be considered by a judge as part of sentencing. Adding specific deterrence and denunciation would allow the courts to impose sanctions designed to discourage the particular offender from committing further offences when the circumstances of the individual case indicate that this is necessary.
We will expand the meaning of violent offence to include offences that endanger the public. Currently, under the act, the general rule is that a young person cannot be sentenced to custody unless certain conditions are met. For example, young offenders may not be sentenced to custody unless they have committed a violent offence. 
The Supreme Court of Canada in 2006 interpreted violent offence under the act as an offence where the young person causes, attempts to cause, or threatens to cause bodily harm. The definition does not capture situations in which, while no one was injured, reckless behaviour nonetheless posed a risk to others. For example, at the moment, a young offender who leads police on a high speed chase through a residential neighbourhood could be given a custodial sentence only if someone was injured as a result. 
The government proposes to expand the definition of violent offence to include offences where the young person endangers the life or safety of others by creating a substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm. This change would give the courts a necessary tool to help ensure accountability and the protection of society, when the circumstances of the offence require it.
We are proposing to reduce barriers to custodial sentences by allowing custody to be imposed on youth who have a pattern of findings of guilt or extrajudicial sanctions. The act currently allows for custodial sentences in situations where the young person has committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, and the young person has a history indicating a pattern of findings of guilt under the act or its predecessor.
The current requirement for establishing a pattern of criminal activity based on findings of guilt has been criticized by some as being too restrictive when a young person may have committed other offences which have not been dealt with through the formal justice system. As a result, in cases where the offender's history indicates that a custodial sentence is necessary to protect society or to hold the offender accountable, it is sometimes impossible to demonstrate that necessity.
The proposed amendment would give the courts the necessary tools to establish a pattern of criminal activity, either through findings of guilt or through showing that the young person has a history of extrajudicial sanctions or through a combination of both. This would allow the court to take the offender's full history into account to help determine what sentence is appropriate.
The new legislation would also require the Crown to consider adult sentences for youth convicted of the most serious violent offences. These are offences such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault. Currently, under the act, judges may impose adult sentences on youth 14 years of age and over convicted of serious violent offences when appropriate. However, the Crown does not always apply for an adult sentence in such cases and is not required to consider doing so, even in the most serious cases.
The proposed amendments will require the Crown to consider seeking an adult sentence for youth who commit serious violent offences. The Crown will be required to inform the court if it chooses not to apply for an adult sentence. Provinces and territories will still have the discretion to set the age at which this requirement would apply. For instance, no province that sets the age at 15 or 16 would be required to change.
This brings me to the fifth provision we are proposing: requiring the courts to consider publishing the name of a violent young offender when necessary for the protection of society. Currently, under the act, the publication ban is automatically lifted where an adult sentence is imposed. However, if the Crown applies, the court can consider lifting the ban in appropriate cases where a youth sentence has been imposed for an offence for which the Crown was seeking an adult sentence.
In practice, the violent offenders who are given youth sentences are normally released into the community anonymously. The implications for public safety can be significant. For example, parents may have no way of knowing that a sex offender is in the area. The amendment would require judges to consider lifting the name publication ban for youth convicted of a violent offence and given a youth sentence when the protection of society requires it.
Finally, the other amendments we are proposing will require police to keep records when extrajudicial measures are imposed to make it easier to identify patterns of reoffending. The amended act will now make it clear that no young offenders under 18 will serve their sentence in an adult institution, regardless of whether they are given an adult or youth sentence.
Our government believes that the law must uphold the rights of victims and ensure the safety of our communities. If in any way our justice system fails to do so, we must take action. 
By introducing Sébastien's law, our government is taking action to strengthen the way the young offenders system deals with violent and repeat young offenders. 
We are helping to ensure that these offenders will be held accountable and that the protection of society will be a primary consideration in the system as a whole.
I would like to urge fellow members of the House to support these amendments. These are all very reasonable amendments and they should have the support of all hon. members of the House.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister's comments. Of course, I speak on behalf of the Liberal team on this side of the House when I assure him that we will do anything we can to ensure that our country, communities and families are safe.
I have one simply question. Stats continuously tell us that crime has been on a decline for a number of years. Does he have any specific statistics that he can share with us today, in terms of youth crime, violent crime or any types of crime, that we can discuss with our constituents?
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson:  Mr. Speaker, by all means. It is true and the hon. member raises a good point. Violent crime among youth is on the increase. Certainly, that is what the statistics show. Again, we always have to address the challenges and deficiencies in all our laws.
With respect to crime in general, I think we have been keeping statistics for adults and others since 1961. Certainly, it has gone up, but whether it went down last year or up, I appreciate that fewer young people are being charged under this act. They get into extrajudicial measures. They may be picked up for committing a non-violent crime. They get diverted and then somebody will always say that crime must be going down. That is not necessarily true. Just because a person has not been charged with a crime or a crime is not reported, it is not quite the same thing.
I always tell the members of the Liberal Party to not look for excuses and to not look for ways to not support what are very reasonable measures. We have to update the law. We have the royal commission report of Justice Nunn, who pointed out a number of areas within the Youth Criminal Justice Act that have to be updated. We are looking at that. We are responding to that. That was a very reasonable, focused analysis of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and we have to respond to that.
Again, with respect to other pieces of legislation such as the auto theft bill, the drug bill, and the identity theft bill that we passed, we have to capture activity that is not currently in the Criminal Code. I appreciate the fact that, yes, violent offences among young people have been on the increase, but the important part is that the law has to be updated and that is what we are doing.
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's introduction of this bill, when he noted a significant increase in the crime rate. The statistics that the Bloc Québécois has seen show an increase of 3% in 2006. But that is the first increase since 2003, and it is difficult to draw any real conclusions from that. In Quebec, the crime rate has dropped by 4%.
My question for the minister is the following. In Quebec, we have a number of prevention and rehabilitation measures for young offenders. How will this bill support the reintegration and rehabilitation of our young offenders? I sincerely believe that there must be consequences for serious crimes. Nevertheless, when a young offender commits a serious offence, the ultimate goal is to reintegrate them into society as best we can. 
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that violent crime went up in 2006 but that is not enough because it did not go up in another year. I generally do not even get into those discussions. We do look at the crime rates and are always concerned about the rate of crime in this country, but the hon. member makes the case that if it goes up one year that is not good enough. I am saying that these are very reasonable measures.
With respect to diversion, we are all of the opinion that we have a better chance rehabilitating a 16-year-old offender than a 36 or 46-year-old offender. I have made the point before that 36 or 46-year-old criminals may be career criminals and they are much more difficult to rehabilitate. It is much more difficult to get them back on the right track than a 16 or 17-year-old. 
The bill is very specific. It goes after repeat violent offenders, the kind of individuals who Justice Nunn identified as not only a danger to society but a danger to themselves. Some individuals have said that if they had been detained, they would have had a better chance of not recommitting the offence. That is what came out of the Nunn report.
Bill C-4 is very focused. We applaud the efforts taken for the most part at the provincial level, but there were of course efforts taken at the national level. The national anti-drug strategy is a very good example of where we are encouraging people not to get involved with the kind of activities that could wreck and ruin their life. These are good measures. 
This bill is specific. It goes after those individuals who are a danger to themselves and a danger to society. It is very focused legislation and it should have the support of the Bloc.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, coming from Nova Scotia, I am all too aware of the Nunn report. Justice Nunn did a tremendous job in giving careful analysis to this important situation. 
As the Nunn report has been out for several years, why has it taken the government this long to accept its recommendations and bring them forward in legislation? Instead of proroguing Parliament, it is quite possible that we could have already debated something of this nature at the committee stage where we could have brought in witnesses. 
I consider the fact that our critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, is favourable to this action. We would like to get the bill to committee in order to give it a thorough analysis. We could maybe even invite Justice Nunn to committee in order to further discuss it. However, why did it take the government this long to read and accept the Nunn report?
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has had an opportunity to read the bill. This bill goes considerably beyond what was in the Nunn report. I focused on two particular areas: the publication ban and the requirement of the Crown to consider adult sentences with respect to serious offences. This is a comprehensive bill and yet, at the same time, directed toward a certain type of individual and a certain type of crime.
As the hon. member of the Liberal Party pointed out, yes, violent crime among youth rose 12% between 1997 and 2006 and since 1991 it has climbed 30%. One of the largest increases in the youth crime rate in the past decade has been the homicide rate.
I appreciate that nobody wants to see increases with respect to violent crime among young people. However, quite apart from this fact, these are changes that must be made. In part, some of them were recommended in the Nunn report but, as members can see, we have gone beyond that. All of the measures in the bill are reasonable and the bill should have the support of all hon. members in this House and the other House as well.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the way he has outlined the provisions of the bill and for his great leadership on criminal justice issues.
I am appreciative of the way he outlined at the beginning of his speech this morning the prevention aspects, enforcement and rehabilitation. We have many groups in the Waterloo region doing great work in prevention. I have had the privilege of announcing funding for many of these initiatives. We have a great police service in the Waterloo region. I also have had the opportunity to work closely with a number of groups that are doing great rehabilitation work. It is important to highlight that balance.
I have heard from a number of parents in my area who are very concerned about the lack of provisions in the current Youth Criminal Justice Act, especially as it relates to deterrence and the protection of society. I am not hearing from parents of victims. I am hearing from parents of children who themselves have been in trouble with the law and are asking the courts for help, as the minister said, in protecting themselves. It is important that we express it in this legislation and that concern for the safety of the individual who has committed the crime is included.
Could the minister expand a wee bit on the component of the deterrence that is part of this bill, because that part has been missing for far too long?
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, first, I must thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga because ever since he entered Parliament he has been very consistent and supportive of the government's agenda to get tough on crime in this country, and for that I am very appreciative.
He has raised questions with respect to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and brought to my attention a particular case of a young victim in his area. I must say for the record how appreciative I am of his interest, concern and support for these measures. 
He focused in on one of the important aspects of this, which is that we want an individual to be made aware of the seriousness of particular offences. He is quite correct, we are expanding the considerations to have denunciation and deterrence for such individuals because, ultimately, we want them to be rehabilitated and get back into society. However, we recognize that in some cases there is a small group of violent, sometimes repeat offenders who need to get the message that the protection of the public and themselves must be paramount.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the Liberal Party who were kind enough to switch with me today because I need to get back to my riding for an event this evening. 
Bill C-4 is a significant attempt to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the NDP will be supporting it at second reading to send it to committee. However, having said that, we have some significant reservations about the bill in terms of the drafting of it. Frankly, I find it quite clumsy in some areas. Some amendments will be needed just to clean up the language. The other concern is that the wording seems to have two agendas, the one that is on the surface and then the one that is behind it. I will come back to that in a moment.
We need to set in context the bill. The major amendments in the bill coming into effect are not very old. They were made in 2003 when the bill was brought into effect. In my legal career, we have actually had four separate pieces of legislation dealing with youth who are in conflict with society, who have committed anywhere from fairly minor criminal offences to very serious ones, including murder.
As a society, we have been struggling since at least the 1960s to find that right balance between treating them as youth, different from adult criminals, but at the same time recognizing that they are not adults even though they may commit offences similar to adults.
That pattern goes back at least 100 years in this country, probably even a bit longer than that. The original young offenders bill, which was called the Juvenile Delinquents Act at that time, dates back to the early part of the 1900s. However, even prior to that, our criminal justice system accepted that there would be two systems: one for youth, the age being a variable one over the last 100 years; and a separate major one for adults. Our courts and our legislatures, both at the provincial and the federal levels, have recognized that for well over 100 years. 
One of the concerns I have with this legislation, and perhaps this is where the hidden agenda may be, is that the government has repeatedly indicated in speeches and in its party platform that it wants to significantly alter the barrier between youth offenders and adult offenders. It became a major issue in the last election.
 I want to acknowledge the role that the citizenry generally of the province of Quebec played in attacking the Conservative Party during that election on the proposals that were floated during that election of lowering the age to nothing so that any youth could be charged as an adult and sentenced as an adult. That provoked a serious negative response from the people of Quebec and I want to acknowledge the role and the leadership they provided in that regard.
The other point I want to make about the way we have treated youth crime historically in this country is that it has in fact varied quite dramatically across the provinces. Here, I want to acknowledge again that Quebec has been the most successful province, the most successful jurisdiction, in dealing with youth crime. It has the lowest rates of youth crime in the country. It has the most developed and sophisticated system in the country to deal with youth who are in conflict with the law and actively engaged in anti-social behaviour. Quebec does this better than anybody does in Canada, and I want to acknowledge that.
With regard to this particular bill, we need to set it in the context of it being really a direct outcropping, not so much of the ideology coming from the Conservatives, but of the push from the Nunn Commission of Inquiry in Nova Scotia and the McMurtry report on victim compensation in Ontario.
Justice Nunn, who was appointed to that special inquiry, certainly had the most detailed recommendations. He and his commission had seven specific recommendations that the government is claiming it has responded to.
I want to be very clear that Justice Nunn, both in the report and in any number of interviews he did afterwards, was very clear that the act, as is, is a good piece of legislation. It is a workable piece of legislation. The term he used constantly was that it needed to be tweaked. On the surface that is what it appears the government is doing here, but in a number of areas Bill C-4 has weaknesses. I want to address a few of those.
 Before I do that, I again want to point out that we will be supporting this bill because it has at least two provisions in it that are badly needed. 
One is that it makes it absolutely mandatory that no youth, no matter what crime they are accused of or convicted of and sentenced for, will spend time in an adult institution. That is a principle the province of Quebec has followed quite diligently. Other provinces have not, sometimes because of an ideological approach to punishment of youth, but more often because they simply do not have the facilities to incarcerate youth in a contained setting, especially in the rural and frontier areas of this country. The government has done nothing to assist the provinces in developing those institutional settings.
When the bill gets to committee, as I fully expect it will, this will be an issue that we will be raising with the Department of Justice and perhaps with the Correctional Service about what they are going to do to help the provinces meet the requirements of the statute not to incarcerate any youth in an adult prison. I do not believe they have done any planning for this. 
As is so often the case with the government, especially with its crime bills, this bill provides no specific date when it will come into effect. I am afraid that what we are going to see because of this particular provision is the provinces sitting back, which happened in one of the prior incarnations of legislation on youth crime. I know that in the province of Ontario specifically we went almost a decade without being in compliance with the statute and that we were not providing the necessary facilities, even though we were the wealthiest province in the country at the time. 
Hence, I am afraid we are going to have a piece of legislation passed in this House mandating that youth not be incarcerated in adult prisons and a number of the provinces will have no ability to comply with that. It is an issue that will need to be explored at committee. It is a good policy, a good paragraph in the legislation, but we must have the provinces in a position to be able to carry it out.
The other point I want to make, and I have to say that we have had some division over this in my caucus, is that there is a provision in the bill that will allow the courts who are sentencing individuals, particularly for serious offences, to lift the historically solid ban on any publication of the name of the accused or convicted person. That is one provision that we would expect to be used rarely.
While I am concerned about the criteria the government has built in as to when the judge would be able to do that, we can see this provision as necessary in exceptional cases, for the protection of society. I am thinking in particular of an accused person who has been convicted and sentenced as an adult, who has very severe psychological health problems and is not likely to be rehabilitated and who is, in the extreme, even a serial killer. That person should be identified to society, both in terms of the police knowing the individual and society more generally. Those will be rare cases. We may not even get one a year. However, I believe that for the protection of society, it is important that we analyze that, set proper criteria in place, and allow that discretion for our judges.
With regard to the negative parts of the bill where I see some hidden agenda items, I think it is necessary to go back to the last Parliament. Pretty late in that Parliament, in spite of all the other crime bills the government was introducing, some of which were silly quite frankly, and in spite of the fact it had been in power at that point for over three years and the Nunn report had come out, the government finally got around to drafting Bill C-25 and presenting it to the House. It was late in the 39th Parliament and that bill just sat and nothing happened to it. The bill included a provision that the Conservatives claimed was a denunciation, but it also had a very clear provision for general deterrence as a sentencing principle. That flies in the face of the hundred-plus years of our history in this jurisdiction of Canada, and generally in western democracies, of treating youth separately, recognizing that because of their lack of maturity, general deterrence does not work with them, generally speaking. It specifically is of no value when we are dealing with youth. That has been accepted in many courts and in all jurisdictions in the western democracies. However, what the Conservatives were trying to do was to introduce in that bill, very clearly, right up front, a general deterrence principle. 
The government has backed off that in this bill. It has dropped that, I think, in part because of what happened in the last election in the province of Quebec. The government has maintained specific deterrents, that is, individual deterrents. I am not sure even those will survive a challenge in our courts. The Supreme Court of Canada, as recently as a few months ago and in a series of its decisions, made it very clear that the sentencing principles to be applied to youth who are in conflict with the law must take into account exclusively that they are youth, that courts cannot use principles of sentencing applicable in the adult setting. The Conservatives have recognized that and have limited the bill to specific deterrents, at least on the surface in one of the clauses. 
However, when one looks at the amendments to the act overall, there are a number of other places where it would appear they are trying to get general deterrence in, if I could put it this way, through the back door. There is some really clumsy wording for what a judge does in determining whether a person should be tried as an adult, accepting of course the application from the Crown, and separate criteria as to whether they should be sentenced as an adult. 
There is also wording in there that does not appear any place else in any youth justice act that we have had in the past, that does not appear in any parts of the Criminal Code, either currently or, as far as I know, historically. But it basically introduces moral culpability, and this may come out of a court decision that I think they may be taking out of context. It is introducing morality and asking the judges, in effect, to interpret that and to apply it on a day-to-day, case-by-case basis.
Knowing a lot of judges and judges who work extensively in the youth criminal justice system, I think this is going to pose a major problem of interpretation. I am not sure the legislation worded in this way will survive a challenge, because it is so vague. That is always a principle when looking at criminal law, including sentencing guidelines. Therefore, it is a major problem confronting us in dealing with this bill.
I want to address one other issue that came out of the Nunn Commission report and recommendations. The Nunn Commission arose as a result of a specific case in Nova Scotia. Justice Nunn was quite concerned about a limitation in the discretionary powers judges had around the issue of protection of society when sentencing an individual.
 I do not want to sound trite here because it is a serious concern and one of the times when Commissioner Nunn said that tweaking was needed, but what the government has done here is not tweaking. I think it is just nothing: it is smoke and mirrors. Under the existing law the protection of society is a set of criteria for what a judge can take into account, and at the bottom of the full text of the paragraph in the bill, it talks about the protection of society. However, all I see the government doing here is moving that paragraph from the bottom to the top.
In the press releases and minister's press conferences, where he trots out one of the victim's family members, using them for photo-ops, he is forecasting and extolling the virtues of the bill, saying that it in fact addresses this issue. I have to say that I do not see that. This simply seem to be window dressing. The government has combined moving that clause from the bottom to the top with some new wording that I believe, if anything, when interpreted by our judges across the country, will further limit their discretion in taking into account the protection of society.
It is an example of what I said earlier about the bill, that is both clumsy and, in some cases, poorly drafted. I think there is some ideology behind this coming from the government rather than the officials in the Department of Justice, because this is not a bill of the quality I usually see coming from the Department of Justice. The department is usually quite good in drafting, if not excellent, but there are some problems here.
There are also a number of places where the government replaces sections. It takes sections out and repeals them and replaces them with others. From my reading of the bill, and this is another reason we will be looking at it very closely at committee, the government has in fact left gaps, and we are going to end up with the judiciary and prosecutors in this country not being able to prosecute and/or move to sentencing of adults, because the government has left gaps in the drafting of the bill. So we will be looking at that at committee.
To conclude, we are going to support the bill going to committee. We have serious reservations about parts of it and strong support for other parts. We will do what we can at committee to strengthen the bill and provide greater protection for people who are victims of youth crime.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member indicate that the NDP will be supporting the bill going to committee. I note from the tenor of his speech that there seems to be quite a degree of reluctance. 
The member speaks of a hundred years of separating youth from adults in sentencing, but regrettably it is clear that across the country many youth have been flouting the law with impunity.
The short title of the bill, “Sébastien's Law”, indicates one such very egregious offence. In Vancouver, in my region of British Columbia, we have one youth in the area who has been responsible for more than 1,000 auto thefts and who is repeatedly back on the streets.
Does the member not feel these egregious offences need to be subject to more serious consequences for the protection of society?
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, let me answer this way. It was interesting listening to the minister earlier today saying not to confuse him with the facts. We have always had youth who commit multiple crimes. I practised quite extensively in our juvenile delinquency court, as it was called back in the early seventies, and I can think of a number of my youth clients who had committed multiple crimes. This is not a new phenomenon.
What happened, and it was part of the purpose of the Nunn commission and the McMurtry report, was starting around 2005-06, we had a serious spike in violent crime among youth, mostly from 16 to 18 years of age. What the minister has refused to acknowledge twice today is that there was a spike, but up until that point, youth crime had been dropping, like all other crime. That includes violent crime and repeat offenders.
We hit a spike in 2005, 2006, 2007 and a bit of 2008, but starting in 2007, it began to decline again. That is the case now and I think we will see the same when we see the figures for 2009 and 2010. That has nothing to do with any legislation we passed. It has everything to do with our police officers and prosecutors using different methodologies both to prevent crimes and to apprehend the criminals.
This kind of legislation needs tweaking. Justice Nunn was very correct on that. However, to use isolated cases, whether it is the Sébastien case or the one my friend from B.C. just mentioned, is not the basis on which we do public policy and certainly not the basis on which we amend the Criminal Code or, as in this case, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. 
John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, my good friend, for pointing out the statistics based on the question I asked the minister, because I felt his response, and I say this respectfully, was inaccurate with the statistics.
Nevertheless, this type of legislation, or any type of legislation, is an evolving process, such as legislation for the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act. Over the years, times change and circumstances change. We as the Liberal government updated the statute and brought changes, such as adult sentencing, reverse onus, et cetera.
My colleague pointed to the Quebec model, a model that works. For crime that occurs in British Columbia, as the member said, or in Manitoba or anywhere else, crime is crime. This is the big question Canadians are asking. Why can we not standardize, especially a system that has shown results?
Finally, the minister said that the people who recognized they were a danger to themselves asked for the legislation. Do we put them behind bars or do we offer treatment? Could he please elaborate on that?
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the fastest way to look at this, in terms of the differences in the provinces, is there is a great deal of discretion with the attorneys general provincially as to how youth crime is dealt with, and that will continue in this legislation. In fact, in a couple of areas, it actually increases the discretionary call by the AGs across the country.
What has happened historically is the province of Quebec has taken a much broader and holistic view of how to deal with youth crime. As opposed to the model the current Conservative government likes, which is always just penalties and punishment, Quebec has taken that into account and it uses it when appropriate.
I always use this example in terms of the difference of how the provinces have worked on this. If we look at the number of cases where there are applications by the attorneys general to their local prosecutors to raise youth up to adult courts, it is amazing. The lowest number in the country, based on population, is in Quebec. Correspondingly, the lowest number of youth crimes is also in Quebec.
The last time I looked at these figures, and these are a few years out of date, the highest level was in the western provinces, in particular Alberta. It applied for adult charges and sentences more than any other. Ontario was somewhere in between. The highest rate of youth crime is in the prairie provinces, so it is not a methodology that works.
Finally, the province of Quebec has simply committed the funds to treatment centres in the proper settings for rehabilitation for youth. I do not know the exact figures, but it is extensively higher in that province, which is not nearly as wealthy as Alberta and Ontario. We are both behind them in the amount of dollars we commit at the provincial levels to rehabilitating youth.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people are talking about the Nunn report fairly consistently. In his report, Justice Nunn says:
 —it would be irresponsible of me not to consider its role in a larger context of youth crime and improvements necessary to accomplish the desired result of lessening youth crime and rehabilitating those who become involved in criminal acts. 
He is talking about prevention of youth crime.
I know the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has done a very good job of elaborating on the concerns with this legislation and he touched very briefly on prevention. Could he comment on any models he is aware of that do a much better job of looking at prevention? 
The overall goal should be to prevent young people from ending up in the criminal justice system. We have to deal with them appropriately once they end up in that spot, but we really need to work hard to prevent them from getting there in the first place.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, in terms of prevention, the model that we have to look at is the province of Quebec. It does not just provide extensive services for rehabilitation after crimes have been committed. It has a much broader program to prevent youth from getting into the gangs. That currently is the biggest problem we have. Its social safety net is, arguably, better than any in the country. 
If we are to look any place in Canada, we have to look to Quebec and that has been true for at least 30-plus years, almost 40 years, since I have been monitoring this.
The approach of prevention in terms of the government, and this is true both of the Departments of Public Safety and Justice, is in the last three years it has had money budgeted for prevention work, both for youth and adults but mostly geared toward youth, and it has not spent it all. It does not know how to do it. The Conservatives are so locked into this ideology of punishment and after-the-fact response rather than preventing it. They literally do not know how to do it and they are still learning.
In a number of cases, the government has not funded the agencies that deal with youth, those agencies that had been funded under previous governments. It let the contracts run out and gave it to new people, who did not know what they were doing either. It is a real problem in terms of prevention. 
The government has a model in the country. If it simply looked at Quebec and followed that model, we may see some real growth in the number of cases that do not get into our courts and the number of victims we will not have because crimes will not be committed.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague for his take on a national justice survey that was done in 2008. The findings of it are quite telling. 
When asked about confidence in particular public services in Canada, respondents expressed the highest confidence in the school system and the lowest confidence in the youth justice system. Only 7.1% of respondents indicated high confidence in the youth justice system compared to 26.3% who indicated high confidence in the public school system.
Why does my colleague think there is such a low confidence in the youth justice system in Canada expressed by all Canadians in the survey?
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, a simple answer to that question is simply look in the mirror. Every morning he should look in the mirror and think of all the news stories his party has put out.
We can do a survey today and Canadians will say that the crime rate is anywhere from 100% to 1,000% greater than it is. That political party has created this scene for our country.

Statements By Members
Arts and CultureMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's contribution to the arts has never been more recognized than it is right now. The opening and closing ceremonies at the Vancouver Olympics provided the world with a sample of the extent and depth of the talent of our artists and showcased Canada's unique artistic style.
Canadians from everywhere should be proud of our artists. I am proud to say that thanks to the Conservative government and its commitment to investing in arts and culture, the Oshawa arts and cultural community received over $100,000 over the past year.
From the Oshawa Historical Society to the local Peony festival, from French organizations like COFRD and l'Amicale to our own McLaughlin Art Gallery, all have benefited from increased funding. The Robert McLaughlin Gallery is one of Oshawa's local gems. This beautiful art gallery allows local, Canadian and international artists to showcase their unique talent in a tranquil yet modern environment. Oshawa is extremely proud of its cultural assets and supports our investments in them.
 The Conservative government supports the arts and cultural communities in Oshawa and all over Canada.
New England PlantersHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 2010 marks the 250th anniversary of the arrival of the New England Planters in Nova Scotia. In 1760 the first of about 8,000 planters settled in the province. Many planter descendants still live on the original land grants, in some cases still farming the land.
The Planter Studies Centre of Acadia University, which supports and promotes research on the New England Planters, will host the fifth conference on the New England Planters in Wolfville, from June 17 to 20. The conference theme is “the next generation”, and will explore the development of communities, religious and social institutions, family networks, economic activity, politics and warfare and planter relations with other ethnocultural groups subsequent to their arrival in the 1760s.
We look forward to the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the arrival of New England Planters and their contribution to helping build a better Nova Scotia and a better Canada.
Gen-Com HolsteinMr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to announce that my riding is now home to Gen-Com Holstein, a highly specialized animal genetics farming business, and I would like to salute the owners, Lison Laroche and Mario Comtois, of Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil.
Ms. Laroche and Mr. Comtois spent 20 years building Gen-Com Holstein, a division of Comtois International Export.
In the past five years alone, this family business has exported over 30,000 breeding swine and over 15,000 beef and dairy cattle across the world.
These numbers aside, it is the high genetic quality of their herd that is impressive, since Gen-Com Holstein acquires foundation stock with high genetic potential and high conformation, in order to raise cattle with high genetic quality that is recognized around the world.
This unique company considers itself a showcase of the positive things being done in the world in the field of dairy cattle genetics.
Congratulations, Ms. Laroche and Mr. Comtois.
Tillicum Le'lum Aboriginal Friendship CentreJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to congratulate Nanaimo's Tillicum Le'lum Aboriginal Friendship Centre on its new indigenous response to sexual abuse program. Building on existing programs, this one of a kind initiative will support sexual health and self-esteem workshops, intervention for men at risk of offending and activities to celebrate aboriginal youth. The use of traditional teachings to foster healthy families is a hallmark of the centre. 
It is a busy month for Tillicum Le'lum, where plans are under way to build a new facility for the Friendship Le'lum, the youth safe house program. More beds means more youth off the streets. All it needs now is the funding from the Conservative government.
I commend Tillicum Le'lum for the valued work it does for our community. Congratulations to all the staff and the volunteers.
JusticeMr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government believes Canada should be a safe place to live and raise a family. We have continuously taken action to get tough on crime and protect our communities. We will continue to take steps to better protect Canadians and ensure that the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals.
We have promised Canadians we would get tough on crime, and we continue to deliver. This week the Minister of Justice introduced legislation to strengthen the way the young offenders system deals with violent and repeat young offenders. As well this week, the protecting victims from sex offenders act was tabled in the Senate. This act would further protect our children and help victims. Yesterday we tabled important amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act. 
Today, our Conservative government announced further action toward effective gun control by re-extending the current amnesty so honest, responsible gun owners are not criminalized.
We will continue to take action to ensure Canadians are safe. We call on the opposition to do the same and support our tough on crime measures.
Don ValardoMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many great people are called unique, but few actually are. 
Don Valardo was unique. He was a great man, big in every sense, and a Canadian patriot. He passed away on Tuesday.
Don was from Saint John, but he made Dartmouth his home. He was the quintessential self-made man who started as a brewery worker, became the youngest-ever president of the brewery workers union, and then entered business, eventually owning a number of licensed establishments and rental properties. He served two terms as alderman in Dartmouth and was involved in innumerable community activities. He was a longtime chair of the Dartmouth Sportsplex and a proud Kiwanian. He received many awards and honours.
However, for all of his success, the essence of Don was his family. His wife of 56 years, the other Dawn, was his partner in every sense. She smoothed his edges; she made him stronger. His children, Debra, Patti, Nancy and Tony, were his life and along with his grandchildren they will honour and keep alive the life and legend of Don Valardo. 
He was one of the very best. May he rest in peace.
International Organization of la FrancophonieMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for Canada and other members of the Francophonie, Saturday, March 20 will be a day of celebration. We will celebrate the 40th anniversary of an important international organization that we helped create on March 20, 1970 in Niamey, Niger.
The International Organization of la Francophonie has expanded and matured since that time. There are now 56 member states and governments in addition to 14 observers united by a common language: French.
There are now some 200 million French speakers in the world. The Francophonie is a natural zone of Canadian influence. It is a place where our voice is heard and understood. 
The Francophonie is more than just language and cultural diversity. It is also a set of values that form the basis for our work and collaboration. I would like to congratulate the organization for all it has accomplished in the last 40 years.
Quebec Women's MuseumMr. Jean Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on International Women's Day I had the opportunity to discover the Musée de la femme, the first of its kind in Quebec, the eighth in the world. I am very proud that it is in Longueuil, in my riding. 
In addition to taking us through the history of women and underscoring their contribution to Quebec society, the museum also explains the 10-year history of the world march of women with its new temporary exhibit, “Le rêve aux pieds”.
Women's shoes recount important moments in history, symbolizing how far women have come: a journey to commend women's determination and resolve to make their dreams come true. 
I would like to thank the founding president, Lydie Olga Ntap, for holding on to her dream of celebrating women's contributions by founding this museum. Thank you to everyone who, like Ms. Ntap, is working towards greater gender equality in Quebec.
Bluefin TunaMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic bluefin tuna is important to the east coast fishery. The Government of Canada shares the concerns of experts around the world about the conservation of Atlantic tuna and we have acted on this concern. Canada has the best managed bluefin tuna fishery in the world.
However, the recent debate at international meetings in Doha does raise serious questions and the international community has been put on notice to follow through on previous commitments to take real action on bluefin tuna. Canada will continue to be a world leader on this issue. We will press other nations to follow the example of the sustainably managed Canadian fishery to ensure the survival of this iconic fish.
Labrador Winter GamesMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 23 teams representing communities large and small from every region of Labrador gathered in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the 10th Labrador Winter Games. During the week that followed, they showed their skills, athletic ability and good sportsmanship in 14 different team and individual events.
The Labrador Winter Games bring together athletes, coaches, trainers, officials, volunteers and spectators from across Labrador and Canada. The games are a show of strength, agility, teamwork and fair play. They build community spirit and highlight the cultural richness of our region. They are a unique expression of what it means to be a Labradorian.
I extend special congratulations to team Cartwright for successfully defending the Labrador Cup from 2006. To the medallists, the teams, all the athletes who competed, the winter games board, the coordinators, the volunteers and the sponsors who make it all possible, I offer congratulations on their success and thanks for their hard work. 
We all look forward to 2013 for the 30th anniversary Labrador Winter games.
JusticeMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week, we implemented judicial measures that will contribute to better protecting our communities. Our government has announced legislative measures to strengthen the way the young offenders system deals with violent and repeat offenders.
In order to better protect our children, we have also announced a bill to strengthen the national sex offender registry. Lastly, we have announced a bill to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act.
Canadians have the right to feel safe in their communities. Our government is moving forward and making public safety a top priority. 
I am humbly asking members of the opposition to support our anti-crime measures. It is a matter of protecting our families and protecting communities from coast to coast. Canadians want action and that is what we are offering. 
Pat JessupPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, March 31 will be a very sad day for our Canadian armed forces because that is the day the great, the one and only Lieutenant Commander Pat Jessup of Halifax will retire from many years of service in the Canadian armed forces.
Pat Jessup comes from a long line of military service. Her grandfather served in World War I. Her father served in World War II. She has a son serving in the military. Her husband served for over 38 years as well. 
Her accomplishments within the navy and the armed forces in Halifax are far too many to list. One which stands out in particular is the organization of 19 commemorative events during Veterans Week which raised over a quarter of a million dollars in kind for the Camp Hill veterans. It is her great work and that of Mr. Tom Walters which got the Silver Cross changes in Canada.
On behalf of all parliamentarians and all of us who have had a chance to see Pat Jessup at work, I salute Pat Jessup and thank her for her service to our country. She will be sorely missed by all of us.
Firearms RegistryMr. Greg Kerr (West Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report today that the Minister of Public Safety announced further action towards effective gun control.
This Conservative government intends to re-extend the current amnesty that helps firearm owners comply with the law. Our government believes that gun control should target criminals, not law-abiding citizens. It should promote safety on our streets, not frustrate hunters in the bush.
We know that the criminalization of honest, responsible gun owners does not serve the public interest. We also know that criminals do not register their guns and that illegal handguns are the primary problem.
Our Conservative government remains committed to fighting crime and protecting Canadians so that our communities are safe places in which to live and raise families.
The long gun registry is not cracking down on crime like the Liberals promised it would. It unfairly targets hard-working farmers and hunters, not criminals. 
It is time to put an end to this billion dollar Liberal boondoggle once and for all.
Denise BombardierMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 17, Denise Bombardier was awarded the 2010 Reconnaissance - Francophonie award. She is the second recipient of this award, which was created last year to honour a Quebec individual for his or her exceptional contribution to the promotion of the French language and culture on the international scene.
Denise Bombardier is a respected yet controversial individual. This intellectual does not shy away from controversy. She is a regular contributor to the print media. Her articles can be read in many publications. She has also written such works as La voix de la France, Une enfance à l'eau bénite, Aimez-moi les uns les autres.
In her 30 years at Radio-Canada, Ms. Bombardier was a researcher, host and producer. She is the recipient of many honours: Knight of the French Legion of Honour, Knight of the Order of Quebec and Officer of the French Legion of Honour.
My Bloc Québécois colleagues join me in congratulating Denise Bombardier for this award and her contribution to the Francophonie.
International Day of La FrancophonieHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is International Day of La Francophonie and it is a particularly important event because this is the 40th anniversary of the International Organization of La Francophonie.
Canada remains a leader in the francophone world. It is important to support this organization because it allows us to interact with francophone and francophile countries around the world.
As was previously mentioned, the international Francophonie is celebrating its 40th anniversary. This anniversary will celebrate diversity for peace and solidarity with the people of Haiti, who were hit by a terrible earthquake in January.
In conclusion, I hope that the government will recognize the importance and value of this organization to Canada's international influence.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, students across the country are sad to see the end of the March break and so is the Liberal leader. 
In this House we have taken care of what matters to Canadians. We have implemented our jobs and growth budget that will protect the jobs of today while creating the jobs of tomorrow.
While we work to create jobs, the Liberal leader's tax and spend road show promises to kill jobs. The Liberal leader can take as many breaks as he likes, but it will not change the fact that his alternative to our jobs and growth plan is higher taxes. We know this because he said it. He told Canadians, “We will have to raise taxes”. Canadians know that higher taxes kill jobs. 
When the Liberal leader chooses his tax and spend road show over the work of this House, he proves what we have been saying all along: the Liberal leader is not in it for Canadians, he is only in it for himself.

Oral Questions
Airline SecurityMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian aviation regulations define a level 3 incident as “violent, argumentative, threatening, intimidating or disorderly behaviour”. 
First, the Minister of State for the Status of Women had a massive airport meltdown and slandered the people of Prince Edward Island. Now we learn that the Minister of Veterans Affairs tried to break the rules by taking a bottle of tequila onto an aircraft, was refused, and then became so belligerent that security almost called the RCMP.
Why is there one set of rules for the Conservative team and another set of rules for everyone else?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has apologized to anyone that he may have offended. He did not ask for any preferential treatment. He strongly supports airport security measures unequivocally.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, Canadian aviation regulations define a level three incident as violent, argumentative, threatening, intimidating or disorderly behaviour. February was a difficult month for security officials at Canadian airports—two ministers, two instances of aggressive behaviour in flagrant violation of the rules that apply to ordinary citizens.
Why is the Prime Minister rewarding ministers who put the safety of Canadian travellers at risk?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we must always remember that it is a great privilege to be not just a member of this place, but to also be a minister of the crown.
People at our airports, and I know very well the hard-working people at the Ottawa airport, have a very difficult job. They work extremely hard. 
All members of the House will want to join me in saying let us work together to help keep our airports safe by cooperating with the officials.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, security personnel who keep us safe in our airports across Canada, like the airport in my riding of Ottawa South, should not be berated and bullied by arrogant Conservative cabinet ministers.
The Prime Minister now says that members of his cabinet need new special rules. He is missing the point. The problem is he will not enforce the rules we have. He is telling Canadians that there is one set of rules for him and his ministers and another set of rules for everyone else.
Why the double standard?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. We know how hard and how stressful the work is that people do at our airports, whether they be with CATSA, whether they be airport employees, or whether they work for airlines. It is a challenging environment. 
We should all come together and work to assist them in their important responsibilities on behalf of all Canadians to keep us safe.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs knows about airport security. Just last year, on May 5, he joined the Minister of State for Transport at Pearson International Airport to announce new airport security measures. The veterans affairs minister said, “The government...is committed to strengthening aviation security on all fronts”. The plan clearly detailed the threat posed by liquids. Perhaps he should have read it.
Does the minister think he is above the law, or does he just not understand it?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the minister has apologized to anyone who may have been offended. He did not ask for any preferential treatment.
 We do not have a two-tier legal system. Members of Parliament, members of the federal cabinet, are just like every single other Canadian. All of the rules, all of the regulations, all of the laws apply to everyone in this country equally.
Rob Oliphant: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the news and I have not heard the apology. The honest men and women who work hard to make our airports and air space safe deserve an explanation. They deserve an apology. 
Through his actions the minister insinuated that they would confiscate his precious tequila and drink it. That is insulting. It is disrespectful.
If the Minister of Veterans Affairs does not respect those dedicated people in uniform, how do we know he respects the men and women who wear Canadian Forces uniforms?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me make a personal commitment to my friend from Don Valley West that we will get a copy of the minister's statement for him.
Tax HarmonizationMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the time of the announcement of the agreement with Quebec on the reform of the sales tax, Michael Wilson, the Conservative finance minister at the time, congratulated himself on the harmonization of the QST and the GST that came into effect on January 1, 1992. Since then, no federal government has questioned this fact. Today, 18 years later, the Conservatives for the first time are contending the opposite. 
Will the government agree that its new position on harmonization or non-harmonization is nothing more than a pretext for not compensating Quebec? 
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), CPC): Mr. Speaker, 18 years is still not as long as the Bloc has been here, but we will have results in the end. 
We are still in negotiations with the Government of Quebec. Of course, things change. There are always things to clarify with that government. In good faith, the two governments will reach an agreement, but there are still a lot of things to resolve.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has been in the House for 143 years, and Quebec has never received anything from it.
The pretext of the QST and GST non-harmonization hides the real reason the Conservatives are refusing to compensate Quebec, which is their intention to take over the collection of both taxes, a task that was given totally to Revenu Québec in 1992.
Will the Conservative government acknowledge that it is trying to subjugate Quebec instead of compensating it as it deserves?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations between Quebec and our government will continue.
I would remind my colleague opposite that, since our government has been in power, the amount of federal transfers has never been so high in Canadian history. This year, $19.3 billion will be transferred to Quebec along with $8.8 billion in equalization payments.
Quebec certainly did not give this money to itself. It comes from the Government of Canada this year.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government keeps saying that employment insurance premiums are determined by an independent body at arm's length from the government and that, in any case, current legislation stipulates that premiums cannot be higher than benefits. Yet the government's recent budget is clear. The government plans to pilfer $19 billion from the employment insurance fund. 
How can the government predict that an arm's length organization will go against its own legislation and set premium rates that would allow to rake in $19 billion?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we froze employment insurance premiums for two years in order to protect jobs across Canada. Now we are waiting for the commission to determine the long term premium rate. This is to avoid doing what the Liberals did: doling out gifts to their cronies for their pet projects.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the budget clearly states in both French and English that $19 billion will be taken from the employment insurance fund.
The government is also contradicting itself when it comes to transitional measures. On the one hand, the “tequila minister” is telling us that no decisions have been made in that regard. On the other hand, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is telling us that he has given up and that the government decided not to renew transitional measures that would close the black hole currently facing unemployed workers in eastern Quebec.
My question is simple: who is telling the truth?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we are very familiar with the transitional measures and we are examining them. A decision will be made in the spring.
Rights & DemocracyHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a majority of members of the foreign affairs committee want to hear from the widow of Rémy Beauregard, the president of Rights &amp; Democracy before his untimely death. The government does not want to hear her speak, showing once again the government's contempt for the concept of discovering the truth.
It would also be beneficial to hear from the first president of Rights &amp; Democracy, Ed Broadbent, once a member of course of this chamber, and also Joe Clark, who was the minister at the time that Rights &amp; Democracy was created.
How can the government refuse to hear from these very important individuals, including the right hon. Joe Clark?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me say that our sympathies are with Madame Trépanier and her family on their loss.
I do hope that all members of the committee can put aside partisan politics and work together as to the number of witnesses who can be invited to be heard on this matter. We hope that these disagreements can be resolved so that witnesses like Madame Trépanier may be heard.
PensionsJack Layton: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly work toward that goal.
On another matter, after years of pressure from the NDP, the government has finally made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to protect the pensions of workers whose employer declares bankruptcy. We expect the government to take action on this.
Why not immediately pass the NDP bill, which would give workers' pensions precedence over other creditors and bonuses for managers of bankrupt companies?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government brought forward a throne speech and brought forward a budget that spoke to these issues. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has had extensive consultations. We need to bring Canadians into this discussion. I know my colleague, the Minister of Industry has been reviewing this important issue. We obviously want to do two things. We want to ensure that the individual rights of pensioners are respected to the best possible extent, but also continue to have a growing economy that creates jobs and affords pensions to even more Canadians than already enjoy them today.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that the government has not introduced any action on the issue. It is just endless talk. Meanwhile we have workers, like the Nortel workers, who stand to lose the pension to which they have contributed. These are people who played by the rules. They made their contributions each year to their pension plan and now they stand to lose much of what they were counting on in retirement.
Why not simply take the NDP bill and get it into the process? Let us get it adopted in this House to protect the workers and put them ahead of some of those managers who give themselves bonuses—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Transport.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I share the view of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I think we are all alarmed when we see news reports of executives getting large bonuses when those people who worked so hard, over so many years, to build the company are left wanting. That is something that is deeply concerning, not just to all members of this House but to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The Minister of Industry, working together with the Minister of Finance and his colleague, the parliamentary secretary, are reviewing this issue. This was spoken to with some detail in the budget, in the throne speech. We just launched this session of Parliament. I am sure we will be discussing it in greater detail as we go forward.
AfghanistanMs. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, the International Criminal Court is conducting a preliminary investigation into the conduct of the Canadian government, as it relates to torture.
Also at this very moment, our government continues to hand over prisoners in Afghanistan to a serious and real risk of torture, even though the U.K. has ceased transferring prisoners altogether because of this very risk.
With the possibility that Mr. Iacobucci's review could take months, if not years, why is the government leaving Canada exposed to the ICC investigation?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly looking into the whole question with respect to documents. We all share the same common concerns about the protection of public safety and, in particular, the protection of the men and women who so ably serve us in Afghanistan.
With respect to the documents, nobody wants to jeopardize public security. This is why we have enlisted the support, the help of Justice Iacobucci.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, despite all the criticism, the Conservative government is still transferring detainees to Afghan prisons, where the risk of torture is well documented. The International Criminal Court is even reviewing the matter. Apparently Justice Iacobucci's mandate could take two years to complete. By then, Canada could be subject to an investigation or even brought before the International Criminal Court.
Will the Conservative government spare us that dishonour and finally call a public inquiry?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member that his history with public inquiries certainly must be the same as mine. They take a great deal of time. We want to put in place a process that will work expeditiously at providing the answers available. So I say to the hon. member, let Justice Iacobucci do his work.
Post-Secondary EducationMichael Savage: Mr. Speaker, budget 2010 increases taxes on post-doctoral students with scholarships. This means that while last year's students who earned an average of $32,000 in scholarships did not pay tax, this year's students, like Isabelle Thiffault, will now be taxed to the tune of $4,000.
Would the minister agree that not paying a tax last year but paying a tax this year on the same thing is a tax increase?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member conveniently ignores is that we actually made scholarships and bursaries for post-secondary students non-taxable. Maybe he does not want to remember that because he voted against it.
What we have done to help students is quite remarkable, especially when we contrast it with the $25 million in cuts that the hon. member's Liberal government made in terms of social services, to cut transfers to the provinces, including post-secondary education.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, budget 2010 is a tax budget. We have new taxes on jobs, on health, on safety and on savings, and we have this tax on education and innovation.
It does not take a post-doctoral fellowship to figure out that if one did not pay tax last year but one has to pay tax this year, that is a punishing tax increase.
Why is the government increasing taxes on education?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to explain to Canadians why he and his party, since they pretend to support post-secondary education, voted against all of our initiatives: the initiative to make scholarships and bursaries tax-free, $2 billion in infrastructure investment for colleges and universities, expanding the RESP program and expanding RDSP program.
We are doing so much to help students. We even brought in a new grants program that helps low- and middle-income students access post-secondary education, and of course the hon. member voted against it.
International CooperationMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to export their right-wing ideology by denying women in developing countries access to contraception and abortion. Despite the Minister of Foreign Affairs' flip-flop on contraception, the issue of abortion remains unresolved.
Does this government not find it inappropriate to put its ideology above the needs of women's health in developing countries?
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), CPC): Mr. Speaker, as this government has said all along, we are open to any options that will save the lives of women and children. This includes contraception.
The G8 leaders will discuss and they will aim to agree on a way forward to tackle child and maternal health care issues at the upcoming summit.
We will not reopen the debate on abortion.
Rights & DemocracyMeili Faille: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government is so determined to shove its right-wing ideology down our throats that it is refusing, for no valid reason, to bring in Suzanne Trépanier, the wife of the former president of Rights &amp; Democracy, to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, so that she can testify about the government's interference in this organization. 
What is the government trying to hide by blocking her testimony?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the committee members do not agree on the number of witnesses to hear on this matter. We hope that the committee will resolve this issue so that we can hear from the witnesses, including Ms. Trépanier and others.
Government AppointmentsMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last month, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism appointed two former Conservative candidates, Marc Nadeau and George Khouri, as citizenship judges. This is in addition to the partisan appointments of the controversial Phares Pierre, the homophobic John Cryer, Darcy Tkachuk, Cheryl Walker and others.
Will the minister admit that, despite his fine words, and just like the Liberals before him, he is upholding the age-old tradition of partisan appointments?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because I know the member has stood in the House on a number of occasions and tried to address this issue. Every single time the response has been that all of the appointments we make in this ministry are done through a process that certainly bears all of the type of recognition that it deserves. It in fact is a system that we rebuilt from the previous government that actually used a system where it simply just appointed whoever it wanted.
Our system is one that is run through the ministry, through government officials, and is done properly.
Thierry St-Cyr: In addition to rewarding friends of the government, the minister's partisan appointments are part of a more far-reaching strategy to control organizations that are supposed to be autonomous. That was the case with Gérard Latulippe and Rights and Democracy, with a former Reform member and the Canadian Grain Commission, with the friends of Mr. Soudas and Mr. Housakos and the Federal Bridge Corporation, with Gwyn Morgan and the Public Appointments Commission, just to name a few.
When will the Prime Minister stop trying to run the whole show?
Pierre Poilievre: All our appointments are merit-based. We only appoint candidates to positions for which they are qualified.
HealthMrs. Michelle Simson (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, in the Speech from the Throne, the government said that it would change the national anthem; 48 hours later, it is not. Two days ago, the government flipped then flopped on ten percenters and cap funding. Yesterday, we witnessed its about face on Canada's maternal health initiative. 
When members of the G8 meet next week in Hull-Aylmer, will the government commit to honouring all of Canada's past maternal health promises and commitments?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the answer offered only a few moments ago. As the Minister of International Cooperation said yesterday, this government has all along made itself open to any and all options that will save the lives of women and children, and this does include contraception.
The G8 leaders will talk about, discuss and aim to agree on a way forward to tackle child and maternal health at the upcoming summit.
Michelle Simson: Mr. Speaker, a simple yes or no will do. 
Will the government commit today to include sexual and reproductive health rights, particularly access to family planning, including contraception, as part of Canada's G8 maternal and child health initiative?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is quite clear but I will state again that this government is not reopening the debate on abortion.
Medical IsotopesHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, AECL is once again revising the return to service date for the Chalk River reactor, which has not produced isotopes since it was shut down last May. We heard this week that only 51% of the repairs are done and the remaining welding is extremely technical. In fact, AECL is currently assessing the recommendations from an expert review conducted earlier this week.
Will the minister finally admit that there is a growing crisis with the supply of medical isotopes?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that no one is more frustrated than our government with the slow progress of this project and the continued delays that are completely unacceptable. The health and safety of Canadians remains our top priority. 
The security of isotope supply is a global issue requiring a global response. That is why our government led the way in the creation of the high level group on medical isotopes to make the global supply more secure and more predictable.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, if the government was truly worried about Canadians' health, it would not have put a hold on the nuclear reactor project, and the Prime Minister would not have halted isotope production. It is clear that the government has no idea what it is doing. The minister is not even following the recommendations from her own expert panel. Thousands of worried Canadian families are asking how their loved ones will be able to get treatment when needed.
Why is the government abandoning them?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, in May 2008, the Government of Canada accepted the decision of the board of directors of AECL to discontinue the MAPLEs project and that remains the government's view.
In terms of action items, our government has told AECL that its highest priority must be to return to service the National Research Universal as quickly and as safely as possible.
In addition, the Minister of Health is working with the medical community to manage the supply of available isotopes and maximize its use of alternatives.
Firearms RegistryMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is committed to effective gun control and over the last three years the government has introduced legislation to make our streets safer and tackle violent crime.
The government introduced mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes and reverse bail provisions for serious offences. These are important steps to get tough on crime, steps the previous Liberal government never took that were long overdue.
We know that criminals do not register their illegal handguns. Would the parliamentary secretary inform the House on an important step to ensure that responsible gun owners are not criminalized?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support and hard work on this very important file.
Today, the Minister of Public Safety announced that this Conservative government is planning to extend the current amnesty so that we can continue to bring even more Canadians into compliance with the existing system. We will continue to separate honest, hard-working responsible gun owners from criminals who operate outside the law and do not register their illegal handguns.
We are targeting criminals, not law-abiding citizens. We are focused on keeping our streets and communities safe, not harassing hunters in the bush.
Code of ConductJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, time and time again the Conservatives say one thing and do another.
They call for extreme sentencing for drug charges but then suddenly fall silent when it is one of their own. They tightened airport security but do not think it should apply to them. Beyond the boot throwing or the attempt at booze smuggling, cabinet ministers have verbally abused the airport security personnel who work hard at their difficult jobs.
When will the Prime Minister finally impose a code of conduct that is enforceable against his cabinet ministers?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the answer I gave earlier because I know the member for Windsor—Tecumseh heard it.
 People at our airports, whether they be airport screeners, whether they work for the airlines or whether they work for the Airport Authority itself, have a very difficult job in a challenging time. They deserve the support of all Canadians. Those of us who serve as members of Parliament and as ministers of the Crown have a special responsibility in this regard.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, the new security measures in airports, and the new Conservative tax that accompanies them, do not upset only ordinary passengers. We have all heard about the Minister of State for the Status of Women's boots in Charlottetown. Now there is the story about the bottle of tequila belonging to the Minister of Veterans Affairs at the Ottawa airport. We are in Ottawa, not Mexico. The rule is clear: 100 millimetres is the maximum.
Will the Prime Minister force his ministers to follow a code of conduct so that they act with dignity at Canadian airports?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate, nor did the minister ask for any special treatment. He, as well as I know all members of this House, strongly support the airport security rules unequivocally. 
We should work together in a non-partisan fashion with all Canadians to ensure that our airports are safe and that we work in a co-operative fashion with those people who are charged with that important public responsibility.
TelecommunicationsMrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, CD sales are plummeting, although people are still listening to music. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage passed a Bloc Québécois motion to authorize the collection of royalties on the purchase of devices like iPods in order to compensate artists for their creative work. The Minister of Industry called such royalties “totally inappropriate”, although they have existed in the Copyright Act since 1997, particularly for blank CDs.
What does the industry minister propose to prevent artists from being deprived of their creative revenues?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we find it quite astounding that the Bloc, the NDP and members of the Liberal Party want to impose a punitive tax on iPods, on home computers and on PVRs, on the basic electronics that Canadians are using.
We want to build a more productive Canada. We want to meet the productivity challenge in this country, and one of the ways we will do that is by being a technology leader, not by taxing technologies. That is ridiculous.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have ever seen the parliamentary secretary to a Minister of Canadian Heritage turn his back on artists. So much for his credibility.
Someone else who has lost all credibility is the Minister of Industry. He stated on the CBC on December 3 that he had downloaded 10,000 songs to his iPod. Yet he still refuses to say whether he paid for all 10,000 musical files.
Will the industry minister admit that what is “totally inappropriate”, as he said, is not paying royalties and, instead, stealing the work of artists, whether he does it once or 10,000 times?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, we have been pretty clear on it. On the other side of the House, it is here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax tax. They look at this and say that here is an opportunity to put a tax on something, frankly, that everyday Canadians are using.
Have they talked to any constituents to see if they would actually support paying a $75 iPod tax? I have. They do not agree with it. They think it is absurd.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not creating jobs. They are killing jobs: 150 jobs in Cape Breton, representing $4 million for an economy with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. 
With the backlog of citizenship claims in the system, Conservatives did the unspeakable. They laid off 150 workers at the citizenship and immigration processing centre in Sydney. Immigrants are left waiting while unemployment rises. 
Why would the government do something so senseless?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, since this government took office in 2006, we have invested more funding into this ministry in all areas, whether it be refugee status claims, citizenship or foreign credentials. Whether it be in this country or outside of this country, no one has paid more attention to new citizens, landed immigrants and refugees than this government.
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, there is more. There is a trend here. EI processing jobs are being centralized from Cape Breton. We lost a labour safety officer. Marine Atlantic just cut an entire back shift of over 100 jobs. That is a lot of spin-off jobs. When will the government stop the bleeding and invest in Cape Breton instead of killing jobs?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I have some great news for the people in Cape Breton and the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. After years and years of inaction and neglect, the federal government is finally making major investments in Marine Atlantic. Through budget 2010, the federal government has indicated that it will put in hundreds of millions of dollars of new funds. 
Where the Liberal Party failed Cape Breton and Newfoundland and Labrador, this government is delivering like no government has in recent years.
ShipbuildingMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while the shipyard in Lévis, Quebec, is dying and more than 1,500 employees were laid off in February, the Conservatives' shipbuilding strategy is going nowhere.
Atlantic Canada expects to lease ferries; the Arctic is still waiting for patrol ships to protect our sovereignty, not to mention the replacement of HMCS Protecteur, which has been put on ice.
Why is shipbuilding not a priority when the need is so great?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will read from the Speech from the Throne where it states that the government recognizes:
 ...the strategic importance of a strong domestic shipbuilding industry, it will continue to support the industry’s sustainable development through a long-term approach to federal procurement. 
As part of Canada's economic action plan, the government did announce an investment of $175 million for the procurement of new Coast Guard vessels and to undertake vessel life extensions and refits for aging vessels. The government took action to extend the structured financing facility until 2011 and invested an additional $50 million in the program.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the parliamentary secretary, a throne speech means absolutely nothing if it is not in the estimates or in the budget.
We were promised three armed icebreakers but the government misled us. It promised the Diefenbaker but we do not know where it is. It also promised the JSS for replacement of military vessels. These are worth billions of dollars in investment.
Could the parliamentary secretary please tell us where in the estimates and in the budget the investment is for these important vessels?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Speech from the Throne refers to a long-term approach to federal procurement. I did not get a chance to continue reading the actual specific measures that this government has taken, so I will continue.
With regard to the structured financing facility, which is extended until 2011, there is an additional investment of $50 million in the program to help buyers purchase ships built in Canada. The Canada first defence strategy also announced a series of Maritime-based procurements with an estimated value of $43 billion over the next 30 years.
Public SafetyJames Lunney: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that this Conservative government is committed to ensuring that our communities are safe places for people to live and raise their families.
This week, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety introduced important safety measures and legislation that will further protect Canadians. I am proud to be part of a Conservative government that places the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety update the House on these important pieces of legislation and how they will further protect Canadians?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support and hard work on this file.
This has been an important week. We released the federal emergency response plan. The Minister of Justice introduced legislation to strengthen the young offenders system. On Wednesday, the protecting victims from sex offenders act was tabled in the Senate. Yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety tabled important amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act. Today, our Conservative government announced further action toward effective gun control. 
Canadians expect to be protected from crime. They want to be safe in their communities and on the streets and we are delivering.
Rural RegionsMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives came to power, we are seeing a massive wave of job losses. In my riding, highly trained Service Canada employees who are retiring are not being replaced and their positions are simply being transferred elsewhere.
Now we learn that the Conservatives are going to eliminate all the employment insurance processing positions in the regions of New Brunswick. My riding will have lost more than 24 well-paid permanent positions.
Why are the Conservatives attacking the country's rural regions? Why are they so against the Atlantic regions? Why do they have no respect for people from rural Canada?
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have made many investments in New Brunswick. We understand we also have some challenges in New Brunswick in the forestry industry, to name one, and the fishing industry, to name another. 
I do not know where the hon. member is getting his information on reduction of federal jobs. We are not reducing jobs in New Brunswick. 
Firearms RegistryMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the second-in-command at the RCMP told the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that the firearms registry is an important tool for police and that it increases public safety. However, the Conservative government is obsessed with dismantling the registry. Extending the amnesty declared in May 2006 for those who have not registered their firearms makes no sense whatsoever. 
Will the minister admit that the RCMP Deputy Commissioner has more credibility than he does when it comes to issues of public safety?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the comment in question was a personal opinion and clearly stated as such. Our Conservative government does not agree. We believe that the money wasted on the long gun registry would be better spent on effective gun control, measures that actually target criminals.
I would like to remind the member that there are also those in law enforcement who agree with our side. They suggest that we should be ending the long gun registry now.
InfrastructureMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people of northern Manitoba rely on winter roads to get what they need. Usually the roads are open for over eight weeks. This year, due to a mild winter, they have been open for much less. Despite the Conservatives' denials, climate change is real, and the consequences, especially in Canada's north, are serious.
Will the government provide assistance to communities and first nations in my region to get the essential goods and services that they need? Will it also commit to investing in a long-term strategy, along with the province of Manitoba, to build a sustainable, long-term, all-weather road network?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, there is a significant amount of concern for those people living in rural and remote areas by those of us in government. We have made an unprecedented commitment to infrastructure in this country. I am pleased to report to the member that we have an excellent working relationship with the Government of Manitoba, and particularly the hard-working minister of transportation of Manitoba. 
I will certainly take the hon. member's concern back to the table and see what we can do to help improve the lives, not just of the people of her constituency but in all rural and remote parts of this great country.
The BudgetMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the opposition shockingly voted against supporting jobs and economic growth in Canada when it voted against budget 2010 and year two of Canada's economic action plan. It voted against a budget that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are applauding.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please inform the House what he has heard about Canadians' response to budget 2010?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for highlighting the fact that the opposition continues to talk down the economy when Canadians are actually applauding it. They are applauding year two of Canada's economic action plan.
Let me quote the mayor of Cornerbrook, Newfoundland, who said, “The federal budget is a positive one for municipalities”. Montreal's Board of Trade praised it for improving long-term productivity and competitiveness in Canada. B.C.'s Institute of Technology said that it would be important to enhancing the innovative capacity of the Canadian economy.
If I had more time, I would continue.
Rural RegionsJean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to understand that a position cut and transferred is a job lost in rural areas. When 24 good federal jobs are lost, the economy of our regions is affected and opportunities for our youth are curtailed.
Before talking about the decentralization of jobs in rural regions, the Conservatives could at least show respect and replace the positions in our regions which were moved elsewhere as part of centralization.
There is only one thing for the Conservatives to do and that is apologize and bring jobs back to our regions. When will the Prime Minister stop the hemorrhaging imposed in rural areas?
Keith Ashfield: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has information with which I am not familiar. If he could provide me with the information, I will take a look at it and we will go from there.
International AidMr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the earthquake and aftershocks that hit Chile have left the country and its people devastated. As of yet there are no federal funds matching what Canadians have donated to the relief efforts. No Canadian warships loaded with supplies or talk of waiving immigration rules. Simply put, our response has been embarrassing.
After the earthquake in Haiti, not only did Canadians donate generously, but the government matched donations and sent aid immediately. Why is the same not happening for Chile?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks from a position of ignorance, innocent ignorance perhaps.
 I had the honour of visiting Chile last week for the inauguration. The capacity of this country, a virtual developed country, to respond is very different from that of the government of Haiti. We are awaiting the new government's direction and suggestion of how exactly our assistance might be delivered.
Medical IsotopesGuy André: Mr. Speaker, AECL informed us that the Chalk River nuclear reactor would not be up and running before mid-May and would probably not produce any medical isotopes before June. In the meantime, medical treatments are being postponed, patients are concerned and Quebec and other provincial governments are footing the bill for the additional costs of the isotope shortage. 
The date for restarting the reactor has been postponed five times; how can we believe that this time is for real?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, no one is more frustrated than our government with the slow progress of this project and the continued delays that are completely unacceptable. 
The health and safety of Canadians remains the top priority of the government of Canada, and the security of the isotope supply is a global issue requiring a global response. That is why our government led the way in the creation of the high level group on medical isotopes to make the global supply more secure and more predictable. 
Veterans AffairsMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech the government paid homage to Allied war veterans. Allied war veterans, who have been Canadian citizens since the 1940s and 1950s, have helped build the Canada we have today. They have paid taxes on their hard-earned income over the years, but do not have the same access to the Ste. Anne's Hospital as other veterans. Why not? The hospital has empty beds.
Greg Kerr: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and certainly a matter that continues to be under review. As the member would be aware, in the budget this year there is a big effort to extend benefits toward new veterans, the young veterans that are coming on stream as the old veterans pass away. There have been adjustments to many of the programs and certainly they will continue. That certainly is a matter that is of concern to us as well.

Routine Proceedings
TreatiesHon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under section 32 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, four treaties.
First, an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters, signed in Ottawa on August 14, 2007.
Second, an Exchange of Notes constituting an amendment to the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on Mutual Administrative Assistance on Customs Matters, signed in Ottawa on August 14, 2007, signed on March 30, 2009, and on April 28, 2009; extending the Agreement to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
Third, an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania concerning Youth Exchanges signed in Vilnius on November 19, 2009.
Fourth, an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Estonia concerning Youth Exchanges signed in Tallinn on December 14, 2009. 
An exploratory memorandum is included in each treaty.
I am also tabling the “Global Partnership Program” report in the House of Commons.
Pursuant to section 32(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, I have the honour to lay upon the table, in both official languages, the “Report on Canada's Contribution to the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction”.
Committees of the HouseMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, the committee has considered vote 5C, the House of Commons, under Parliament in supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, and reports the same.
[Interjection]
Hon. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion, that for the calendar year 2010 in the present Parliament, Standing Order 81(4) be amended by replacing the words “March 1” with the words “March 3”.
The Speaker:  Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Standing OrdersJay Hill: In that case, Mr. Speaker, reluctantly, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:
 That, for the calendar year 2010 in the present Parliament, Standing Order 81(4) be amended by replacing the words “March 1” with the words “March 3”. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places. 
Fewer than 25 members having risen, I declare the motion adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsPierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people across my riding that acknowledges that animals can feel pain and can suffer. They ask the House of Commons to prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering, and specifically they ask the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by more than 250 people from Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska, a town in my riding, who want to save their post office. The petitioners mention that the Liberal government imposed a moratorium in 1994 on rural post office closures.
The people of Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska are afraid of losing this asset, which is important to the future of a small community. This small town needs infrastructure and needs its post office, and the petitioners are calling on the federal government to maintain the moratorium on post office closures. 
The people are very nervous, because they found out that the government had decided to close some post offices on short notice.
The people and the Liberal Party are asking that the moratorium be maintained so that people continue to be served by our rural post offices.
Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, I present a petition that calls upon the government to establish an independent judicial inquiry under the federal Inquiries Act to fully explore all the facts and consult with scientists and stakeholders to determine what went wrong with this year's sockeye run and present a public report with binding solutions within six months.
A process is in place in British Columbia about the missing Fraser River sockeye. However, by the time that report comes out, there will be another full season of Fraser River sockeye.
We encourage the government to respect this petition and have the report presented within six months.
Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present today signed by 478 students from Leo Hayes High School and surrounding areas.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the serious problem of bullying in Canada. They talk about communication methods, including the Internet, email and cellphones, which allow bullying to happen on a seven day, 24 hour basis.
They call upon Parliament to introduce legislation to target the problem of bullying. It is recognized that under the Criminal Code, it is a crime to communicate repeatedly with someone to cause them fear for themselves or defamatory type of libel. They ask the government to consider other areas where this is a problem. It has a huge impact on our children today and their ability to learn and contribute productively to our economy.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition deals with Bill C-310. Dozens of Canadians call upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. The bill would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues such as late and misplaced bags. It would require all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all advertising.
 Legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. Why should an Air Canada passenger receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada? Airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted at the airport and airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed the rules, it would cost them nothing.
The petitioners call upon the government to support Bill C-310, Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by Canadians who call upon the government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the 8.8 magnitude earthquake, which occurred on February 27 in southern Chile. 
The community has mobilized and has held fundraising events. One such event was held on Saturday, March 6 in Winnipeg where $10,000 was raised. A follow-up fundraiser will be held on Saturday, March 20 at the University of Manitoba. One thousand tickets have been sold for this fundraiser.
When will the Prime Minister give the same treatment to the victims of the earthquake in Chile as he did for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and match funds personally donated by Canadians?
Mr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to present a 24-page petition signed by many people from Ontario who are calling on the government to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by people from Yukon, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
 The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to extend the funding for the healing programs under the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. It is very clear to people across the country of the importance the Aboriginal Healing Foundation has made in the lives of the residential school survivors. They ask the government to continue this good work. 
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present from my riding of beautiful Langley.
The first petition deals with those who counsel people to commit suicide. The petitioners say that people who experience depression and mental illness need to be protected by the law. They say that predators are both encouraging and counselling suicide without penalty through the Internet.
They call upon the House of Commons to enable prosecution of those who encourage or counsel someone to commit suicide.
Mark Warawa: Madam Speaker, my other petition deals with human trafficking.
The petitioners say that the trafficking of women and children for the purpose of sexual exploitation should be condemned. They say that it is the duty of Parliament to protect the most vulnerable members of society from harm, those from being victims of human trafficking.
They request Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to include a minimum punishment of imprisonment for the term of five years for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of 18.
Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Madam Speaker, I present petitions calling upon the Government of Canada to extend the funding for healing programs under the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
An organization called the Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre does extensive work to help aboriginal people. We know residential schools caused extensive physical and mental trauma to the survivors, which has passed on to future generations.
The Aboriginal Healing Foundation is aimed at encouraging and supporting aboriginal people in building and reinforcing sustainable healing processes that address the legacy of physical and sexual abuse in the residential school system, including intergenerational impacts. The funding is finished on March 31 of this year.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to leave a true legacy of action to residential school survivors and support the process of healing through an extension of funding for this foundation.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders)[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-4.
This bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other acts. It also amends the sentencing and general principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois would like to do a thorough, professional job of studying this bill in committee. The Bloc will therefore support an agreement in principle to study the bill and hear all witnesses to improve it.
Although the bill is not as excessive as we were led to believe it would be in January, it still contains quite a few irritants, including an ideological change in the act, which is a fairly dramatic change.
Like many experts, we condemn this philosophical change that makes public protection the main benchmark, at the expense of prevention.
The bill adds new criteria to consider in sentencing young offenders. For example, the sentence should have a deterrent effect. This means that public perception, rather than the offence itself, would condition how a young offender is punished. In short, the government is asking judges to make examples of people.
The government is amending a law that works well. What is more, many experts condemn this amendment, because the law had already been toughened. Still, because of the Bloc's efforts, the bill we have before us is much more moderate than what we are used to seeing from the Conservatives. We have to say that our work to raise awareness and fight against an even tougher bill paid off; the government listened. 
The government admits that it misled us when it said there were no young offenders in adult prisons. That is an important admission. I feel it is worth mentioning, because the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles spent last summer going around saying that there were no offenders under 18 in the prisons in Quebec and Canada.
 It is worthwhile going over some figures. I do not think that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles dispute the source of these figures. It is the Correctional Service of Canada. 
 I do not especially like quoting statistics in my remarks, but I will do so this time because I want to correct the figures cited by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, among others. I hope that after hearing these statistics, the member will offer an apology for reporting incorrect figures.
 In all, 10 offenders under the age of 18 have been placed in a federal penitentiary since January 1, 2004. They were all 17 at the time. Here is the number of young people placed by year, that is from January to December 31—2004, 4; 2005, 1; 2006, 3; 2007, 1; 2008, none; 2009, 1. 
 I have some more statistics to help the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles clearly understand the situation. According to a reliable source, the public security department in Quebec, in all a total of 39 offenders under 18 have been put in prison in Quebec since April 1, 2003. Here are the figures by fiscal year, that is, from April 1 to March 31: 12 in 2003-04; 10 in 2004-05, 3 in 2005-06; 9 in 2006-07; 5 in 2007-08; and none in 2008-09.
 The statistics are based on the age at the time of admission. We must also realize that a single individual can be admitted more than once a year. Now that this has been clarified, we can hope that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will get the facts straight.
 The Bloc Québécois as well shares many of the concerns raised by many professional stakeholders in Quebec on the repercussions of this bill. Accordingly, the Bloc will analyze it in depth, as is its custom, when it is being studied in committee. We want to hear all those involved in order to improve whatever may be improved. The Bloc wants to get to the bottom of things and will certainly not tolerate rushing through a matter of such importance. If it is passed, the bill will change the way young people are dealt with. We must therefore take the time needed to invite as many experts to speak to the matter so as to properly debate and examine it.
 I would also like to speak to the Bloc's philosophy on justice. It firmly believes that the most effective approach is still prevention. We must go after the causes of crime, delinquency and violence rather than wait for problems to occur and try to fix them after the fact. The wisest and certainly the most profitable approach, in both social and financial terms, consists in working at problems in order to avoid youth crime and incarceration. It could not be clearer. We must fight poverty, inequality and exclusion, all fertile ground for frustrations and the escape valves that violence and crime constitute.
 Justice for youth is no different in this regard. Young people should benefit from a healthy environment, they should not be living in extreme poverty, they should have access to affordable education and so on. In all these areas, the Quebec nation has made good choices, which sets it apart. Education costs, for example, are among the lowest in North America. Our network of daycare centres is a model in the field, and so on.
 Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is aware that young people commit crimes, for which they should be held to account, including in the courts. The government has a duty to act and to use all the tools available to it to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians are able to live in peace and safety. But the measures brought forward have got to have a real positive impact on crime, they have got to be more than rhetoric, or fear-mongering. They have got to be more than just an imitation of the American model, which, it should be noted, has completely failed to reduce crime. The American model has produced very weak results and is now on the brink of complete breakdown. Some states are questioning that model because it has failed to reduce youth crime.
 A few statistics show that one quarter of prisoners on the planet, over 7 million people, are in prison or on parole. The United States is starting to move away from that model, the “law and order” model. In July 2009, the Vera Institute of Justice determined that at least 22 American states are preparing to depart from tough-on-crime policies and the present system is at the point of human and financial breakdown.
 On the other hand, the Quebec model, based on rehabilitation and reintegration, produces real results, results that can be measured using statistics showing the decline in crime. 
 So we would say that what Canada wants is to copy a completely outdated model instead of drawing on the Quebec model, which is working very well.
 A moment ago I listened carefully to the speech by my NDP colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. He said that the government should draw on the Quebec model which has produced good results because the people of Quebec, with their various taxes, have created a health system, a social safety net, that means they can take action to prevent crime and poverty. One thing it means is that young people can be given help and support. Quebec is the province that in 2006 succeeded in reducing its crime rate by 4%, unlike the rest of Canada, where the crime rate rose.
 And so I invite the government members to investigate the Quebec model, to look at its successes and its results, rather than trying to copy a completely outdated model that, on the contrary, is of such dubious worth that some American states are now questioning it and are looking for a different model. 
Quebec has a good system because we have experts who provide us with sound advice and who have worked, year in and year out, to build a model that works well. These experts are telling us that the Government of Canada is completely off track. The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, a Quebec organization that provides services to young offenders and troubled youth, and the provincial directors also believe in the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders, which have been successful in Quebec. Numerous experts from other countries come to Quebec to observe, learn about and watch our system, so they can then emulate it. I do not say it often enough, but I am saying it now: our results are very telling and very inspiring.
The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec says that it, too, cares about the victims, but that the government is really on the wrong track when it states that protection of society will be improved by implementing more coercive measures because the current legislation deals with these situations and ensures the protection of society. As we saw in the statistics that I quoted earlier, there are youth under the age of 18 in prison, but such a sentence is rarely handed out by judges. They do so if the crime was very serious. It is rare that they decide that a youth should be in prison and should serve the entire sentence.
The bill refers to Sébastien's situation, which illustrates the reach of the current legislation. The young offender concerned was handed an adult sentence upon the recommendation of the provincial director of the Quebec court, youth division. The youth who murdered Sébastien is currently serving his sentence in an adult prison. This example perfectly illustrates that the current law contains a legislative tool that is used in Quebec when this type of circumstance with a youth arises.
Clearly, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec will want to testify before the committee to share its 30 years of expertise and explain the very serious repercussions this bill would have if it were passed as is.
I would like to give some background on this bill. The Youth Criminal Justice Act, which replaced the Young Offenders Act, received royal assent in February 2002 and officially took effect on April 1, 2003.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act was quite imperfect and was challenged by the Government of Quebec. But in spite of that, in spite of history, the government is still pushing ahead with Bill C-4. We know that the National Assembly of Quebec will also be opposed to this bill as it currently stands.
For years, Quebec's justice minister has been calling on the federal government to exempt Quebec and allow it to implement its own youth intervention model.
The Government of Quebec has shown its opposition to the federal government for a dozen years now. The strong consensus in Quebec is that rehabilitation and prevention are the answer and that Quebec must develop ways of preventing young people from committing acts of physical or sexual violence or serious crimes. Quebec is working hard to put such measures in place. This is the system that Quebeckers have developed to prevent these crimes as much as possible.
I said earlier that I would give some statistics about the decrease in crime. Crime dominates the media: the trials of violent offenders and notorious fraud artists get extensive media coverage. The public often forms an opinion from sensational stories in the papers or on radio or television. We sometimes get the wrong impression and think that crime is on the rise, but that is not entirely true.
I think we can count on Statistics Canada to provide Canadian statistics. I am not accusing Statistics Canada of partisanship, because its statistics are rather clear.
Youth courts are seeing fewer and fewer cases. In 2005-06, 56,271 cases were heard, a decrease of 2% from the previous year. While it is true that the youth crime rate increased 3% in 2006, I must point out that that was the first increase since 2003. We cannot conclude that there is a strong upward trend. However, in 2006 in Quebec—as I mentioned earlier—the crime rate dropped by 4%. All the provinces saw increases in the youth crime rate, except Quebec, which saw a decrease in its crime rate thanks to its focus on rehabilitation and reintegration.
I do not think that is a coincidence. It proves that our model is inspiring and that it should inspire the current Conservative government. Instead of putting up a smokescreen, the government should be able to look at the big picture and recognize that there is a model that is working in Canada and that they can use. As my NDP colleague said so well, why focus on outdated measures, on intervention methods that do not work with young people and that are modelled after the United States, when here, the Quebec nation has a proven, effective system that is intelligent and respectful? 
The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec and some specialized lawyers say that the current legislation did not need to be changed. They urge Parliament to be cautious. We are not talking about a few changes to sections of the act here. These are fundamental changes to the ideology and philosophy behind the legislation. This could very negatively impact young people in Quebec and Canada.
Harold Albrecht: Madam Speaker, I am happy we are finally having this discussion because many of my constituents are concerned about the current shortcomings in the Youth Criminal Justice Act . I have met with a number of parents on this issue, both parents of victims and parents of children who are in trouble with the law, and their theme is consistent. They all said that we need earlier action, earlier intervention.
Does the member believe that earlier intervention and meaningful deterrence could have a very positive effect on our long-term rehabilitation efforts? Does she agree that it is easier to rehabilitate a 16-year-old than a 56-year-old?
[Interjection]
Claude DeBellefeuille: Madam Speaker, I am comfortable answering that question because I am a mother of three teenagers. Deterrence does not work for young people. Anyone who properly understands the development of an adolescent knows that deterrence is not as effective on them as it is on adults. I say that as a mother and a member of Parliament, but experts agree. Lawyers and the Association des centres jeunesses du Québec agree. We do not believe that deterrence will make a difference and stop young people from committing crime. We think there needs to be investment in prevention and in our social safety net. We need to make sure our young people do not commit crime. In my opinion, deterrence is not an important criterion and will not reduce the crime rate in young people.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I was impressed with the member's comments about not following the United States' model. We certainly know enough about its model to know that it is not working so well after a number of years. 
However, I am intrigued by her comments about the Quebec model and how it works. She mentioned that there are other countries sending representatives to Quebec to study its model. Could she tell us what the specific details are that make the Quebec model different from others in Canada and around the world? Have any countries actually implemented any of the ideas that they have attained as a result of their consultations and study with Quebec?
[Interjection]
Claude DeBellefeuille: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
 I am a social worker by training and I have done social intervention. Quebec's health care and social services systems allow for very early intervention, which in turn allows us to identify young people who have the potential to develop delinquent behaviour.
A thorough response to my NDP colleague's question would be too long, so I will focus on one point in particular. Restorative justice organizations take charge of young people who commit minor offences from an early age. If a young person commits a crime, non-profit organizations—which exist all over Quebec—immediately provide the individual with the support and assistance needed to realize the seriousness of their actions. The individual must perform community service and take part in individual therapy in order to realize the seriousness of their actions and understand why they were socially unacceptable.
This is like saving these young individuals from the beginning. If at 12 or 13, a young person commits an offence but receives adequate support, realizes that such actions are unacceptable and understands the consequences, their path can be redirected so they do not commit more serious offences in the future.
In Quebec, these community organizations are funded by the Quebec government, the Quebec nation, out of taxpayers' money. Other countries have even followed our example. They do not follow the example of any one particular organization, but rather a social system that offers a safety net, one that offers support and that invests considerably in prevention. Of course, this system is not perfect, but it is effective enough to produce results in terms of lower youth crime rates.
Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for the excellent speech she delivered to show the Bloc Québécois' position on the bill that was introduced.
She made reference to the Quebec model, which for years has been focusing on rehabilitating young people who commit crime. We have often heard, especially from the Conservatives, that people who are in favour of rehabilitation care very little about the victims and have no compassion for the victims or their families. The Quebec model has proven that rehabilitation reduces crime. Every stakeholder must understand that. 
I would like the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry to tell us whether rehabilitation reduces crime. Is having everyone working on reducing crime not the best compassion we could have for the victims and their families? I think it is the best form of compassion.
[Interjection]
Claude DeBellefeuille: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who was once a teacher for troubled youth. He knows what he is talking about because he has experience with young people. 
His question makes me wonder. Recently the member for Compton—Stanstead, from the Bloc Québécois, introduced a bill that, among other things, seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow victims of crime to take 52 weeks of leave in order to mourn and get help.
It is either hypocrisy or ideology, but either way I am disgusted to see that the Conservatives will vote against the bill introduced by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead that seeks to offer help to victims of crime. The Conservatives then turn around and lecture us about doing nothing to help the victims.
The government suggests that if we do not agree, then we are wrong. I am sorry, but on this subject that is so close to our hearts, I know that Quebec is right. Quebeckers can count on us. We are fighting to defend our model and to convince this government to adopt it.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest and I listened earlier when the Minister of Justice talked about the importance of prevention and rehabilitation and about the protection of society. I also listen to statistics, and whether the crime rate is going up or down, there are times when we have people who are not remediable to either rehabilitation or prevention. We have horrific circumstances, horrific crimes.
Would the member not agree that in those cases we need to have the proper legislation to ensure the protection of society?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member has 55 seconds to respond.
[Interjection]
Claude DeBellefeuille: Madam Speaker, my answer is that the member opposite is right. Under the current act, young people under the age of 18 can be incarcerated if they have committed crimes that are deemed to be horrific. There is no need to amend the current act on that count. 
I gave some statistics in my speech. Young people under the age of 18 have been incarcerated in our prisons in the past and still are being incarcerated today. That is no reason to amend the act and change the philosophy and the ideology behind it. It would be wrong to think that if the rules are toughened, there will be a drop in crime and more support for victims.
To support victims, we need to give them assistance. That is what my colleague from Compton—Stanstead proposes to do with her bill, and the member is going to vote against it.
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today on Bill C-4, a bill to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is certainly an issue which is of concern and interest across Canada. 
One thing that concerns me, though, is that when we hear the Conservatives talk about young people, most of the time it is about putting them in jail. My experience with many young people in my riding of Halifax West is very different and very positive. I think most people in this chamber would recognize that most of their experiences with youth have been positive, I hope.
For instance, I recently attended the Bedford Lions Speak Out in my riding where seven or eight high school students spoke extremely well, which made it difficult for the judges. I was not a judge but I was asked to ask questions of the students after they had made their speeches to help make it a little more challenging for them. These were young leaders in the community who offered arguments and advocated that other young people should be more involved in the community and in volunteerism. These were terrific young people.
My son is a Scout and I went with his Scout troop on a winter camping trip on one of the coldest Saturday nights of February. It has been a mild winter but it was about minus 20° that night, if I recall correctly. I spent a couple of hours on the Saturday morning with them, helping them set up and taking some pictures of them. I was glad not to have to stay too much longer because it was cold. Sure, I was concerned about my son, but he was well-equipped, very happy and enjoyed it thoroughly. There again was a group of young people doing good things. 
The Scout movement is involved in setting goals. My son wants to be a chief Scout, for example, which is an important goal and there are steps one works at toward that. That is the kind of activity in which we want to see young people involved. We should want to see more encouragement of that kind of activity. They have positive role models involved, which is very important because it is so often lacking which is why young people get involved in criminal activities. This is part of the heart of the problem. We need to examine the reasons why young people sometime get into trouble. They often do not have mentors or positive role models. They often have terrible home lives because they are living in poverty. We need to examine that.
In terms of other positive examples, I recently attended the launch of the Girls Soar Physical Activity Week. We saw some terrific young people from a school in my riding. In fact, I saw a young runner from the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, my colleague's riding, who is on the national team and is a tremendous young role model.
There are so many examples of young people doing good things, I would like to see the Conservative government thinking about them a little more and thinking about how we get more young people to be like that. We need to deal with the issues of youth crime in a way that says that part of the solution here is to recognize the causes of these crimes and what is behind these problems, and then try to address them more effectively.
People in my province have and have had a great interest in this issue for some years, particularly following, which I know my colleague from West Nova will recall, the tragic death of a well-liked teacher named Theresa McEvoy. Justice Merlin Nunn was appointed by the provincial government to do a study and he did an excellent examination into the situation that led to her death by a young offender, 16-year-old Archie Billard. It was a very sad case but Justice Nunn did an excellent job and his report was highly regarded across the province.
It is important to look at the history of this situation. Before the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Canada at one time had one of the highest rates of incarceration of young people in the world. We should consider whether that will really work and whether that is really the answer. The government wants to incarcerate more and more people and wants to have more prisons at great expense but is not willing to put the money into things that will reduce poverty, and that is the concern. 
The idea of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in many parts, was to deal appropriately with young people, to deal with people who were not violent offenders in a way that is appropriate. There is no question that, as Justice Nunn recommended, there needs to be some changes to the act. 
This is very important, which is why I brought forward a bill. I had great assistance from the lawyer for the McEvoy family, Hugh Wright, a lawyer in Halifax who kindly worked hard and drafted the bill that I introduced to try to implement the recommendations of Justice Nunn.
I am pleased to see in this bill some of the elements of what I was proposing, but I do not see others. I see other elements that were not at all recommended by Justice Nunn, which concern me. I want to talk about this issue, because it seems to me that the government has chosen to cherry-pick from the Nunn report the kinds of things that suited its own ideology and reject those that did not. It is a bit like its attitude toward evidence generally, and I will talk about that some more.
The Nunn report has been out for several years now, and it is curious to me that it has taken so long for the government to come forward with a response to it. We had Bill C-25 introduced in the last Parliament, but the government did nothing to move it forward. That is so often the case with so many of its so-called tough on crime bills. It talked about them a lot, but it did not actually take action to move those bills forward. It would not even introduce them sometimes for debate, which is curious and bizarre to me.
By the way, if this bill passes second reading and does go to committee, I hope that Justice Nunn will be asked to appear at committee to give his expert advice. I think he is very knowledgeable and has done a very thorough review.
There are some good things in this bill. There are numerous amendments to the act and the youth justice regime as a whole, including changes to the general sentencing principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Other amendments include changes to the definitions of terms such as “violent offence” and provisions relating to publication bans and repeat offenders.
I think it would be worthwhile for the House to hear some of the words that Justice Nunn wrote in his report on the McEvoy case, because they are important to knowing the background of this situation and what is happening in youth crime in Canada and what the response to it should be. He said:
 [I]t is important to state that not one of the parties with standing took exception to the philosophy behind the act or to the majority of its provisions. Rather, they identified a number of sections causing concern and recommended changes. 
He further said:
 I can categorically state that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is legislation that provides an intelligent, modern, and advanced approach to dealing with youths involved in criminal activities. Canada is now far ahead of other countries in its treatment of youth in conflict with the law— 
He went on to say:
 This is not to say that there are not those who are opposed to the [Youth Criminal Justice Act], just as there were those opposed to the previous acts, the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act. Many of these critics believe that jail is the answer: “There they'll learn the errors of their ways.” These critics pay little attention to contrary evidence, nor do they understand that with young persons jail for the terms they recommend does not correct or rehabilitate, but rather often turns out a person whose behaviour is much worse than it was. Others espouse the vengeful adage “adult crime—adult time,” paying no attention to the fact that it is a youth crime and not an adult crime. 
He continued:
 Such an attitude is in direct conflict with modern approaches to treating criminal behaviour. Most of the adherents of these views refuse to accept that youth should be treated differently and separately from any adult system. 
 Nevertheless, they are entitled to the views and opinions they express. Unfortunately, in the present state of our youth criminal justice system, they are unable to make any contribution to reform even when some reform is not only reasonable but desirable. 
He went on to say on page 230 of his report: 
 The witnesses and counsel for all parties in this inquiry have indicated full support for the aims and goals of the act while recognizing, at the same time, a need for a number of amendments to give flexibility to the courts in dealing with repeat offenders, primarily by opening a door to pre-trial custody and enlarging the gateways to custody. 
He went on to say:
 I cannot overestimate the importance of taking a balanced approach. Parts of the [Youth Criminal Justice Act] must be changed in order to create a workable and effective approach to handling repeat offenders in a manner based upon protection of the public as a primary concern, as well as providing a means to step in to halt unacceptable criminal behaviour in a timely manner. This is not an option. It is critical. 
Here is the last quotation I will provide from him, from page 233 of his report: 
 [I] must make it absolutely clear and not open to question that all the witnesses I heard—police, prosecutors, defence counsel, and experts—agree with and support the aims and intent of the act. They accept it as a vast improvement over the previous legislation. 
Thus I think it is important that as we examine this bill and examine what should be done to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we consider those thoughts and the need not just to change it but also to get it right. We need to be thoughtful about this. We need to provide a balanced approach and be smart on crime and on youth crime in this case.
I have serious concerns about this particular bill, which I hope will be addressed in committee, if in fact it gets to committee. These are sweeping changes to the act and some elements of the bill seem to favour punishment more than rehabilitation.
The government has done virtually nothing to ensure that youth do not get into the justice system in the first place, and that is a concern. What we have seen instead are cuts to anti-poverty programs and child care, and a lack of funding for aboriginal communities, as we would have had in the Kelowna accord, et cetera.
I also believe that youth must be treated differently from adults, and that is an important consideration. The Canadian justice system has recognized for decades that while their crimes may be similar, we need to treat youth differently from adults. The Conservative Party has never held that view.
It reminds me of the fact that children at age 14 have brains that are not fully developed; their brains are still developing and changing. I think anybody who has been a parent of a 13- or 14-year-old ought to be aware of it. Maybe some of us have forgotten that, but young people are terrific. My son is 13 and he is terrific, but there is no question that he is still growing and learning and that his thinking will change in the coming years. It is important to remember that when we think about how to deal with these situations.
In the past, the Conservatives and the Reformers before them have fought to reduce the barriers between youth and adult offenders. In fact, during the last election they said they wanted to put 14-year-olds into our prison system, institutions with hardened adult prisoners. Why would we put a 14-year-old in a prison, the same place as murderers, rapists and gang members, if our intention is not to make them better at crime and more hardened criminals?
There are weaknesses in this bill. Parts of it are poorly drafted. I suspect it may be the result of the fact this really comes from government ideology, as opposed to the bill being drafted by the department, because it usually produces very high quality legislation. 
However, there are good provisions in it and I want to give credit where credit is due. For example, the bill would make it mandatory that no youth, regardless of their crime, would spend time in an adult institution. We need to see what the government will do to ensure that the provinces have the capacity to deal with this provision and be able to comply with it. I think we know the government recognizes that it could not get away with what it was suggesting in the last election, that is, putting young people in the same place as adult criminals. At any rate, I am pleased to see this has been modified and is an important provision in the bill.
Another example is the provision that allows courts in sentencing to lift a ban on publication of the accused or convicted person's name. I would hope this would happen rarely, not often, but I can personally see that this could be needed in exceptional cases and would be helpful in protecting the public. That is my own view.
Let me talk for a moment about some of the recommendations in particular that Justice Nunn made and how this bill responds to them. I think he made some 36 recommendations. Some of them related to the provincial justice system, the system for youth incarceration and so forth, and a certain number of them related to federal legislation. I am going to talk in particular about those that relate to the bill we are talking about today.
Recommendation 20 said:
 The Province should advocate that the federal government amend the “Declaration of Principle” in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act. 
The government has certainly made the protection of the public a major part of this act now, but it has also gone far beyond what Justice Nunn recommended. My feeling is that what the government has done in this bill is in fact a rejection of the recommendation I just read. Justice Nunn made it very clear that it was important to be balanced in how this was done and he wanted this to be just one of the principles, because the other principles were still important. The government has made it the overriding principle, and that is a concern.
In recommendation 21, he said:
 The Province should advocate that the federal government amend the definition of “violent offence” in section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to include conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person. 
I am pleased to see that the government has done this in section 3(c) of this bill. 
In recommendation 22, Justice Nunn said:
 The Province should advocate that the federal government amend section 39(1)(c) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that the requirement for a demonstrated “pattern of findings of guilt” is changed to “a pattern of offences,” or similar wording, with the goal that both a young person’s prior findings of guilt and pending charges are to be considered when determining the appropriateness of pre-trial detention. 
In this case, in clause 8 of the bill, the government has resorted to the phrase “either extrajudicial sanctions or of findings of guilt or of both”. Instead of looking at what the pattern of offences was, it has talked about them quite differently with the terms, “extrajudicial sanctions”. It will be interesting to have a discussion about what that would mean.
Does it mean that if a police officer stops a young person and reprimands them or drives them home for some reason, or whatever, that would be an extrajudicial sanction? It is not clear to me, and I am a little concerned that this particular provision might be subject to a charter challenge, because it may bring in things where there has not been due process. Obviously, we should be careful of that because we want to have laws that are actually going to work and not be overturned by courts. Most of us would prefer that we designed these laws and determined what they should be here in Parliament.
In recommendation 25, Justice Nunn said:
 The Province should advocate that the federal government amend section 31(6) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to remove the requirement of a new bail hearing for the young person before being placed in pre-trial custody if the designated “responsible person” is relieved of his or her obligations under a “responsible person undertaking.” 
This is a very important recommendation at the heart of what Justice Nunn was talking about. It is not clear to me that this is in the bill. I have looked for a provision like this and have not seen it, but I hope we will have some answers from the government on that question of why we do not see an amendment to that section of the act in the bill as presented.
To me, this is at the heart of the matter because in the McEvoy case, the mother of the accused had agreed to look after and be responsible for the accused young person, but then at some point before his trial said she could not handle it any more and could not take responsibility. She wanted to be relieved of her responsibility. 
There was no provision for that young person to then be held to their undertaking and be taken into custody. This is one the key things that Justice Nunn wanted to see changed. I am concerned that we do not see it in the bill. I raised this issue with the minister just before speaking here, and I hope he will be looking into it. I think he will perhaps be looking into it and at whether or not we need an amendment to the bill. I hope we will see that coming forward.
Recommendation 23 from Justice Nunn reads:
 The Province should advocate that the federal government amend and simplify the statutory provisions relating to the pre-trial detention of young persons so that section 29 will stand on its own without interaction with other statutes or other provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. 
I am pleased to see that clause 4 of the bill appears to do this, though I only received the bill yesterday and only had a good look through it last night. These things take time to digest and we would like to look further at this and have some good discussion among colleagues on it. However, I am encouraged to see that it appears to be going in the right direction.
Recommendation 24 states:
 The Province should advocate that the federal government amend section 31(5)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that if the designated “responsible person” is relieved of his or her obligations under a “responsible person undertaking” the young person’s undertaking made under section 31(3)(b) nevertheless remains in full force and effect, particularly any requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and other conditions imposed by a youth court judge. 
Again, this is one of the issues I raised with the minister and I am pleased he has agreed to look into it. 
 I am gravely concerned about the provisions on denunciation and deterrence that are in the bill, because they are contrary to all the evidence. The fact is that we know that a 15-year-old generally thinks he or she is invincible and is not going to get caught. So these provisions do not really work.
Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I appreciated his starting off with a story about some of the good things young people are doing. I know in my own community of Nanaimo—Cowichan, a couple of weeks ago, some young people did some brilliant work on cyberbullying, where they presented some things that young people are faced with in cyberspace around bullying and they invited the audience to participate. These young people had a hand in writing the program and certainly in interacting with the audience. So, I think we need to really recognize that young people from coast to coast to coast are doing some good work.
I noted with interest that recently Statistics Canada has done a report in which it did some geocoding in a number of cities. One finding in common among the cities was that higher levels of crime occur in neighbourhoods with lower levels of income. 
Of course we know that Justice Nunn's report talked about prevention. He covered a number of items in his recommendations around prevention, including increasing supports that promote the integrity of families, looking at a gap analysis of existing programs to ensure a targeted and strategic approach and looking at the education system. Although some of these do clearly fall within provincial jurisdiction, there is a role for the federal government to play in terms of targeting funding, perhaps investing in pilot projects that look at programs around youth prevention, so that we actually stop youth from getting involved in the criminal justice system down the road.
 I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that over a number of crime bills introduced by the Conservative government, we simply see inadequate attention paid to prevention of crime, particularly with young people.
[Interjection]
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question because I think that has been a grave concern for those of us on this side of the House, that so much of the direction of the government is simply toward incarceration and there is not nearly enough consideration of how we deal with prevention, because prevention, as she says, is very key. That is why I was talking about the good young people we see. It is important to think about what it is that has made them that way, why it is they have turned out so well. I am talking about the importance of mentors and the kinds of activities they have been involved in. We have seen cases where kids are turned around because of being involved in certain kinds of worthwhile activities.
It is a well-known truth that one of the things that make kids feel best about themselves, and this applies to anybody, is being involved in worthwhile activities, volunteer activities and so forth. They start having a positive self-esteem. That is very important.
She talked about the Statistics Canada report and the fact that so often young people in these situations are from low-income areas. I have had a number of town hall-type meetings in my communities, with a group of people involved in some of these issues, speaking from the point of view of victims, police and a variety of people who are concerned about issues of youth crime, who deal with young offenders and so forth. In fact, I met with the chief of police last summer or the year before, who talked about the root of this, the fact that so often it is poverty that leads to crime. It is addressing those kinds of issues and addressing issues of racism in my community of Halifax that is important. In fact, in that regard, I am very pleased that recently the mayor of Halifax, my friend Peter Kelly, apologized to the former residents of Africville, in Halifax, who had been forcibly removed from their properties back in the 1960s. That was an important moment. It was an important part of healing that community.
Interestingly, that is one of the things the police chief wanted to see happen in my community. One might not expect that from the police chief, but to me it was very interesting and enlightening to see that kind of attitude from him.
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I just want to get a comment from the member.
Yesterday I watched the CBC news, as most of us probably did, and was quite intrigued by this young man, K'naan, who now has the number-one song all over the world. It has been chosen as the song for the FIFA world cup. He is a remarkable young man who has actually been to prison, who came to Canada from Somalia as a teenager. He was telling the story about how he grew up around Jane and Finch, in Toronto, where some of his friends have been killed, five through suicide, five through gun violence. He says he does not know the Canada a lot of people talk about because when he came here as a poor person, as a refugee, they did not have choices of where to go for housing. They had to be located in a project. He says he did not have a choice of what schools to go to, where schools are poor and there is a lot of crime and violence. So his picture of his youth growing up was that it was a very troubling one. It seems to me that when we talk about being tough on crime, we forget about the countless young people who are placed in situations of despair, poverty and violence, with nobody there to help them out.
[Interjection]
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, in his eloquent comment the member asked a question. It was largely a rhetorical question, but it was worthwhile thinking about and worthwhile responding to, it seems to me, because I saw that piece on the news last night. 
It is surprising that I did, because I spent most of the evening reading the bill and thinking about what I might say today on this topic. It was inspiring to see that young person who had come from that kind of background.
It is worthwhile to think about and for all us to learn about the kind of Canada that these people are experiencing, that a person like that is experiencing, in a very poor area of Toronto. There are other communities like that, other parts of large cities across this country. There are rural communities where there is desperate poverty. It is important we address that, especially in aboriginal communities. 
It is important that we understand the contribution that that all makes to this situation. It is important that we respond to it not just through legislation but with programs that can support people and build a better Canada.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, the Nunn commission had 36 recommendations, and I know the member is very familiar with the commission and its recommendations on this bill. 
In his opinion, does this bill reflect the 36 recommendations accurately? Does it capture the spirit and the content of the recommendations? How many of the recommendations does my colleague think actually appear in the bill? Does the bill accurately reflect the recommendations it actually deals with?
[Interjection]
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I did say there were 36 recommendations. In fact, I went through the recommendations and I read the ones that related to the federal legislation. I would suggest to my colleague that he might perhaps want to go over my speech in Hansard to see the details of that.
As I said, this bill does some of those things, but there are others it does not do. I am not a satisfied person. I am not convinced that, as it stands, it meets that balance my colleague talked about. I am concerned about it, and I would like to hear other thoughts on that matter.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this morning the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who the House has great respect for in matters of the criminal justice system, had a concern with respect to the bill in that judges might have to use some moral approaches with respect to setting probation.
The member talked about the difference between the patterns of conviction, which are being changed as judges base their recommendations on findings of guilt, something very specific but something else that has different connotations. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh indicated that is sort of a moral dilemma that judges may have.
Would the member like to comment with respect to whether that is something the committee should look at, because it seems to me that judges should not have that kind of dilemma etched out for them. I am sure they are capable of dealing with moral dilemmas, but I am not sure that is what the bill implies.
[Interjection]
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, this may be one of the areas that, if the bill goes to committee, ought to be examined. 
I mentioned my concerns about some of the poor drafting of the legislation, that it probably did not come from the department but rather from the Conservative Party. This is an element of that and I appreciate my hon. colleague raising it. 
 I hope that if the bill does get that far it will be examined more and, in the meantime, examined here in debate. 
Daniel Petit: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to a very important bill. As we know, our government listens to Canadians, and in particular to the families of victims of crime. That is why we have introduced the bill known as Sébastien’s Law, in memory of Sébastien Lacasse who was tragically murdered by a gang of young people. By giving the law that name, we honour the work done by all victims and their families, and by all those who have worked very hard for many years so that this bill could finally see the light of day. I salute their initiative and their courage.
As the throne speech reminded us, our government is taking measures to tackle crime and protect Canadians. Our approach is a balanced one. It provides for prevention, rehabilitation and law enforcement. It is important that there be a concerted and integrated effort to improve the safety of our communities. 
But we have to do more. We have to improve the way the justice system deals with violent and repeat young offenders. We have to give Canadians greater assurance that violent and repeat young offenders will be held accountable and will be given sentences proportionate to the seriousness of their crimes.
 At present, the system does not allow violent and repeat young offenders to be held in detention while awaiting trial, even if they present a danger to society. This legislation would simplify the rules so that it will be possible to keep these offenders off our streets, where it is necessary, to protect society.
 We want to improve certain provisions so there is no longer confusion and the rules of pre-trial detention are applied consistently and uniformly. 
 Similarly, a young person who is 14 years old or older may commit one of the most serious violent crimes, like a murder or a serious sexual assault. But far too often, the sentence imposed is much shorter than what Canadians expect for this type of crime. That is why we have introduced these measures. We have to protect the families of victims of crime.
 Our bill requires that the Crown consider the possibility of seeking an adult sentence for young persons convicted of the most serious crimes: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault. The Crown would also be required to inform the court when it decided not to seek an adult sentence in those cases.
 It is important to note that the provinces and territories will always have discretion to set the age at which this requirement will apply. In Quebec, the line is drawn at age 16 or over. That will not change, unless the provincial government decides otherwise. Quebec, like any other province, will continue to be able to administer the Youth Criminal Justice Act as it sees fit. Quebec does a very good job when it comes to youth criminal justice, and I am proud of it.
 To be clear, in Quebec, it will not be possible for any young offender under the age of 16 to be given an adult sentence. Allow me to repeat that: in Quebec, it will not be possible for any young offender under the age of 16 to be given an adult sentence. As well, this legislation will also ensure that young offenders under the age of 18 will not serve their sentence in an adult prison, even if they are serving an adult sentence.
 Young offenders under the age of 18 sentenced to detention will serve their sentence in a facility for young people only. As is the practice at the moment, the offender may be transferred to an adult facility at the age of 18 if he has not served his full sentence by that time. In other instances, often in the case of violent and repeat young offenders, the courts lack the tools they need to impose appropriate sentences.
 With these measures, we want to give them the tools to continue to do their job. For example, a young offender may be a repeat offender and flout the law or display a total lack of empathy for his victims. These legislative measures would establish the principles for the imposition of sentences that would enable the courts to discourage this individual from committing a new crime, when the circumstances indicate that this is necessary.
 We want to make sure that a repeat offender will understand that his actions will not be tolerated in our society and that we will not accept this sort of behaviour. We want these offenders to serve their sentence and be rehabilitated to go on to become law abiding citizens. 
 In other serious cases, such as violent gang attacks, repeated car theft and home invasions, a young offender may have a growing criminal history. In order to protect our families and our communities, a sentence of detention may be required. However, under the current rules, it is not possible to identify past criminal behaviour if the young offender's criminal activity was handled outside the official judicial system. This bill would give the courts the tools they need to identify increased criminal behaviour and to use this behaviour to ask for a sentence of detention, as required. 
 At the moment, a young offender can lead the police in a high speed chase at 130 kilometres an hour in a neighbourhood where there are children playing, thus putting people's lives and safety at risk. However, if no one is really hurt, the courts cannot impose an appropriate sentence for an attitude that is so careless, reckless and extreme. 
 This bill would permit detention in such cases, as needed. In other cases, a youth found guilty of a violent crime may be released anonymously. For example, parents may be totally unaware that a dangerous sex offender is living near them or in a nearby neighbourhood. This bill would have the courts consider releasing the name of the violent young offender in certain circumstances, if it is necessary to protect society. 
 Another proposed change aims to make protecting society a prime objective of the legislation. At the moment, the aim of protecting society is not prominent enough in the act, as was noted by Justice D. Merlin Nunn of Nova Scotia. He concluded that public safety had to be made more prominent as one of the objectives or prime principles of the legislation in order to improve the way the system handles violent and repeat young offenders.
 Giving this objective greater prominence among the principles of the legislation will give the courts the tools they need to ensure public protection is taken into account in sentencing young offenders who have committed violent or repeat offences. 
 In closing, the amendments will require police to keep records of any extrajudicial measure that we used in order to make it easier to detect reoffending patterns. 
These measures could usually include warnings or referrals to other agencies when an adolescent is charged. A record of these informal measures will keep police and the courts better informed regarding previous incidents. They will thus be able to take the appropriate measures if they have to deal with subsequent offences. 
 By helping to keep the youngest offenders responsible for their actions and by increasing public protection, the proposed amendments will strengthen the Canadian youth criminal justice system and meet the concerns of Canadians in this regard. 
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we know that there is a high incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome/fetal alcohol effects among youth and adults in jails. What is the government's position on working with the provinces to reduce the incidence of FAS/FAE, which is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in children?
If the government really wanted to reduce youth crime, the most effective way to do that would be to implement a national head start program for kids. We need to improve children's access to proper nutrition very early on in their lives. We need to educate parents on proper parenting. We need to encourage literacy. We need to ensure that children are not subjected to violence and sexual abuse. Those things would lead to better brain development in children.
I ask the parliamentary secretary, what is his government going to do in those areas?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member has approximately one minute to reply to the question.
[Interjection]
Daniel Petit: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. It is quite obvious that, as a doctor, the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome is very important to him. 
We agree that it is an important matter. Fetal alcohol syndrome must be battled on several fronts. In some provinces, labels on bottles of alcoholic beverages contain a warning about the risks of drinking during pregnancy. That is one approach to the prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome.
As for youth, I believe my colleague read the bill we introduced. We are primarily targeting violent or repeat youth offenders. The bill mainly applies to this group, but in truly extraordinary cases, also to youth who commit the irreparable—murder, attempted murder, sexual assault and other such crimes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): When this debate resumes, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will have approximately seven and a half minutes for questions and comments.

Private Members' Business
Supreme Court Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Yvon Godin:  moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
 When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
Madam Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the members of this House who supported my bill at second reading and in committee. Bill C-232 will now be debated at third reading.
I would have liked Parliament to be unanimous on such an important bill. Unfortunately, one political party, the Conservatives, refused to support it. I hope they change their minds.
I am pleased to see that my bill has reached third reading, and I am happy to speak once again during the debate on this bill, which will become part of Canadian history.
When this bill was studied in committee, we had the chance to see that it was very well received all across Canada. Lawyers who have appeared before the Supreme Court many times, French-language jurists' associations from across the country, the New Brunswick bar association, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes, and the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, have all come out in favour of this bill. 
As I have explained many times before, Bill C-232 will ensure that Supreme Court justices understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter. This bill would correct a flaw that constitutes a threat to human rights in our country.
 Currently, at the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal in our country, citizens' language rights are not respected. According to the Official Languages Act, every federal court has the duty to ensure that the language chosen by the parties is understood by the judge or other officer who hears those proceedings, without the assistance of an interpreter. 
There is only one exception: the Supreme Court of Canada. That is rather ironic. In federal courts of appeal, the judges must understand both languages; however, that is not the case for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
 The statutes of Canada are not written in one official language, then translated into the other. They are drafted bilingually, neither language taking precedence over the other. This means that the English law and the French law are inextricably linked and together form the Canadian law. 
The ability to hear a case in both official languages is a skill. A point that is often raised by those opposing the bill is that very competent judges could be overlooked because they do not understand both official languages. That does not make sense. Given that the laws of this country have been written in both official languages without being translated, the ability to understand both versions of the law without translation is an important legal skill.
In this regard, Mr. Graham Fraser, the Official Languages Commissioner, said: 
 So when someone comes forward and says, or says about a candidate, that he is very competent, that he has all of this experience, but he doesn't have the ability to hear a case that's presented before the Supreme Court in the language in which that case is presented, then he is missing a critical competence. He is actually not as competent as a candidate for the Supreme Court who does have that ability. 
On this same subject, Mr. Michel Doucet, a professor at the Université de Moncton who has argued before the Supreme Court at least seven times before, told the committee:
 In my opinion, in a Canadian setting, with the legislation that we have and with our interpretation of bilingual legislation, to be competent to sit as a justice of the Supreme Court, one must understand both languages. 
According to Christian Michaud, a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court: 
 The issue of a judge's bilingualism, in these conditions, is not a merely political issue that only deserves lip service, but it is an issue of capability and competence so that a judge can fully carry out the duties of his position. 
In committee, Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard, vice- president of the Law Society of New Brunswick said:
 Competency in law involves more than the pure legal principles. If you want to be a good jurist, you have to know the law; you have to know the application of the law, but also have some sense of equity and justice. 
The argument that requiring candidates to be bilingual would exclude the best ones is absurd. Understanding both official languages without the help of an interpreter is one of the most important competencies for judges in Canada.
Another argument used by those who oppose this bill is that there are not enough bilingual candidates in the country. Once again, this argument does not stick.
Representatives from the University of Toronto have said that they will support this bill and, as soon as it is passed, they will tell lawyers who wish to become judges that they must start learning the other language. They also said that they would not start right away since it is not yet a requirement.
Universities have said that they will be ready, as soon as the law comes into force, to offer language training. Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, had this to say:
 If Parliament were to pass this bill, it would send a powerful message to Canada's law schools that mastering both official languages is a prerequisite for full mastery of the law, and for qualification for the most important and prestigious positions in the Canadian judiciary. 
 These programs are not intended for the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada but for those starting out in their careers...Some law schools offer specialized courses. The University of Western Ontario, I believe, offers a specialized course for lawyers who want to master the technicalities of legal terminology in French. The earlier you learn a second language, the better. 
Louise Aucoin, president of the Federation of Associations of French-speaking Jurists of Common Law, inc., also commented on this issue:
 For those who may be wondering whether there are many bilingual or francophone lawyers in Canada, I'd like to point out that there are French-speaking jurists' associations in the four western provinces, in Ontario, in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. The seven francophone jurists' associations represent approximately 1,350 francophone jurists. 
 Over the last two years, a number of cases were heard without interpretation: the Halotier case, before the Yukon Court of Appeal; the Rémillard case before the Manitoba Court of Appeal; FFT versus NWT; the Caron case. These are all French cases which proceeded without interpretation. 
Some people claim that no one is qualified in these provinces, but that is false. How many times have I heard people who oppose this bill—the Conservatives—say that it limits lawyers' and judges' chances of being appointed to the Supreme Court?
Violating the laws of this country, including language laws, to give someone the opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court should be out of the question. The Supreme Court, as well as appeal courts and federal courts, understand that this service is offered to all citizens.
It is the citizen who should feel at ease before the court and before the judge. The Conservatives should not refrain from changing the legislation to make this service bilingual just so they can play favourites with their cronies who do not speak both official languages.
 Even the Commissioner of Official Languages says that if you want to be competent, you have to be able to understand your client and interpret what they are saying.
 The only argument the government makes is that it will not be able to appoint who it wants, and it wants to choose very competent people. But we must recall very clearly that in order to be competent, as I said, you have to be able to understand the person. There are 33 million people in Canada. They cannot make me believe that they cannot find nine competent people who speak both languages. 
 I want one point to be very clear. I am not asking for there to be nothing but French speakers on the Supreme Court of Canada. Some English speakers understand English and French well. If they are English speakers, certainly they understand English, but they also understand French, both official languages, the languages of the two people who founded this country and who are supposed to be treated equally. 
 The Supreme Court has even made a decision in Ontario in which it said that it was not a matter of merely accommodating or providing services, it was also necessary to do so equally. At present, it is not equal. 
 If the legislation was written in both official languages, that is, if it was not interpreted, why would an individual agree, in the Supreme Court, that a judge not understand them in their own language and have to rely on translation? That is their final appeal. 
 Other opponents say they can rely on simultaneous interpretation. We have interpreters here, in the House of Commons. They have known me well for a long time. I am not criticizing our interpreters. They also work in the committees and they do a good job. Let me give an example. When I spoke at second reading, I started to speak as I normally do, a little fast, and the Speaker had to ask me to slow down a bit because the interpreters could not follow me. Think about if I were on trial, and the interpreter could not follow me, and the judge did not grasp everything they needed in order to render their judgment. 
 Justice John Major, an English-speaking former judge of the Supreme Court, testified. He said that during his time as a Supreme Court judge, he had used the services of interpreters and he received very good service. I would have liked to be there to ask him a question. With all due respect, if I, as a French speaker, use the interpretation service and I do not understand a word of the other language being translated, how can I know whether the interpreter is doing a good job? How can I know that if I cannot distinguish between the two languages? Justice Major of the Supreme Court said that he had received good service, but he does not know whether everything was interpreted properly. In order to be able to judge that, you have to understand both languages. 
 Sometimes, I am in a committee, and I find that a witness is speaking too fast and the interpreter is not following. I cannot grasp everything the witness is saying. So if I do not know that the interpreter has made a mistake and if I do not understand the other language, how can I say whether the service I received was good or bad? I can only say that I was impressed. 
 And so this bill is very important. Its purpose is to ensure that both official languages are respected in the highest federal court in this country. The Bloc Québécois supports me, as do the Liberals. I hope the Conservatives, too, respect both the official languages of this country and will join us to vote for this bill, so that the Supreme Court will finally be given the chance to be bilingual in the years to come. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Before proceeding to questions and comments, I must say that, while appreciating the hon. member's passionate delivery, our interpreters would appreciate it if he could speak a tad slower, so that they can translate what he says.
Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Madam Speaker, first, I wish to thank my colleague for his speech.
He raised an important point. We may tend to speak a little faster in French. This makes it a little harder for the interpreters, who are doing an excellent job, to follow what we are saying. The same is true at the Supreme Court level.
I would like the member for Acadie—Bathurst to clarify a point. When he says that he hopes the government too will support his bill, I do not think he means just with kind words. He does not expect the government to just say nice things about official languages, but to actually vote for his bill, so that being bilingual becomes required to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 
Is that right? Does the member not want the Conservatives to do more than say nice things about bilingualism, and take some very concrete action like passing this bill concerning the Supreme Court? 
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
I will try not to speak too fast. That is what happened at the Supreme Court; someone was speaking very fast. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asked him to slow down since the interpreters could not keep up and someone was being judged. I just wanted to mention that. I think we should bear that in mind because the Supreme Court is the last court in the land to which an individual has recourse.
The Conservatives are saying that they respect both official languages. Take for example the Olympic Games. All week they have been making statements in the House of Commons to the effect that the Olympic Games were held in both official languages and that everything went well. No one is criticizing the Olympic Games themselves, but there was something missing culturally speaking. However, the Conservatives never talk about that. Even the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages publicly apologized for this. He thought it was a shame. For a week we have been listening to the Conservative Party say in the House of Commons that it respects both official languages. If it truly respects the equality of the two official languages of the country, French and English, then this is a good opportunity to prove it. When the Federal Court has to be bilingual, when the Federal Court of Appeal has to be bilingual, then the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, has to be bilingual as well. 
If the Conservatives vote against the bill, this will prove that they do not support bilingualism in Canada, they do not support the two official languages and they do not support the two founding peoples of this country. This will be a test for the Conservatives and they will have to make a choice.
Mr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who is working very hard for Acadians and all his constituents as well as for ensuring that French is respected both within New Brunswick and across Canada.
The hon. member knows that I am a sovereignist, a separatist, with a Franco-Ontarian background who has lived in Saskatchewan. I have lived more years outside Quebec than in Quebec. How am I supposed to feel like at home in this country if the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, does not even respect the fact that I should be able to be heard and understood by the judges sitting on that court?
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: We are in 2010, Madam Speaker. It is about time this issue was resolved.
Just yesterday, I had to raise the question about the judges that will be appointed in New Brunswick. They expect to have two judges who speak English only. That is what happened last time, and that is contrary to the law. There is no equality anymore. For example, should New Brunswick appoint judges who speak English only, francophones will have their own court, where proceedings will be in French, but they will have to wait a year before being able to go to court. That is not right.
Here is another example. Mr. Doucet, who pleaded cases at the Supreme Court, referred in French to Mr. St-Coeur. But this name was translated as Mr. Five O'Clock by the interpreters. Come on. This can no longer be tolerated.
James Lunney: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I would like to remind my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, that unlike the Olympics, in order to be understood, it is not the speed of speech that is essential. But more practically, it is to be understood that is paramount.
To start, I would like to make something clear. On this side of the House, we have implemented a number of measures to protect and advance the issue of bilingualism in this country. I believe that languages can be used as a bridge or as a wall between peoples. In the House, these languages are often used both ways. I think that we need a lot more bridges.
After I was elected, I started studying to better communicate in French. However, I must admit that for an anglophone, it is a rather daunting task.
Today, in the House, we are debating a private members' bill from the member for Acadie—Bathurst, Bill C-232.
Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), would amend the Supreme Court Act to require that, as a condition of appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, a candidate understand both English and French without the assistance of an interpreter.
I would like to repeat that the government is committed to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minorities in Canada, and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. Let me assure everyone that we are equally committed to maintaining the highest quality of judicial appointments to ensure that our judiciary continues to enjoy the respect and confidence of all Canadians.
The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of supporting and assisting the development of official language minority communities. To that end, in June 2008, the government announced the “Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013”, which is an unprecedented government-wide commitment with a budget of $1.1 billion based on two pillars: the participation of all in linguistic duality and support for official language minority communities in the priority sectors of health, justice, immigration, economic development, and arts and culture.
The composition of the court, including the number of judges, is established by the Supreme Court Act, which provides that at least three of the justices must come from Quebec. The recognition of the civil law tradition of the province of Quebec makes it necessary that there be representation of Quebec judges on the court reflective of the bijural traditions of Canada.
However, it is important to recognize that the court has historically also reflected the regional composition of our country. The current practice is one which is based, by statute and historical practice, on the recognition of Canadian legal pluralism, as well as the regional diversity in the appointment process. 
As a matter of long-standing practice, the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada has reflected regional representation with three judges appointed from Ontario, one judge from Atlantic Canada, one judge from the Prairies, and one from British Columbia. Given its status as the final court of appeal for all Canadian jurisdictions, it is of key importance that the government be in a position to draw upon qualified jurists from all regions of the country when making appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The effect of Bill C-232 would be to have linguistic considerations override the central consideration of merit by reducing the pool of otherwise highly-qualified candidates in some regions of the country where there may be fewer lawyers and judges capable of hearing a case in both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter. 
To date, the government has made over 300 judicial appointments to Canadian courts. We are proud of each and every one of those appointments since they reflect the tangible embodiment of the principles of legal excellence and merit. The government will continue to make future appointments on this basis.
The overriding consideration in all judicial appointments is legal excellence and merit. Further criteria include proficiency in the law, judgment, work habits, writing and communication skills, honesty, integrity, fairness and social awareness. While bilingualism remains an important criterion considered in the nomination process, it is not, and should not be, an overriding factor in the appointment of judges to our highest court.
Our current process allows the government to take into account the bilingual capacity of candidates and to address the need for access to justice in both official languages. We are committed to ensuring that the federal judiciary's linguistic profile provides equal access to justice in either official language.
I would also point out that before making an appointment, consultations with the chief justice of the relevant court are taken into consideration to determine the court's needs, including linguistic capacity. The chief justice is well positioned to understand the needs of the communities served and to identify particular needs where vacancies arise. We also welcome the advice of any group or individuals on considerations which should be taken into account when filling current vacancies.
To ensure a rich pool of bilingual judicial candidates, the government continues to invite the French-speaking jurist associations and French-speaking communities to identify and encourage individuals, with the necessary qualifications, to apply and to share their recommendations with the Minister of Justice.
While we fully agree that linguistic ability is an important factor when a specific need is identified, merit remains the central and overriding consideration in making judicial appointments. The government is committed first and foremost to appointing the best qualified candidates. The government will continue to appoint excellent and committed candidates reflecting gender balance, cultural diversity and bilingual capacity.
The Supreme Court of Canada plays a fundamental role in our democratic society, particularly as the ultimate guardian of the values enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important that its members be jurists of great distinction and ability. For that reason, every care is taken to ensure that the best persons, by knowledge, experience and social awareness, are chosen to fill vacancies in the court.
The appointments to the Supreme Court over the past 130 years have proven to be successful in producing judges of the highest calibre for the court. Among the qualifies sought in potential candidates are outstanding intellectual capacity, superior ability in judgment writing, the capacity for innovative thinking on emerging legal issues, and sensitivity to the diverse values enshrined in the charter.
The eminent constitutional scholar, Peter Hogg, has offered the following description of the professional capacities and personal competencies of a Supreme Court of Canada judge as follows:
 1. He [or she] must be able to resolve difficult legal issues, not just by virtue of technical legal skills, but also with wisdom, fairness and compassion. 
 2. [She] must have the energy and discipline to diligently study the materials that are filed in every appeal. 
 3. He must be able to maintain an open mind on every appeal until he has read all the pertinent material and heard from counsel on both sides. 
 4. [She] must always treat the counsel and the litigants who appear before [her] with patience and courtesy. 
 5. He must be able to write opinions that are well written and well reasoned. 
 6. [She] must be able to work cooperatively with [her] eight colleagues to help produce agreement on unanimous or majority decisions, and to do [her] share of the writing. 
Canada can take pride in the quality of its judicial system and in the steps its taken to ensure its citizens have access to justice in either official language. The Supreme Court of Canada is a model of institutional bilingualism, which reflects the intent of Parliament that our national institutions be bilingual while not requiring bilingualism from each individual Canadian.
The government remains committed to ensuring quality and impartiality under the law. An important way to ensure such equality and impartiality is to continue to be guided by the principles of merit and legal excellence in the selection and appointment of judges to Canada's provincial, superior and federal courts and to the Supreme Court.
The risk of overriding merit for the sake of bilingualism is unnecessary. The goal of ensuring the rights of Canadians to be heard and understood in the language of their choice is already being fully met by the court. The court provides all of its services and communications in English and French. In addition, every individual who appears before the court is free to use either English or French in written and oral pleadings. 
Ongoing language training is available to all members of the court. High quality interpretation and translation services are available during hearings before the court and all judges have the assistance of at least one or more bilingual law clerks.
The current composition requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada Act, together with the historical practice of regional representation, allows us to preserve our important commitment to legal pluralism--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House this afternoon to express my support for Bill C-232, which was introduced by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.
Since I became a member of Parliament nearly six years ago, this member and I have sat together on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We may not always see eye to eye, but we always work to the same end when it comes to bilingualism. We also promote bilingualism so that it plays an active role in Canadian society.
Today, the end is finally in sight for this bill my colleague introduced in the House, and I hope it will be passed in the near future.
My colleague from Bourassa introduced a similar bill, but it died on the order paper when the Conservative government hastily called an election in the fall of 2008.
This bill does not try to tell all Canadians that they have to be bilingual. That is not the purpose of the bill. But under this bill, all Canadians have the right to be heard in their own language in the Supreme Court. That is a huge difference. It is not imperative that all Canadians be bilingual, but we want every individual or lawyer who appears before the Supreme Court of Canada—the highest court in the country—to be able to use the language of his or her choice.
More and more, Canadians are realizing the importance of bilingualism, even though no one is required to be bilingual.
My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst named several organizations that support his bill. I will not repeat all their names, for I want to talk about something else. I would like to mention one, however, Canadian Parents for French. I say hats off to this group of anglophone parents who want to ensure that their children can receive an education in their second language. This will help them develop their bilingual skills in the areas of education, work and their social lives in general. This kind of organization or community group understands the importance of bilingualism. We must be able to continue supporting them.
Supreme Court judges sit on the highest court in the land. If someone is not satisfied with the Supreme Court ruling, we cannot tell them to plead their case to another court at a higher level. That is impossible, because that court is the highest court. Accordingly, we must provide adequate services to citizens who appear before it. To do so, we cannot forget certain things when trying a case.
For instance, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst gets carried away now and again, but that is his nature. He uses expressions that are unique to him. In a speech, however, the expressions are just as important as the vocabulary one uses. Before a court, people speak passionately to get their point across. A judge's perception can be very different if simultaneous interpretation is used. Once again, it is not that the simultaneous interpretation is bad. On the contrary, it is an excellent service.
However, as we all can appreciate, defendants and their lawyers may talk so quickly that their way of speaking and the words they use could have completely different meanings for a francophone judge and an anglophone judge. Accordingly, judges must be able to speak and understand both official languages, so that defendants can be guaranteed that they can make themselves understood before the Supreme Court. If it does not work, at least they will have the satisfaction of knowing they took their case as far as they could.
They will have to take comfort in that fact that they were able to make their point fully without getting the impression that interpretation worked against them.
We have argued that the words used will be translated. My family name is D'Amours. It would be translated as Alove by those who can translate. That is not the same; it might be someone else's name. The purpose of this example is to show that this sort thing can make a difference when in court. I can completely change the meaning of a sentence or expression.
Bill C-232 introduced by my colleague does not require every Canadian to be bilingual and undergo training in both official languages. It provides that a citizen or lawyer will be able to plead a case before the highest court in the land in the language of their choice, knowing that the people in front of them understand what they are saying.
We are not talking about introducing a fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh language at the Supreme Court. We are talking about this country's two official languages: French and English. Both French and English-speaking people in my riding expect me to address them in their own language. People expect that much of a private member. They expect it even more when they go before the highest court in the land. They expect that they will be addressed in their own language and that the final judgment will be made on the basis of the message that was conveyed.
The Conservatives can say they are making an effort regarding the bilingualism of judges. The Supreme Court judge who replaced Justice Bastarache is bilingual, but this cannot just happen from time to time; it has to happen every time, with an emphasis on the word “every”.
I do not know why the Conservatives are against Supreme Court judges being bilingual. Very few people are against my colleague's bill. However, my colleague has realized that a number of members opposite are against the bill. We see that they are out of touch with reality.
Royal Galipeau:  My colleague is grandstanding.
Jean-Claude D'Amours:  Madam Speaker, the Conservative member opposite may be tired of grandstanding, but he should have more respect for the matter we are discussing because it is extremely important.
Marcel Proulx:  Especially coming from a francophone.
Jean-Claude D'Amours:  And a francophone from outside Quebec no less, who should understand that francophones outside Quebec are also entitled to be served in their language, especially in the highest court in the land.
I am getting worked up, which might make things more difficult for the interpreters. It is insulting to hear such comments. We have to keep fighting to make the Conservatives understand the reality of things.
Bill C-232 introduced by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual, is a good move for a good cause.
Richard Nadeau: Madam Speaker, I will be speaking today about Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages).
The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-232 for the following reasons. 
 This bill seeks to make the understanding of French and English without the assistance of an interpreter a requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court. The Official Languages Act provides that English and French have equality of status and use. It is the right of any citizen to use French or English before Canada's courts, based on fundamental linguistic rights and the Official Languages Act, which already recognizes the importance of being understood without the assistance of an interpreter before federal tribunals such as the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Furthermore, simultaneous translation can create problems because it does not allow adequate reaction time to interrupt someone, to ask questions, whether for the justice, the lawyers or even the individuals subject to trial who have a right to be able to understand all the nuances and subtleties of each language
For all these reasons, we support this bill.
The Constitution and the Official Languages Act state that English and French are the official languages, and that they have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and the Government of Canada. Under the Constitution and the Official Languages Act, there is full and equal access in both languages to Parliament, to the laws of Canada and to courts. 
The Official Languages Act provides the details and conditions for access to the courts in both official languages. Under the law, federal courts other than the Supreme Court of Canada—at this time—have the duty to ensure that any officer who hears proceedings: is able to understand English without the assistance of an interpreter, if English is the language chosen by the parties for the proceedings; is able to understand French without the assistance of an interpreter, if French is the language chosen by the parties for the proceedings; is able to understand both languages without the assistance of an interpreter, if both English and French are the languages chosen by the parties for the proceedings. 
As recognized by the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, a member of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Canada's Official Languages Act recognizes the importance of being understood before federal tribunals without the assistance of an interpreter. The same law should apply to the Supreme Court of Canada. Ironically, the Officially Languages Act currently excludes the Supreme Court from these conditions, even though it is the highest court in the country.
The Bloc Québécois thinks that this should change, which is why it supports Bill C-232, currently before the House. 
We keep hearing that Canada is our country. But we can appear before a Supreme Court judge and they are not required to understand French, our language. This would not happen if Quebec were a sovereign nation. This is one of the main issues.
The original bill, introduced in the 39th Parliament, which required Supreme Court judges to understand both official languages, got a number of reactions and received considerable support, in particular, the support of the Quebec National Assembly. On May 21, 2008, all the members present at the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion that stated:
 That the National Assembly of Québec affirm that French language proficiency is a prerequisite and essential condition for the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges. 
The Premier of Quebec said:
 Knowledge of French is important, very important. It is not a choice. And the message we are sending today to the federal government is that it is not optional— 
He added that this motion was a “requirement”.
 To know a language is to know a culture, a reality. And those who are called on to interpret that reality and make decisions that will have a very important impact on our lives have to know that reality through our language. 
 —open federalism must ensure that judges appointed to the Supreme Court by Ottawa know Canada's two official languages. 
The Standing Committee on Official Languages also looked at the issue of comprehension of the two official languages by Supreme Court judges during the 39th Parliament.
In its fourth report, which was released in May 2008—I was there—it “recommends that the government ensure that the judges that they appoint to the Supreme Court are bilingual”, in other words, that they speak French and English.
I should note that the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages refused to support this motion, which was similar to Quebec's motion. That is deplorable. Some of those Conservatives were Quebec francophones who renounced their own language. And that is terrible.
The Canadian Bar Association decided to take a stand in favour of requiring that future Supreme Court judges be bilingual. The association supports a merit-based process for appointing judges, but believes that bilingualism should be one of the selection criteria.
In May 2009, Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser came to testify before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which was then looking at the issue of access to justice. I will quote from what he said:
 Every Canadian’s right to use English or French in Canadian courts is one of the basic language rights set out in our constitutional framework. 
 To ensure that all litigants have true access to the superior courts in the official language of their choice, it is essential that these courts have a sufficient number of bilingual judges at their disposal. The appointment process must therefore ensure the bilingual capacity of superior courts. Otherwise, access to justice in both official languages is compromised... 
 To date, the federal government’s responses to the recommendations of my predecessors and the House of Commons and Senate committees have been timid and largely inadequate. 
 ... 
 On the eve of the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, it seems to me that knowledge of both official languages should be one of the qualifications sought for judges of Canada’s highest court. Setting such a standard would prove to all Canadians that the Government of Canada is committed to linguistic duality. I find it essential that an institution as important as the Supreme Court of Canada not only be composed of judges with exceptional legal skills, but also reflect our values and our Canadian identity as a bijural and bilingual country. 
 Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. The insufficient bilingual capacity of the superior courts and courts of appeal of the provinces and territories means that a significant segment of the Canadian population is being denied the right to access justice in the official language of its choice. 
 ...A review of the appointment process is essential to ensuring equal access to justice in both official languages. 

Jean Crowder: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of the member for Acadie—Bathurst's bill, Bill C-232, which is very important for the House to debate. I also acknowledge the tireless work that the member for Acadie—Bathurst does in defence of official languages and for being such an excellent watchdog when the government fails in its duty to uphold the official languages of this country.
I am an anglophone from western Canada. It is interesting that two members from western Canada are speaking about the bill today. One is opposed, but I am very much in favour.
 I will talk a bit about why it is so important. First, the legislation provides a clear signal for all levels of the judiciary in our country. When legislation is introduced in Parliament, it comes to us in both official languages. We know it is absolutely our right in the House to be heard in either language of our choice.
As you rightly pointed out, Madam Speaker, sometimes we provide some challenges for the interpreters here. Whatever language we choose to speak, sometimes our passion about a particular subject will have speak very quickly and it does not allow the interpreters to keep up with the speed of our speech. That deprives the members, who listen in that other language of their choice, of their right to hear what the member has said.
Many of us in the House have had experiences where, either because of the noise in the House or the rapidity of our speech, we have been unable to have our words heard by members who listen in another language. That very challenge is why it is incumbent, when we talk about Supreme Court justices, that the justices are fully fluent in both of our Canadian languages, English and French.
People who have their cases heard before court in whatever language of their choice should have a comfort level that the justices are able to understand in whatever language the case is presented. It seems fundamental to me, and Canadians agree, that we do have two official languages.
I want to digress just a little for a moment and talk about why this is so important. By taking it out of the realm of talking about English and French and putting it into another realm, I think it may be easier for people to understand why it is absolutely essential that we honour the Official Languages Act and recognize that people have the right to be served in their language of choice at all levels.
It is probably no surprise to many members of the House that I will talk about indigenous languages. Members may not be aware that in 1989 the Assembly of First Nations declared March 31 as National Aboriginal Languages Day. I will use some other people's words to talk about why that is so important.
 Last year in the Yukon legislative assembly, Mr. Cardiff rose in recognition of National Aboriginal Languages Day. He said:
 It is said that language is culture. A person's culture is expressed most clearly in the process of their language use. Thinking patterns, values and actions are all underlaid by language expression. Daily use of the language means that the culture is strong and that it is passed on. 
Mr. Edzerza's mother language is Tahltan, but he unfortunately grew up without the ability to speak it. He talked about the impact of his language and culture on growing up. He said:
 —the Council of Yukon First Nations did a Yukon regional health survey, called Reclaiming the Well-being of Our People. The survey results showed 87 percent of those surveyed said loss of their language had a very negative impact on their lives today, and 91 percent of youth and children rate that knowing their traditional language is very important to them. 
He goes on to say:
 In 1994, Elder Percy Henry gave a powerful message to all people about language when he said...“A car with no gas can't go. A tree with no branches can't grow. So as native people who have lost their language, part of us is gone. Your spirit is strong; your fire inside of you is strong; you have it all when you speak your own language.” 
That speaks very powerfully in our country. Both francophones and anglophones, if they should end up in a Supreme Court justice situation, need to be understood.
Many of the nuances being presented in an argument, even if it is not around a justice issue, can be lost in interpretation.
 In speaking about the importance of language, I want to refer to the comments of an expert in the area. Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, said:
 --it seems to me that the knowledge of both official languages should be one of the qualifications sought for judges of Canada's highest court. Setting such a standard would prove to all Canadians that the Government of Canada is committed to linguistic duality. I find it essential that an institution as important as the Supreme Court of Canada not only be composed of judges with exceptional legal skills, but also reflect our values and our Canadian identity as a bijural and bilingual country. 
We have heard some arguments in this House, although not many, that appointments to the Supreme Court bench should be based on merit. 
Where I live in Nanaimo--Cowichan, there is a very strong francophonie association. French immersion courses are oversubscribed. People on the west coast are very interested in being fluently bilingual, being able to speak both English and French, because that is what our country is about. 
I would argue that by establishing that Supreme Court justices will be bilingual, we will be sending a very clear message that when people enter law school and have some ambitions to being appointed to the bench, they will take the responsibility to learn both English and French in order to be considered for that kind of appointment.
 Graham Fraser indicated:
 If Parliament were to pass this bill, it would send a powerful message to Canada's law schools that mastering both official languages is a prerequisite for full mastery of the law, and for qualification for the most important and prestigious positions in the Canadian judiciary. 
Canadians are very intelligent people. If bilingualism is a job requirement to be a Supreme Court justice, they will understand that they must be fluent in both English and French. I encourage all members of this House to support the member for Acadie—Bathurst's very fine piece of legislation and vote yes on it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member will have two minutes left when this bill returns.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)