2010-04-23

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 22 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.
The Speaker: Order, please. When the matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona had the floor. There are 14 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue my presentation on this very important bill.
Bill C-4 is an amendment. The enactment amends the sentencing and general principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as provisions relating to judicial interim release, adult-youth sentences, publication bans, and the placement in youth custody facilities. It defines the term “violent offence” and “serious offence”, amends the definition of “serious violent offence”, and repeals the definition of “presumptive offence”. It also requires police forces to keep records of extra-judicial measures issued to deal with young persons. 
As I indicated yesterday, we will be supporting the bill to get it to committee and we are hoping that there will be one or two amendments to the bill. We actually like some of the provisions of the bill; however, we have some concerns about some of the other parts of it, but overall and on balance, there is some merit to the bill.
On February 4, 2002, the House of Commons passed Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That new law replaced the Young Offenders Act and was proclaimed on April 1, 2003. The Youth Criminal Justice Act builds on the strength of the old act and introduces significant reforms to address its weaknesses.
We can see that over time legislation does get updated in the House because of changes in society and changes in government or just because in some cases we find things that are not working well with it and we find that, by general consensus, we should improve the legislation. 
The introduction of the bill followed an extensive period of review and consultation, much of which is reflected in the following reports. There was a review of the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system in Canada, and a report on the federal-provincial-territorial task force on youth. There was also a report renewing youth justice, a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, and there was a strategy for the renewal of youth and justice, which was a 1998 report. 
In March 1999, Bill C-68, the first version of the Youth Criminal Justice Act was introduced and Parliament prorogued in June. The bill was reintroduced as C-3 in October 1999. The bill proceeded through second reading, the Standing Committee on Justice, and prior to third reading, the federal election was called for November 27, 2000 and the bill was delayed.
We see the same process following us through what we had to deal with in previous times where, because of elections or the prorogation of the House, we end up starting over. So it is little wonder the public gets frustrated with us when they see that it takes forever. I think they expect immediate responses and the government is at fault here too because it promises immediate responses because it governs itself by press release, media events and polling. 
When something happens in the country, the Conservatives push the button and put the public relations factory into overdrive, fire up the issue, get some bill thrown out here, and then of course nothing happens with it. Then they blame the opposition, but the reality is, as we know, they only have to blame themselves.
There have been many concerns in Canada regarding the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system. As we had indicated before, and a Bloc member as well indicated yesterday, many of the concerns are based upon misconceptions about youth crime, misconceptions about the legislation and how the system operates. Some concerns have been based on the misunderstanding regarding the limits of the legislation and the unreasonable expectations about what the legislation could actually accomplish, and once again, people have the impression that somehow we will pass a law and the problem will be solved. 
When we were dealing yesterday with the bill, there was talk about one of the very good parts of the bill that we like, which is the fact that the youth offenders will be kept separate. They will not be put in with adult offenders.
 We recognize that while that is a good idea, and we are going to pass this bill in the House, the fact of the matter is that enforcement of the bill would actually be done by the provinces. We will be putting a financial burden on them to make certain they have the facilities to keep young offenders separate. Some of the provinces do not have the proper facilities. 
While the public may think they are going to see some immediate changes following the passage of this bill, they will have to wait until the facilities are improved or built within their own jurisdictions. It could be another decade before the bill actually has its full effect.
There are a number of problems in the youth justice system. The system lacks a clear and coherent youth justice philosophy. Incarceration is overused. Canada has the highest youth incarceration rate in the western world, including the United States, which is a bit of a surprise to me. I did not think that would be the case. In spite of its huge expansion of prisons during the Ronald Reagan era, the crime rate in the United States has actually gone up. I would not have expected that to be the case.
The courts are overused for minor cases that could be dealt with better outside the courts. Sentencing decisions by the courts have resulted in disparities and unfairness in youth sentencing. 
The Young Offenders Act does not ensure effective reintegration of a young person into society after being released from custody. This is a very important point. We are trying to rehabilitate people. Society does not benefit from people reoffending. Putting people in jail and making better criminals out of them, so that when they get back out in the street they continue their career of crime, is not what the public wants.
 We want these people in jail once and only once. Programs need to be provided to them when they are incarcerated so that when they come out, they come out with a new view on life. They have to be integrated into society. They need to have access to employment.
I would like to provide the House with an example, which I find almost impossible to believe. Six prison farms in this country are being shut down by the Conservative government. If we do anything, we should be building more prison farms in the country because it seems to me that over the years we have lost a connection with rural living, a connection with animals, and taking care of animals. A farm environment provides a perfect case of that.
 I toured the Rockwood prison farm just outside of Winnipeg in Stoney Mountain during the break a couple of weeks ago. I saw the dairy herd. It is really sad that it will not be there in a few months. This farm has shown good results for over 20 years. The prisoners get up early in the morning and take care of the animals on the farm. They take ownership. They have a much better attitude than what they would have if they were just simply locked up in a prison. 
The government argues that there is not a big market for farm work. It is going to train people in trades such as welding. It is a good idea to get them jobs out in society when they are released. The reality is that learning a welding trade and so on is not the same as working with animals. In some cases it would be a good idea if they could be around humane societies where they could walk dogs and stuff like that, and make some sort of connection with animals.
We are about to lose these prison farms. I realize that is another issue for another day and that day is coming soon. A motion will be coming from committee dealing with the closure of prison farms.
It seems to me that there is a lot of room for improvements in all legislation. We certainly do not want to stand in the way of making sensible improvements to laws. As I have said many times, we are looking for what actually works, where we can show results. 
The former solicitor general for the province of Quebec spoke eloquently yesterday on this very bill, about how the Quebec system does work and how the crime rate in Quebec has actually decreased. It is beyond me why we would not have every province in the country and other jurisdictions, which I am sure some are, studying the Quebec model to implement aspects of that system that would work in their own jurisdictions. 
To me, that is what a sensible government would do. A government that simply approaches the whole issue on the basis of ideology and says, “Because it worked in Margaret Thatcher's England or Ronald Reagan's United Sates, that is the model we have to follow because we are Conservatives. We cannot accept any Liberal, NDP or Bloc ideas because they does not fit with our overall philosophy”. That is just way out of line.
 The justice system should always be an open system where we could adopt the best of a jurisdiction anywhere in the world, whatever gets results. Whatever works properly is what we really want to see in here, instead of a government basically operate this whole system on the basis of political expediency, what is good for it in the short-term, and how it can get some headlines.
I introduced some headlines yesterday that we see across the country, and I maintained that if the press in this country were responsible and started writing headlines like “Soft on crime” and “This legislation does not work”, the government would be retreating, but because it gets these cheap headlines out of these boutique bills and amendments that it introduces, it is encouraged to continue.
We would like to see the bill go to committee. I have one further point on the issue of victims. The government continues to talk about how it supports victims of crime. We in the NDP are solidly on the side of the victims as well. Three years ago, the government appointed Mr. Sullivan to be the victims' advocate and has not reappointed him. He, the government's appointee, is saying that the government has spent too much time on punishment issues, that it has spent not enough time and ignored victims. So much for the government's position of being on side with victims, of supporting and looking out for victims' rights, when its own appointee is saying that this is not true, that the government is not as solidly behind victims as it would like the public to think it is.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member laid out some history which leads to the conclusion that the government is not intent on becoming tough on crime, but, rather, to recycle bills continuously so it can continue to use the slogan. We have not seen legislation delivered in some key areas.
The government does not buy into the fact that all the experts say that longer sentences are not a deterrent to crime. As for the recidivism rate, we know from the experience in Canada that recidivism is lowest when people get out of jail and into a supervised lifestyle, as opposed to serving out a full sentence. House arrest is gone, parole is being phased out and provincial funding is non-existent for crime prevention programs.
I would ask the member to comment on paragraph 3(1) of the bill where it refers to supporting the prevention of crime. It states, “by referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community”. The prevention the government is talking about in this bill is not preventing crimes from occurring. It is talking about preventing a crime after the crime has been committed. There seems to be a disconnect in terms of the approach to crime prevention and public safety on behalf of the government. I would like to hear the member's comments.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his insight on this issue. We in the NDP look forward to getting this bill to committee. As I said, there are parts of it we like, especially the provisions guaranteeing the separation of youth criminals from adults, but we feel that if we can get the bill to committee, then issues, such as ones the member has reflected on, will be dealt with because witnesses can be called and further study can be conducted on the wording of the bill.
Our colleague and critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has already commented that this bill is not very well drafted and that there are some drafting issues that he personally would like to address in committee. We need to make those changes in committee, which is the proper place for it. We certainly do not want the bill to proceed to its final stages and into law and then find out four or five years later that there are some serious issues on the drafting side of it.
I would say once again that we in the NDP want to get the bill to committee so it can look at all the issues, including the ones stated by the member for Mississauga South, and, hopefully, come up with better legislation than we are looking at right now.
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for his kind words about my speech. I appreciate them, and they show that he realizes that Quebec takes a special approach to dealing with young offenders, and that this approach has been yielding positive results for more than 25 years, while the youth crime rate in Canada is 50% higher.
He knows this, so can he tell me why so few people in English Canada know it? Moreover, can he explain why this knowledge has not reached the office of the Minister of Justice and why it is not being taken into account in any amendments to the legislation?
It seems that in order to protect victims, we must start by reducing the number of victims, and in order to reduce the number of victims we must take an approach that decreases the youth crime rate instead of copying the United States, where the rate is increasing.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, the member makes a very good point. I do not think many people in English Canada know that statistic, as he points out, that youth crime has dropped 25% in Quebec. I would think that if the public were aware of those statistics, they would be writing letters to their elected officials, and the radio stations and the newspapers would be publishing reports, demanding that the provincial governments put pressure on the federal government to do exactly what he says.
I find it amazing, too, that, although these statistics are well-known and have been mentioned by many of the speakers, the government seems to be ignoring the advice of the member. After all, the advice is here. The government does not need to hire a high priced consultant. I am sure it has enough of them already. The member knows and understands the system. He has been the solicitor general and minister of justice in Quebec and he knows what he is talking about.
For the government to simply ignore that advice just belies the fact that this is all about its public relations exercise, that public relations machine that is in overdrive most of the time on these crime bills. The government thinks nothing of introducing these bills one after the other, getting big media hits on them and then pulling the plug and calling an election or proroguing the House.
I think the government actually enjoys that because then it gets to do it all over again. I am sure the government gets a lot of pleasure out of that. However, at the end of the day, where are the results? The legislation never makes it through both parts of the House.
In a way, it is sort of like the gun legislation. The government really does not want to get rid of the gun registry. It would like that issue to hang around as long as possible because it is worth thousands of votes. If the government ever does eliminate the gun registry, there will be a lot of sad faces on the other side because the Conservatives have been riding and campaigning on that issue for so long that they honestly do not know what other issue to campaign on. They would be totally bereft of issues in an election campaign if that issue were to disappear.
The same is true here. The government is not really interested in solving the problem. It is just interested in the public relation effort that it has been able to engage in and in turning the guns on us saying that we are soft on crime when that is certainly not true at all.
 I think my voters understand that we want to be smart on crime and we want to do what works. The message may take a while to get across but I think if we repeat it enough and talk about it enough times, people will finally start getting the hint.
This whole issue with the prison farms is a time bomb for the government. I have talked to people, even Conservatives, and I have not found a single Conservative voter who thinks this is a good idea. As a matter of fact, they shake their heads and ask what kind of government would close down prison farms. It just does not make sense after quite a number of years. In Rockwood, I think it has been there for 30 years. In Kingston, it was there when I was growing up. The farms have been around in Kingston forever. Why would the government shut these down?
This is the type of issue that can be very bad for the government because its own voters will think there is something wrong with a government that would do something like that.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-4. We have gone down this road multiple times in the past.
It has been quite frustrating for some of us who have been around a long time in that the House tends to persist on taking a certain course of action. We need to be intelligent and use the existing data and information that we have in our country and around the world to do what our obligation is, which is to ensure that: first, we support legislation that protects innocent civilians; second, we do what is necessary to prevent criminal activity from occurring; third, we support victims and their families; and fourth, we ensure that those who commit crimes will go to jail or pay the price that the state determines and pay the price that society deems relevant to the crimes they have committed.
What I find frustrating is that we could be implementing many things if we were to deal with the facts. Unfortunately, the government tends to paint itself as a law and order party but doing it in such a way that it is not smart on crime. Rather, it takes a very narrow focus on trying to show that it is the toughest on crime.
However, the law of unintended consequences can occur down the road if solutions are implemented that do not truly address the criminal activity and we will not be able to achieve those four objectives that I mentioned at the beginning.
I think it would be wise in our stance in the beginning to support the bill at second reading so it can go to committee where we can bring in the people who have a lot of knowledge. Many people in the House have a lot of experience. Members on the government side and on our side have long been involved in the issue of youth crime. 
My colleague from British Columbia talked about her deep and tragic personal circumstances, as did her husband. We hope to bring that kind of expertise to committee in order to address those solutions that will deal with this situation in a sensible and responsible fashion.
What we ought to do is look at the current statistics in terms of youth crime rates in Canada. In 2006, 6,885 youth crime rate Criminal Code offences per 100,000 people in Canada. That number declined to 6,783 in 2007 and to 6,454 in 2008. If we go back to 1991, that number was 9,126 children per 100,000, and that was the youth crime rate per 100,000 people in Canada at that time.
If we look at the homicide rates, the most extreme of offences, in Canada we have around 600 homicides per year. About 55 to 60 of those homicides are committed by youth every year, and that has been consistent. There has been an up-take recently, and much of that has been attributed to children involved in gangs, but for the most part, if we look back over the last 10 to 15 years, we see that the homicide rates by children have remained essentially static over the last 15 years. 
What can we do? I had a chance to be in Vancouver a few weeks ago at the University of British Columbia faculty of medicine with Dr. Julio Montaner and others. A very interesting neuro scientist was describing the following. If we ask ourselves why people take up criminal activity, why they get involved in taking drugs or why they get involved in behaviours that are destructive to themselves and others, the scientists found the following. They looked at the brain, which has two major sections. One section involves our emotional response to activities that are thrill seeking. The other part of our brain, which is called the prefrontal cortex, keeps that part of the brain in check. It is the part of the brain that tells us that it is not a good idea to go out and shoot ourselves up with heroin, to drive a car really fast or to beat somebody up. That part of the brain is essentially the control mechanism on the other part of the brain that takes a more emotional response to issues. 
With infant children, the connection between that part of the brain, the emotional response and the prefrontal cortex that checks it, is not well developed. This is why children behave in a more emotional response than a more rational response. As they get older through adolescence, connections happen, tracks develop, neurons connect between those two areas and in that process the prefrontal cortex has a more profound ability to check that emotional part of the brain.
What happens if that child is subjected to violence, sexual abuse, poor nutrition or bad parenting? It has been proven that those neurologic connections between the limbic system and parts of the brain controlling emotional response and the prefrontal cortext do not develop very well. They happen slowly and imperfectly. For children who are brought up in a loving, caring environment and subjected to good parenting, where they have proper nutrition, literacy, those connections develop very well. This means for children who are subjected early on to a bad environment of sexual abuse or violence, the connections do not develop very well, which makes those children much more liable to participate in taking of drugs, violence and criminal activity.
How can we prevent that from happening? How can we ensure that children have the proper neurologic development in those most formative years?
 Let us take a look at the longest study in the world called the Perry Preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan. It studied a group of kids at risk and followed those children through 40 years of their life. The evidence found that by ensuring those children received good preschool programs, they were more able to complete school. There was less dependence on welfare. There were much higher rates of income. In turn, their children had better outcomes.
This is an important study because it proves that if we ensure children grow up in an environment that is loving, caring, free of being subjected to violence, sexual abuse and other horrific situations, those neurologic connections develop well. As a result of that, there is a profound impact in preventing and reducing crime and ensuring that children have the best outcomes in their lives.
 These kids had better educations. They made more money. There was less dependence on welfare. Also, and this is interesting, for an investment of just $15,166, that is $17 for every $1 invested, there is a saving to taxpayers of $250,000; that is a 17:1 savings. 
Why is the government not working with the provinces to do what has been proven? Why is the government not looking at the 40 year retrospective study, among a collection of other studies, a study that concludes that good early preschool programs and working with parents and children, which can be done very inexpensively, can have the most profound and positive impact on the future of those children and therefore on the future of society?
The cost to incarcerate a child is $100,000 a year. I used to work in an adult jail as a correctional officer, when I was putting myself through school and university. I also worked in both adult and juvenile jails as a physician. I have seen horrific stories. For example, as a physician, I attended to two girls who were in there early teens. They had been put on the street by their mother, who I happened to know through my alcohol and drug work in emergency. She was a known IV drug abuser. Her children were prostituting themselves so she could pay for her IV drug problem. They thought what they were doing was fun. 
I read in the newspaper that one of them was found dead in a ditch. The other one I saw when I was doing my rounds in the pediatric ward. She had suffered a massive stroke caused by her drug abuse.
I remember these two little girls as lovely young children who probably had a whole hopeful life ahead of them. However, because of their environment they were stuck in, through no fault of their own, one ended up dead and the other had a massive stroke. That is the fate of too many children in our society. 
These are entirely preventable problems. Therefore, why is the government not do something about it? Why does it not look at the Perry Preschool program? Why does it not work with the provinces and implement those solutions, which are proven to work to reduce crime, to save lives, to save money? The government should be doing that.
 This brings me to drug policy. Why does the government not do what is necessary to deal with drug problems? Many of the youth criminal acts are attached to drug addictions. Many of the break and enters and the assaults are carried out by people addicted to drugs.
What I find disappointing is the government, instead of embracing things that work, takes these initiatives to court. For example, there is the Insite program in Vancouver, the needle injection program. It has been proven by Dr. Julio Montaner, Dr. Thomas Kerr, and others to save money, to save lives and to reduce diseases. Why does the government not support that?
Instead, the government has taken that proven medical initiative to court, to block people and to prevent them from having a program that will save their lives. What kind of a government does that? It is utterly immoral, unconscionable and unjustifiable.
Furthermore, why is not it look at the NAOMI project, the North American Opiate Management Initiative? St. Paul's Hospital looked at 350 of the toughest, most difficult to reach IV narcotic abusers and randomized them into three groups. One group was given heroin IV, one group Dilaudid, which is another narcotic, and the final group an oral narcotic, methadone. Because it gave those people the drugs under medical supervision, it severed the tie between the addicts and their criminal activities to get the money they needed to pay for their drugs.
Why does the government not support communities to have access to NAOMI projects across the country? That would be the worst news for the real parasites in this equation, the organized crime gangs, which are the only ones profiteering off the status quo. It would undermine the financial underpinnings of organized crime. It would enable these hard to reach individuals to get into our medical community, which would help them get off drugs, get back with their families, get back to work and get their lives back together. We would save money and reduce costs in any number of ways. That would be smart judicial initiatives by working the justice system, the health care system and the provinces.
Do we hear anything like that from the government? No. There is deafening silence. It is absolutely inconceivable to me why the government does not adopt those things that have been proven. NAOMI and Insite were not something pulled out of someone's ear. These are scientific-based, rigorously peer reviewed assessments of an initiative and an experiment by St. Paul's, in Vancouver, with some of the toughest, most difficult and hard to reach communities.
Then there is fetal alcohol syndrome. I have some news for the government. Posters will not do it. Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in babies. It is estimated that 40% to 50% of the people in jail have FASD. This is a silent scourge in our country.
Why does the government not work with people like David Gerry in Victoria, who has an adult FASD clinic, and others to support something that not only treats but, more important, prevents? We have to get women in their prenatal stage to ensure they will not be in an environment where they drink. They need to understand that this is catastrophic to a child.
The other thing the government should look at is communities at risk. Tamba Dhar, who is a friend of mine, runs a program called Sage Youth. Tamba is a wonderful woman. She is an immigrant to our country who did well and decided that she wanted to give back to Canada, so she developed a program called Sage Youth in Toronto. She has worked, on a shoestring budget, with higher-risk refugees in Canada to ensure that those children have a mentor and that they have essentially an early program. The kids are subjected to a proper, caring environment where their basic needs are met. She has done this through the prism of literacy.
We know that literacy and enabling kids to read or be read to is one of the most profound and positive impacts children will have in their lives. The federal government could work with the provinces to encourage parents to bring their kids to the library once a week and let them roam for an hour or two. It costs nothing and it is a remarkable, simple and easy way to get kids engaged in reading. On average, kids spend 40 hours a week in in front of computers, playing computer games or watching television. 
That has a profound impact not only on the development of children's brains in a negative way, but it also contributes to the epidemic of childhood obesity, which will have a massive effect on cardiovascular problems in our country. In fact, quite shockingly, the youngest generation of children today, for the first time in the history of Canada, will be the first generation that is expected to have a shorter life span than their parents. Imagine that?
Those problems will be, for the most part, cardiovascular problems, which are preventable early on. We need to get the kids up, out and active, playing games, free play and also engaged in literacy by bringing the parents and teachers together, particularly in schools. Imagine if the feds were to work with the provinces to encourage parents to come to the schools for one hour a week, so the teacher could work with both of the parents and their children. They could have one hour courses on literacy, the importance of play, appropriate nutrition. These things will have a profound impact if we bring parents and children together. The common unit for that is in the schools. Yet we hear nothing from the government on this.
The government likes to talk about being supportive of the police. Why then does it not do what the police has asked? The gun registry is a case in point. We all know that law-abiding long gun owners are not the problem. They are law-abiding citizens through and through. However, what we have heard very clearly from police officers is that they need the gun registry for their protection. How on earth does the government justify to itself and to our society that it will remove something police officers feel they need for their protection? Above all, that is an overriding responsibility of ours. Our police officers do the bidding of governments and the state to protect us. It is our moral duty to do what can to ensure their protection.
Bill C-4 is an opportunity for the government to build on what the Liberal government did in 2003. It made some profound and positive changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. However, we need to move forward on that. We need to adopt those solutions that will ensure that criminals spend their time behind bars and away from our citizenry. They will also have the chance to rehabilitate and deal with their problems.
 The government has an opportunity to adopt those solutions that can truly prevent crime and save money. If the government fails to do this, it is abrogating its responsibility to society, it is not using its intelligence and is simply trying to use its legislation as a way to paint a very shallow political picture to the public, instead of doing that what is important for the public good.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, it is really nice to see that there are professionals in the House, that they can look at this bill from different points of view and still come up with the same solutions. 
The last member spoke a lot about social reintegration. Paragraph 3(1)(a) of the act passed by the Liberal government in 2003 states that the primary goal is rehabilitation and reintegration. It also talks about prevention. 
Did he realize, while studying the bill, that this paragraph is being taken out and replaced by another provision that is already in the act? 
 This is already taken into consideration when imposing a sentence, but there must be a pre-sentencing evaluation. The goal of rehabilitation and reintegration is being replaced by the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, which is already in the act in paragraph 38(1)(c).
First we take away a judge's latitude, and then we decide which punishment fits the crime. Only after that will the young offender himself be taken into consideration. Social reintegration is no longer an explicit goal; the government simply wants to promote it.
Does he, along with his party, realize that we must fight this provision, which completely alters the basic philosophy of the current treatment of young offenders? The current philosophy produces results: youth crime is decreasing, not only in Quebec, but also across Canada.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Bloc Québécois colleague's question.
We are eternally hopeful that members of the government can walk and chew gum at the same time because on this issue they need to be able to do both.
We all agree that appropriate sentencing should occur. My colleague brought up an important point, that the government is not looking at crime prevention and rehabilitation.
I focused on crime prevention in my remarks. This is not esoteric. There are fact-based, scientifically-based interventions that are effective at reducing crime and save taxpayers' money. The government should work with the provinces to adopt these interventions, but it is not.
Conversely, the failure to do that would not have much effect on reducing crime, protecting our citizens, helping victims of crime, or preventing people from being victimized by criminal activities. Therein lies the tragic Achilles heel of the government. The Conservative government is simply not willing and not prepared to do that which has been proven to accomplish the goals that society wants us to achieve. The government has missed that opportunity so far.
We are hopeful that government members will work with us in committee to implement solutions that will work.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke a lot about childhood education, early intervention and getting to youth in time to prevent them from committing crimes.
I would like to know his thoughts on the closure of the prison farms.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question from my colleague. 
Many of our citizens are not aware that the government is actually closing prison farms. People who are incarcerated had a chance to work on this farms to develop skills sets, to develop discipline and structure that they may not have had before. By closing these farms the government is preventing people who are incarcerated from building the skills they need. When these people get out, and they will get out as we know, it prevents them from reintegrating into society.
It is unfathomable and incomprehensible that the government would close down these farms and take away the opportunity for those who are in jail to build new skills. The government has never given any justification whatsoever as to why it is closing the farms. It needs to explain to the Canadian public and the House why it is doing this.
I want to refer to the evidence regarding what the Perry pre-school study 40-year retrospective analysis showed. The crime statistics show real differences. Compared with the control group, fewer pre-schoolers, the ones who were involved in the Perry pre-school program, have gone on to be arrested. Fewer of them have gone on to be arrested for violent crimes, drug-related crimes or property crimes. About half as many have been sentenced to prison or jail. Pre-school also seems to have affected their decisions about family life. More of the males are married. Many of them raise their own children. These men report fewer complaints about their health and are less likely to use drugs.
These are all objectives congruent with what the government wants to do. Why on earth is it standing in the way of these programs that have proven to accomplish that which the government claims it is interested in, and certainly our society and our citizens are interested in?
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, in 1992 a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health produced a report called, “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Preventable Tragedy”. It concluded that maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy is the leading known cause of mental retardation and other alcohol-related birth defects.
As the member said in his speech, there is clear evidence that 40% to 50% of the inmates in our jails across the country, both federal and provincial, in fact suffer from what is now called FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, because it is much broader than we thought. It is incurable, but it is 100% preventable.
The bill purports that we need to deal with youth crime. Yet with the causes of this being related to the environment and the early conditions related to a child, why is it that the courts are sending people who suffer from FASD to jail where rehabilitation is not applicable in their case? How can there be rehabilitation when that is not possible? 
The real question is, why do we not have the funding for programs to prevent the incidence of FASD? More important, should that occur and crimes occur, where are the programs for dealing with the lifelong tragedy of FASD?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been the leader in the House on FASD and on alcohol-related problems in pregnancy. He deserves many kudos for his hard work.
Some 40% to 50% of the people in jail suffer from FASD and there is nothing in the bill relating to FASD. The government has no plans to deal with half the prison population on one of the most important antecedent contributors to why they engaged in criminal activity. The average IQ of somebody with FASD is 67 to 70. Why is the government not dealing with this? It seems inconceivable it would miss half the prison population. The Conservatives have been silent on this issue all through their tenure. This cannot continue to be ignored.
While FASD cannot be treated, there are things that can be done to modify the behaviour. David Gerry and his team in Victoria have the only adult-based FASD program in British Colombia. It enables those people to manage their lives in a way that they will be productive, effective and engage in society. Those kinds of programs need to be embraced and adopted. 
Again, prevention is priority number one. My colleague is absolutely right. It is inconceivable to me why the government refuses to deal with that which will work to prevent children from being born with FASD.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Resuming debate. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges will have just a few minutes.
She can begin her remarks now.
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can wrap things up after question period, but I will start now.
Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to say that I had the opportunity to listen to and read the speech given by my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, and I would like to acknowledge his exceptional contribution to this debate.
He gave an excellent speech yesterday on the matter before us now, Bill C-4, and I am pleased to have access to his expertise in this area. I am also glad that, as he said earlier, a number of professionals are providing a new perspective on this bill. We will probably have a chance in committee to take a more in-depth look at the different aspects we must take into account before passing such an important bill. 
Today I would like to share a few thoughts that I shared yesterday and the day before with teachers and young people in the riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. We have been participating in a forum for the past two days. We also worked as delegates to the Millennium Summit. Homelessness and extreme poverty are issues that affect thousands of young people in Quebec. We also looked at the impact of poverty on the lives of these young people. 
Although poverty is not as serious here as it is in many other countries, there are some hardships in life that could be avoided if we took better care of our young people and gave them more support. Although we all come into the world the same way, not everyone grows up in the same living conditions. We must address the problems facing our young people, and only then will we see a marked improvement in our society. We must deal with problems where they begin.
We are debating an important issue here today, one that must not become fodder for shameless propaganda.
I asked to speak to this issue because I wanted to share with the House some of the experiences recounted by some young people whose lives have not been easy. These young people want us to support their efforts and to understand why they are in their current situation. Young people are willing to talk to us about how they wound up in trouble, if we simply give them the chance. These young people's lives have been difficult.
Throughout my life, I have worked with young people and with several community groups. As I have already mentioned in the House, these groups provide crucial support to the communities they serve. Their opinions must be taken into consideration. The people who work in these community organizations are on the front lines of intervention with young people.
Long before I was elected, I worked in close cooperation with community groups to try to ensure fair and equitable sanctions for young offenders. Our society needed to develop an intervention plan centred on rehabilitation and prevention.
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but she will have 17 minutes remaining after routine proceedings later today.

Statements By Members
Children's DayMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker today, April 23, and during the weekend, Canadians of Turkish origin will celebrate Children's Day, together with fellow Canadians.
On April 23, 1920, the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk convened the Turkish Grand National Assembly and dedicated this day to children. By doing so, Atatürk not only entrusted the future of his young nation to her children but also showed the importance he placed on the health and education of young people.
In 1979, UNESCO proclaimed the year as the International Year of the Child. Today, April 23 is celebrated with children from more than 60 countries around the world, including Turkey and Canada. This is now a 30-year tradition in Canada.
Tonight in Ottawa in commemoration of Children's Day, the Turkish community will be hosting a fundraising gala dinner, and the benefits will go to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the SOS Children's Villages.
Let us congratulate the organizers and wish them every success in their activities.
Parkinson's DiseaseMs. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April is national Parkinson's Awareness Month and this week is Parkinson's Awareness Week.
Since Parkinson's Awareness Week first began in 1984, it has given us all the opportunity to learn more and help others learn more about this devastating neurological disease that affects some 100,000 Canadians.
This week highlights the importance of research into the causes and treatments of Parkinson's. At the forefront of advocating for this is Parkinson Society Canada, which this year is celebrating 45 years of supporting and serving Canadians and their families affected by this disease.
Parkinson Society Canada is urging all Canadians to take part in fundraising events being held in communities across the country this week, events that will raise money and awareness for the causes, symptoms, treatments and needs of people with Parkinson's and their loved ones.
We cannot give up our search for a cure.
Repentigny International Junior Tennis OpenMr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Repentigny International Junior Tennis Open is a symbol of pride and excellence in the region and it is back again this year. We are celebrating the 25th anniversary of this tournament, the second oldest tournament in Canada after the Rogers Cup and one of the top 10 most prestigious junior tennis tournaments around.
Starting tomorrow straight through until the end of the tournament on September 4, a series of events will be organized for people to help mark the 25th anniversary of the International Tennis Open.
I invite everyone in Quebec to take part in the various activities the organizing committee has planned for the coming months. I also invite everyone to come and cheer on the best junior tennis players in the world, who will be competing from August 27 to September 4.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the exceptional work of all the volunteers and the organizing committee, who make this tournament such a success year after year.
Veterans AffairsMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's plan to close 72 beds reserved for veterans at Parkwood Hospital in London, Ontario, is both shortsighted and disgraceful.
While we know there are fewer second world war and Korean war veterans needing hospital care, there is a growing need for the same quality care for members of the Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans who served Canada in Afghanistan and as peacekeepers in Bosnia, Cyprus and, indeed, around the world.
The number of modern-day veterans requiring care is steadily increasing. So is the need for beds. It is soulless to ban veterans who have served in peacekeeping and other missions since the Korean war from the specialized care that the Department of Veterans Affairs is obliged to provide.
I call on the federal government to change the regulations that exclude modern-day veterans and ensure access to these Parkwood beds. These brave men and women served our country well and deserve the assistance and care they need. We owe them at least that much.
Firearms RegistryMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, farmers in my riding and all across Canada need to know that the Liberals do not understand them and do not represent them. Yesterday, in a rather shocking display of anti-democratic behaviour, the Liberals, with help from their NDP and Bloc partners, tried desperately to force upon the public safety committee only their list of witnesses who support the long gun registry. 
Farmers, hunters and rural Canadians have been clear that they want the Liberal long gun registry scrapped, but what does the Liberal leader do? He publicly states that he will force his MPs to ensure the continuation of the long gun registry. With decisions like that, it is no wonder that only a handful of Liberal MPs represent rural ridings.
Now is the time to end the Liberal long gun registry. Now is the time to target criminals and not our farmers and hunters. First Liberal MPs are whipped to support the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and now their leader is trying to silence Canadians who disagree with him.
Let us work together to end the long gun registry.
World Malaria DayKeith Martin: Mr. Speaker, April 25 is World Malaria Day, a time to remember that more than two million people a year, many of them children, die of this disease. 
Tackling this scourge must involve strengthening developing countries' primary health care systems and the selective spraying of DDT. When the latter was done in South Africa, it showed a 90% reduction in malaria cases, with no effect on the environment.
This June, as host to the G8 and G20 summits, Canada must play a role in leading the world's richest countries to invest in the primary health care systems of developing countries. This will enable us to treat most of the world's major killers, pneumonia, gastroenteritis, tuberculosis, malaria, HIV-AIDS and malnutrition, and it will reduce maternal and childhood deaths.
Our government cannot and must not lose this opportunity to have the most profound impact on the lives of the world's poorest. Let us use April 25 as a time to double our efforts to tackle malaria and the world's major killers.
Clearwater RiverMr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, water is life. In my constituency of Fort McMurray—Athabasca, we are privileged to have one of Canada's designated heritage rivers. 
The Clearwater River once was a busy highway that opened up the north and west of Canada. Fur traders and explorers portaged the many falls and rapids and enjoyed the gentle flow to the mighty Athabasca River. 
Today the Clearwater River, from its source in Lloyd Lake in northern Saskatchewan to the junction with the Athabasca, is still pristine and beautiful. Clear, clean water, fast-flowing rapids and banks lined with spruce and birch trees and many animals make our river a canoeist's dream. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all Canadians to enjoy this with us. My constituents are absolutely delighted that, because of the heritage river designation, the beauty, untouched nature and clean, pure water will be preserved for our future.
While we need to prosper economically, we need to preserve the waters we have. Let us continue to protect life by protecting our waters.
Cérium PrizeMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 15, at its annual gala, the Centre d'études et de recherches internationales of the Université de Montréal awarded the Cérium prize to Paul Gérin-Lajoie. This prize honours a Quebecker who has made an outstanding, lifelong contribution to the internationalization of Quebec.
Paul Gérin-Lajoie originated the doctrine of the same name that has formed the basis for Quebec's international policy since 1965. The doctrine states that a province's sovereignty in its areas of jurisdiction should also apply in its international relations. Elected officials and representatives of Quebec have since adopted this doctrine.
Paul Gérin-Lajoie also set up a foundation that contributes to basic child education and adult literacy in some of the world's poorest countries. One of the best-known activities of this foundation is the PGL dictation contest.
As the critic for la Francophonie, I congratulate Paul Gérin-Lajoie for the immense contribution he has made to extending Quebec's influence abroad.
Victims of CrimeMr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fifth National Victims of Crime Awareness Week will come to a close tomorrow, but it will not end there for us. Every victim of crime is important, no matter who they are or where they live. Protecting law-abiding Quebeckers and Canadians has always been a top priority for our Conservative government.
This week, our government put in place a number of initiatives to put the rights of law-abiding citizens before those of criminals.
Although the Leader of the Bloc stated earlier this week that “the Bloc...has done a lot by adopting a constructive and rigorous attitude when it comes to justice”, in this House, we know very well that it is not unusual for the Bloc to oppose our crime and justice initiatives.
Quebeckers and Canadians can always count on our government to ensure that victims' rights take precedence over those of criminals.
Guru Gobind Singh Children's FoundationHon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the good work of the Guru Gobind Singh Children's Foundation.
The foundation was established by young people of the Canadian Sikh community in 1999 as a way to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa and to honour the 10th guru of the Sikh faith. The foundation is driven by the motto “children helping children", and its good work supports children both in Canada and abroad.
The GGSCF actively involves youth and challenges them to understand the true meaning of charity. As an example, last year 90 of these young people ran across Canada from July 1 to August 30, starting from St. John's, Newfoundland and ending in Vancouver, British Columbia. The run raised money for children's hospitals in each province as well as a health centre in Liberia.
The Guru Gobind Singh Children's Foundation is a testament to what can happen when we teach our children to care about the world around them. I applaud the good work they do on behalf of the Canadian Sikh community and indeed all Canadians.
JusticeMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2006, our government introduced legislation to put an end to conditional sentences, or house arrest, for serious and violent crimes. However, the bill was repeatedly stalled and eventually gutted by the opposition.
In the last session of Parliament, we reintroduced the bill. The Liberals said they would support it. Now the member for Ajax—Pickering and his Liberal cronies have announced they will oppose this important piece of legislation.
This flip-flop comes as no surprise to Canadians who have come to expect this type of behaviour from the Liberal Party. However, I wonder what the member for Ajax—Pickering's constituents would say, knowing that their member of Parliament opposes a bill to end house arrest for crimes such as aggravated assault, human trafficking, luring a child, arson, fraud and extortion.
I am proud to be a member of the only party that stands up for victims and law-abiding citizens in this country.
Salmon FisheryMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, marine biologist Alexandra Morton left Sointula on her "Get Out Migration" walk down Vancouver Island to raise public awareness about the effects of industrial fish farming on wild salmon.
People around the world are paying attention and demanding that our government recognize that salmon are sacred and protect wild runs. Lax regulating of open-net salmon farms along wild salmon migratory routes has resulted in the transfer of sea lice and disease, contamination of the seabed by waste products and the takeover of habitat by escaped fish.
Canadians, especially in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, want the federal government to apply the Fisheries Act and ban open-net salmon farming near these routes, so we do not lose the food security, thousands of jobs and millions of dollars that wild salmon bring to our province. Alexandra Morton is calling for moving the industrial production of fish to land-based operations away from wild salmon.
 Salmon farm families do not have to be left behind. We can have our fish and eat it too, by firm regulation of industrial fish farms and protection of wild salmon runs.
CBC PollsterMr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Frank Graves, the Ekos pollster, is providing interesting advice to the Liberal leader and he is taking it. Graves, who also just happens to be the CBC's pollster of record, has publicly said that the Liberals should: “Stop worrying about the west...No need to fear of polarizing the debate...invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism...tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta do not like it, too bad”.
This is unbelievable and highly offensive that the CBC pollster is providing political advice to the Liberal Party to start a cultural war. Graves is hired by the CBC to poll and comment on party politics. He has been a major donor to the Liberal Party; however, he is providing clear and offensive messaging advice to the Liberals.
For the CBC, this is a clear conflict of interest.
Quebec Federation of Senior CitizensMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as part of its national day of action on April 20, FADOQ, the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, Eastern Townships Region, held a demonstration in downtown Sherbrooke. Among those present were Jacques Demers, the president of FADOQ – Eastern Townships Region, and Jean Lacharité, the president of the Eastern Townships Conseil central de la CSN.
For years now, the Bloc Québécois has worked hard to bring seniors' concerns to the attention of the federal government. In response, the Conservative government has turned a deaf ear and continued to ignore our seniors, despite the Bloc's repeated efforts, particularly in connection with increasing the guaranteed income supplement.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work of Mr. Demers and to reiterate my support, and the support of the Bloc Québécois, for FADOQ – Eastern Townships Region, and for the entire FADOQ network. Although the Conservatives continue to do nothing, we must keep up the fight.
The Speaker: Order, order. Perhaps the hon. member for Malpeque and the Minister of Public Safety would be pleased to go to my office and have a little chat back there. I would be happy to open it for them to use if that would help.
The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.
Philip OsanoMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Philip Osano on receiving the International Development Research Centre Doctoral Research Award. 
Mr. Osano is a geography PhD student at McGill University. His research is focused on producing a qualitative analysis of poverty-reduction programs aimed at protecting conservation zones in Kenya. 
His work will provide an invaluable contribution to understanding development programs in rural Africa, which hope to balance nature conservation, use of land for conservation and the economic life of nomadic herders. 
Mr. Osano's research inspires talented Canadian students to travel to Africa to participate in field work in programs like McGill's African field studies semester program.
 I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the International Development Research Centre on its 40th anniversary.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has taken off his leader's hat today and replaced it with a salesman's hat and, Mr. Speaker, I would not blame you for buying a copy of the leader's book that is called True Patriot Love, based on the testimonials found on the inside of the front cover. 
The Liberal leader claims on the inside of the front cover of his book that the National Post, when reviewing his book, called it “well-written”. But that is not entirely true. What the National Post called it was “a well-written disappointment”. 
This is the type of dishonesty that not even a first year university student could get away with. I am wondering if the Leader of the Opposition really believes that this is honesty or if this is maybe a case of deceitfulness. 
But Canadians unfortunately have come to expect this from the Liberal leader. He has again demonstrated he is not in it for Canadians, he is just in it for himself.

Oral Questions
EthicsHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for two weeks now it has been nothing but a Conservative culture of deceit when it comes to the Jaffer affair.
The Prime Minister has been saying that he forwarded serious allegations to the Ethics Commissioner. “Not true”, she told a Commons committee yesterday. All the PMO sent her were phone numbers for a gumshoe and a Conservative lawyer. The government also claimed it sent serious allegations to the RCMP. Did it really?
Will the Minister of Public Safety confirm that the RCMP is conducting an investigation, yes or no?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred allegations from a third party to the relevant authorities. The authorities will reach their own conclusions.
 The allegations have nothing to do with government business. When the allegations from the third party came to the Prime Minister's attention, he acted quickly and appropriately.
These allegations that he received from this third party do not concern any minister, MP, senator or government employee.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, it does not stop there.
The infrastructure minister is also mired deep in the culture of deceit. He bald-faced said on April 12:
 --Mr. Jaffer never made any inquiries with respect to his business. 
But when forced to release documents, it is clear Jaffer's company sent his office three funding proposals worth over $850 million. We know the minister sent two of these projects to his department. One proposal even had a handwritten note on it: “From Rahim, submit to department”.
Who wrote that? Was it the minister or his parliamentary secretary?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the same questions over and over again. It sounds like they have a culture of repeat over there.
Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud inquired about three projects, but the parliamentary secretary in question did not support or recommend any of them. None of the projects received any funding. Only a Liberal would think that it is a scandal when somebody does not get government funds.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, over there it is deny, delay and cover-up, but it is an absolute culture of deceit.
Canadians do not care whether lobbying efforts were successful or not. Bad lobbying is still lobbying. They should have registered. The minister knew darn well that he was being lobbied by two former Conservative candidates. He should have blown the whistle on them and reported them to the lobbying commissioner.
As well, Jaffer sent emails concerning his business interests to the industry minister's office. Will the industry minister release them? Will this Conservative culture of deceit never end?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, this private citizen is responsible for his own conduct. Under the Lobbying Act, the Lobbying Act requires anybody carrying out lobbying activities to, first, register and then report all of those activities to the lobbying commissioner.
If that member across the way has evidence that these rules have been broken, I would encourage him to make those allegations to the independent officer of Parliament known as the lobbying commissioner.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister made a great show of firing his minister, saying that he was referring her case to the RCMP and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. But the commissioner has clearly stated that the Prime Minister did not send her any relevant information. What is more, the Minister of Public Safety is refusing to confirm that the RCMP has opened an investigation.
This is a familiar pattern: the Conservatives make big announcements with lots of fanfare, but in the end, they do nothing. Could the Prime Minister give us a better example of the Conservative culture of deceit?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Prime Minister received the allegations from the third party, he sent those allegations along to the relevant authorities. These authorities will reach their own conclusions.
The allegations that he received from this third party have nothing to do with government business nor do they involve any member of Parliament, senator, minister or government employee.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, for two weeks, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has been saying that Rahim Jaffer never talked to him about his submissions. This is hard to believe when we know that Rahim Jaffer met with the minister and his parliamentary secretary when his submissions were being assessed by their office.
Is this more Conservative deceit?
The question is very simple. Who in the government wrote “From Rahim, submit to department” on his application for a $20 million grant?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud, who inquired about three projects. The parliamentary secretary in question did not support or recommend any of these projects. None of them received public funding.
Only the Liberals would get mad when somebody does not receive government funds.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the explanation given by the Prime Minister and former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer does not stand up. Not only did the latter's company submit $850 million in proposals to government, but two businessmen and Nazim Gillani are convinced that Rahim Jaffer was a lobbyist.
Will the Prime Minister table in the House, for the sake of transparency, the list of meetings he, his ministers, parliamentary secretaries and their staff had with this unregistered lobbyist?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, this private citizen is responsible for his own conduct. The Lobbying Act requires anyone who lobbies federal public office holders to register with the lobbying commissioner.
If the honourable member has proof that someone broke these rules, he should forward this information to the lobbying commissioner.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, we cannot call Rahim Jaffer just a private citizen. He is the former chair of the Conservative caucus and the spouse of a former Conservative minister. Quite frankly, we should not be treated like fools.
The proof that there was lobbying is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities forwarded two projects pushed by Rahim Jaffer to the director general of strategic priorities at the Department of Transport. 
Does the Prime Minister agree that it is in the public interest to reveal all contacts by this unregistered lobbyist?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Lobbying Act requires all those who lobby federal public office holders to register with the lobbying commissioner. 
If the hon. member has proof that someone broke the rules, he should forward it directly to the lobbying commissioner.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government promised us a better Lobbying Act, but it did not keep that promise. Despite the Federal Accountability Act, people can still get away with claiming that they did not get paid or saying that all they did was send a few emails or attend a few information sessions.
Rahim Jaffer met with business people and ministers, and he put $850 million worth of proposals into the hands of public officials. None of this constitutes lobbying according to the 2006 Conservative legislation. 
Is that not proof enough that the law is seriously flawed?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Lobbying Act was brought in as part of the Federal Accountability Act.
If the Bloc members wanted to change the way the law was written, they could have proposed amendments. They did not do so. The law requires anyone lobbying federal public office holders to register with the lobbying commissioner. 
If the hon. member has any evidence that someone has broken the rules, she should forward that information to the commissioner.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised that ministers would be required to report all contact with lobbyists. Once in power, they changed their minds: only lobbyists are required to report such contact. As a result, it is impossible to compare lists to see who is telling the truth.
Will the government acknowledge that, had it kept its election promise, secret lobbying such as that carried out by Rahim Jaffer would be impossible?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was here when the Federal Accountability Act established the rules.
The Bloc never tried to present amendments. The Lobbying Act, which the Bloc supported, requires anyone lobbying federal public office holders to register with the lobbying commissioner.
If the member has any evidence that someone has broken the rules, she should forward that information to the commissioner.
AfghanistanJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Afghan detainees, the ministers are The Untouchables.
 It is never the minister's fault for the government's reckless disregard of international law and the torture of detainees. First it was the slandering of the reputation of Richard Colvin. Now, Ben Rowswell, chargé d'affaires at the Canadian embassy in Kabul, is being blamed for a letter suggesting that the NDS be given prior warning of visits to detention facilities. The government says that the letter was a misstep.
Could the government confirm that the NDS was never given prior warning?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Hoffmann was clear in his response during his appearance this week before committee. The provisions of the letter had neither standing nor effect. The chargé d'affaires did sign the letter but the contents of the letter were never implemented.
 Immediately after reviewing the letter, Ambassador Hoffmann reiterated Canada's long-standing new transfer policy to the NDS, that officials would conduct unannounced visits with considerable frequency, and the NDS did know that.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, Canadian soldiers are doing their jobs professionally and with great courage. We wish the Conservative government would do the same. Instead, what we have is a culture of secrecy. The government is hiding the truth and the truth is that it has botched the handling of detainees. The truth is that it could not care less what happens to detainees and it has failed to monitor for torture. 
Canadians deserve to know the truth. Are detainees being handed over to NDS torturers to be interrogated, yes or no?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. We heard that from the Chief of Defence Staff who clearly told us that was not the case. 
Here is what the respected former ambassador to Afghanistan said about this issue of transferring to torture, “we never transferred any detainees who were captured by the Canadian armed forces if there was any suggestion that there would be a substantial risk of torture”. He went on to say, “So we met and we exceeded our international obligations”. He also said, “Canada's standards, and the regime we've put in place, exceeded our obligations and were over and above those put in place by other countries”.
We have a lot to be proud of in that regard.
The EnvironmentMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when Canada hosts the G8, world leaders will discuss many of the most important issues facing the planet, except the planet itself.
The environment has been a focus at all but one G8 meeting since 1992. 
Sadly, Canada is refusing to host a G8 environment ministers' meeting before the full summit. This follows the Conservatives poor performance in Copenhagen.
 Will the government organize a meeting of environment ministers to discuss the environment before the G8 meetings are held here in Canada, yes or no? What is going on?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member well knows this government's commitment to the environment. Our government, along with 116 other countries, representing 90% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord. 
The IEA executive director praised Canada's climate change target of 17% reduction below 2005 levels. 
I have great news. Greenhouse gas emissions have gone down 2.1%. Under the Liberals they went up. Under this government they are going down.
EthicsMrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after weeks of stonewalling and denying, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities finally released limited information about three proposals submitted to his office by Rahim Jaffer and Patrick Glémaud. Given the Conservative culture of deceit, we all know there is more.
When can the House expect the government to table all documents about meetings that the principals of Green Power Generation had with Conservative ministers, parliamentary secretaries and MPs?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the member refers to Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud having inquired about three projects. The parliamentary secretary in question did not support or recommend any of them. In fact, none of these projects received any funding.
Only a Liberal would think it is a scandal that someone did not get money.
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, special access for special friends.
Every day we learn more. We know the government has more information about its interaction with Green Power Generation.
Earlier this week, the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario admitted that his office met with Patrick Glémaud. He said, “There were some projects talked about”.
When will the minister end the Conservative culture of deceit, release all details about the proposals and tell us what he talked about?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud and their inquiry about three projects.
The parliamentary secretary in question did not support or recommend any of these projects and none of the projects received any funding.
Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario admitted this week that Patrick Glémaud, Rahim Jaffer's business partner, had submitted at least three proposals for funding to Andrew House, the former director of operations. These proposals seem to have received preferential treatment and special access to the minister's office.
Will the Conservative government break with its culture of deceit and make Mr. Glémaud's three proposals public?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the question of course is about the Lobbying Act. I would be pleased to inform the member how the act works. It puts the onus on the lobbyists to first register and then report their activities to the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
If that member across the way has information suggesting that somebody did break the rules, then he should report that to the lobbyist commissioner for independent investigation.
Anthony Rota: Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives refusing to disclose the documents, but none of these interactions were reported to the lobbying commissioner, as required under the act.
Mr. House was a Conservative Party candidate in 2006 and again in 2008, so he certainly is familiar with the Federal Accountability Act.
Can the minister tell us why none of these activities were registered with the lobbying commissioner?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Lobbying Act was brought in by this government as part of the Federal Accountability Act. It put an end to the revolving door that we saw under the previous Liberal government which led to things like the sponsorship scandal and the gun registry.
Now that we are on the subject of the gun registry, I note that the member promised his constituents he would vote against the gun registry. He thinks it is a waste of money and his rural constituents voted for him believing that he would keep his word.
I expect that he will rise now and reaffirm his commitment to scrap the wasteful Liberal long gun registry.
Firearms RegistryMeili Faille: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party president has appealed to party supporters for money to help abolish the firearms registry. That is really quite shameful. The Conservatives see firearms as nothing more than something to help fill party coffers. Too bad if that policy makes firearms more accessible; too bad if safety suffers. 
How can the Prime Minister allow his party to collect money at the expense of victims of crime?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know that the Bloc, the Liberals and New Democrats have conspired to keep out witnesses from being heard by the committee. In fact, they attempted to stack the entire committee with individuals who were in favour of the gun registry. They would not allow the Calgary Chief of Police to give testimony at the committee.
Why are they so afraid of the truth? Why are they so afraid of what a chief of police will say?
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the government is being hypocritical when it tries to claim that a backbench MP is behind the dismantling of the firearms registry. We are not fooled. This is a government policy; the Prime Minister speaks out in defence of this project. He authorizes vicious ads and fundraising campaigns.
Why does the Prime Minister always try to sneak his Conservative policies in through the back door?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, together with the Liberals and New Democrats, attempted to hijack the public safety committee by desperately forcing a pro-long gun registry list of witnesses. They would not hear from any other witnesses other than the ones they specifically hand picked.
That is a culture of deceit being practised by all three parties on the other side.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government promised to fast-track family reunification applications from Haiti. However, according to the department's latest numbers, only 311 people on file in the Canadian system have been given permanent resident visas.
How can the minister explain his inability to deliver on his promises?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, no government has moved quicker in terms of assisting Haiti with respect to the issues it is dealing with. 
We said at the very beginning that we would expedite the 2,000 cases that we have on file and that we would make them a priority. We have made them a priority and we are now bringing families back together, just as we committed to do.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not plausible. Quebec's Minister of immigration and cultural communities says that the federal government is at fault for the delays. She said that there have been operational problems at the federal level with health and security checks. Quebec and Ottawa need to stop passing the buck. 
When will the minister really start working to help Haitian families?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the question because it actually is not the case.
On January 16, we said immediately, first, that family class sponsorships would be put forward and, second , spouses or common-law partners with in-Canada class applications, protected persons with family members in Haiti, citizenship and citizenship certificates and in-Canada applications for work permits would be extended on a temporary basis.
We have done more. We have moved this forward. We have said that we would work with the provincial government in Quebec to do exactly what we are trying to do, and that is help Haiti.
PensionsHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we first raised the issue of pensions, the finance minister said that pension reform was not a federal matter. When we asked what was being done to amend the Bankruptcy Act to help pensioners, the Minister of Finance said that the matter had already been resolved. 
The issue of pension reform is neither resolved nor is it someone else's problem. 
Instead of busily perpetuating the Conservative culture of deceit, why does the government not do something to help these pensioners who are left out in the cold?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the only deceit here this morning comes from the opposition when it even suggests that it cares about seniors. Maybe it did in that half-day conference that was convened here in Ottawa to listen to seniors. Those who could not travel here, I guess the Liberals did not want to hear from them.
Last year we consulted with those involved in the federally regulated private pension plans. We found out what the problems were and we put in fixes for them. They are in Bill C-9 and we would encourage hon. members to actually read that they are in the budget and help us get them through for those people.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continually trying to mislead people. More promises of consultation is all we hear from them. Even Jack Mintz, one of their favourites, is asking why Ottawa is holding back on pension reform.
The former employees of Nortel want to know why the government is doing nothing to help them and all Canadians want to know why the government is standing between them and a secure retirement strategy.
 Why is the government more interested in covering its own tracks than helping Canadians prepare for retirement?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, if we are covering tracks, it is tracks left by the Liberal government, where it did nothing.
If the hon. member had actually read the budget, she would see that what we are putting in helps protect pensioners. We are making pensions more stable for those who are impacted by it. We are giving pensioners more negotiating powers.
I have been in six different sessions where the provincial finance minister in that jurisdiction has sat shoulder to shoulder with either the finance minister or myself. We are actually listening to seniors and we will come to some solutions that will help seniors without the Liberals' help.
TaxationHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many low-income Canadians are discovering that they do not qualify for the home renovation tax credit.
They saw the advertisement with a woman saying they could save $1,350 on their home renovations. They renovated in good faith, but they have been taken in by the Conservative culture of deceit. 
Will the government apologize to those who were duped?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, if there is any apology due, it would be from those on the other side of the House who actually voted against one of the most popular programs that was put forward in our economic action plan. It is pretty incredible when they vote against something and then come back and say we should extend it.
Let me speak very slowly. It is a tax credit. It is not a tax deduction.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, Ron and Barbara Johnson are two Welland area seniors who spent $10,000 renovating their home, only to discover that their income was not high enough and they will not be getting the $1,300 they were promised by the Conservatives' commercials. 
I know the Conservatives like to be tricky, to string words together in a way that leaves their real meaning open to interpretation, but this time their culture of deceit has targeted vulnerable Canadians.
When will they apologize?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, we have a task force travelling across this country right now. It is called the Task Force on Financial Literacy. I would suggest the hon. member sign up, because he obviously does not understand the principle of a tax credit. That is what we put in. That is exactly what thousands and thousands of Canadians have applied for and they will be receiving that tax credit back.
JusticeMr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering said that he would oppose the government's legislation that would make it clear to the courts that house arrest would no longer be available to those who commit serious and violent crimes such as aggravated assault, human trafficking, luring a child, and arson.
Could the Minister of Justice please inform this House what failing to pass this important legislation could mean for the law-abiding citizens of Canada?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his support of our tough on crime agenda.
It is true that anytime we introduce a bill that will get tough on crime and stand up for victims and law-abiding Canadians, 10 seconds later somebody from the Liberal Party opposes it. The Liberals' soft on crime approach has always been a mystery to me. The Liberals should go home to their constituencies and explain to their constituents why they support the current law that if somebody sets fire to their house, that person should be able to go home to his or her home. 
This is just one more reason why anybody who worries about crime in this country should never support the Liberals.
EthicsMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish under the Liberals, no one was more sanctimonious about their ethical lapses than Rahim Jaffer and the Conservative coalition, but now that they are in power, it is still all about who one knows in the PMO. In fact, it is even worse. Those guys make Roch LaSalle smell like a spring day.
Why did the Conservatives think there was nothing wrong with Rahim Jaffer's illegal lobbying until the public found out about it? Why did the Prime Minister only act swiftly and immediately after it hit the front pages of the newspapers?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister received the allegations from a third party, he referred them to the relevant authorities. These authorities will reach their own conclusions. These allegations have nothing to do with government business. When the allegations from the third party came to our attention, we acted quickly and appropriately. 
I should add that none of these allegations from this third party involves any other MP, minister, senator or government employee.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the government's claim of no harm, no foul because Mr. Jaffer's illegal lobbying was not successful is laughable. It is like saying if one robs a bank and there is no money in the vault, then no crime took place.
It is up to lobbyists to register their activities. We know that. But there is also an obligation on the part of the minister to live up to the spirit and the intent of the law, the very law that the Conservatives wrote, the very law that was the centrepiece of their legislative agenda. 
Maybe the minister needs to have his moral substance recalibrated, but why did he not send Rahim Jaffer packing the first time he showed up with those--
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his carefully reasoned and thoughtful question.
As he properly pointed out, we have a Federal Accountability Act which brought in place the Lobbying Act. That Lobbying Act requires that anyone who carries out lobbying activities register and report those activities.
If the member has any evidence that someone has broken those rules, I am sure he will make an equally thoughtful submission to the lobbying commissioner so that it can be investigated.
AfghanistanMr. Jean Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government is doing everything it can to avoid shedding light on its complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees. Eight days of hearings of the Military Police Complaints Commission could be cancelled because of the Conservative government's failure to cooperate.
Is it not time to set up an independent public commission of inquiry to finally shed light on the torture of Afghan detainees?
Rob Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has got it completely wrong. The MPCC and officials will continue to work with that group to provide all relevant documents. There is a mandate put in place for the MPCC, and the hon. member should have confidence in that process.
Democratic Republic of the CongoJean Dorion: Mr. Speaker, the Congolese president, Joseph Kabila, is pressing for the UN peacekeepers to begin withdrawing from his country in June. But according to Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Cormier and many NGOs, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not ready for the peacekeepers to pull out.
Will the government respond favourably to all those who want this important mission to continue?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question from another colleague earlier this week. I said then that Canada was one of the nations to which the UN Secretariat was considering offering a command position. 
At present, Canada has to consider its capacity. We are analyzing this request and will pass on the information as soon as we have completed our analysis.
FisheriesHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the gulf crab fishery is made up of both traditional and new entrants alike. 
In recent years, former groundfish-dependent fleets were allowed entry into area 12, but when the minister announced the 63% reductions in quota this year, rather than cutting the newer entrants first, a policy known as last in, first out, all shared the cuts proportionately and all shared the remaining quota, regardless of when they entered the fishery.
Will the minister confirm that she will be consistent and apply this same decision to northern shrimp, should quota reductions occur in that fishery?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member will know that these decisions are always difficult decisions, especially when a quota is cut. These decisions are reached after considerable consultation with industry and science.
That is what was done in this case. We are following the precautionary approach and we will continue to do so.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, integrity begs the minister to do exactly the same on northern shrimp, should quota reductions occur, as she did on gulf crab.
Now decisions have to be made because the fishery has not yet recovered from the turmoil of the global recession. The global economic crisis is still keeping lobster prices low and shrimp at rock bottom prices. Crab prices are suffering despite resource cutbacks.
Why will the government not respond with a significant, comprehensive and augmented economic assistance package for the fishing industry? 
Let me point out that should they spout off about what they have done so far, they are saying nothing--
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister will welcome the hon. member's advice.
At this point there is no plan to provide some financial assistance, but we do allow some flexibility in the rules governing how the fishery is implemented, and we will assist harvesters in that way.
The member will also know that the standing committee unanimously supported a motion to take a look at the crab issue in Atlantic Canada. Perhaps these issues will be raised there.
Veterans AffairsIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, Parkwood Hospital in London, Ontario plans to close 72 veteran care beds. The problem is that veterans hospitals are only mandated to care for World War II and Korean war vets.
Does the Minister of Veterans Affairs have the wisdom to change the mandate for Parkwood and other veterans hospitals so that Canadian Forces personnel and RCMP who have served in peacekeeping missions and combat deployment since the Korean war would be eligible to access the same benefits and services offered to earlier generations?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a few things. Of course our veterans are entitled to receive care in extended care beds. To that end, some hospitals reserve beds specifically for long-term care. However, since our veterans are dwindling in number because of their advanced age, some beds are no longer occupied. It is in these circumstances that we would talk to the hospital or organization about reducing the number of beds. Of course there is always room for our veterans, and other people can use the space when it is available.
Brewing IndustryMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the people of Hamilton are outraged by Labatt's-owned Lakeport Brewery's complete disregard for the future job prospects of the 150 people it threw on the street. Not only is it closing the brewery, it is deliberately preventing other beer companies from restarting production and rehiring the workers.
Why is the federal government missing in action? The Siemens and Lakeport closures mean 700 lost jobs and the government has not lifted a finger to help. What exactly is the Conservative government going to do to help save these Hamilton jobs?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is not true. As the hon. member knows, or ought to know, this matter was in fact referred to the appropriate body, which is the Competition Bureau. It reviewed the facts of the case and declined to intervene because there was no reason to intervene in this particular case. The laws of the land are being upheld, and that is a matter of fact.
I was in Hamilton just three weeks ago announcing a project that our department is helping to finance that will grow 200 new jobs for Hamiltonians.
Firearms RegistryMr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in an April 21 interview, Calgary Police Chief Rick Hanson echoed what our government has said all along, that the gun registry is just a placebo and that it has not really worked all that well. He also said that lawmakers should focus more on sentencing.
Would the Minister of Public Safety inform the House what this Conservative government has done to address Police Chief Hanson's concerns?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, through this government's Tackling Violent Crime Act, we ensured tougher mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes. We also eliminated the practice of awarding two for one and three for one credit for time served, ensuring that the punishment truly fits the crime. This is something the Liberals tried to block.
We will continue to introduce legislation to protect victims and law-abiding citizens of this country. We will scrap the wasteful long gun registry supported by the opposition coalition of deceit.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for 25 years the Nova Scotia Gambia Association has sent workers, nurses and volunteers to help teach health awareness and education programs to the folks in Gambia and Sierra Leone. To celebrate its 25th anniversary, it was hoping to bring over some of its Gambian volunteers to Halifax. Unfortunately, their requests for travel visas have been denied.
Why are these humanitarian workers not allowed to enter Canada to celebrate their success?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do understand that people are disappointed when their visa applications are denied. Our responsibility, however, is to ensure that all visitors meet the requirements to come to Canada, as set out in Canada's immigration law.
These applications are assessed on a case by case basis. Visa officers review the specific facts that are presented by the applicant in each case as well as in this one.
TransportationMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has just announced its contribution of $200 million for a rail shuttle linking Trudeau airport with downtown Montreal. However, we are still waiting for the federal government's contribution to this project.
Having agreed to fund the construction of airport shuttles in Vancouver and Toronto, why is the federal government still dragging its feet on funding for the Montreal shuttle?
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to infrastructure on rail and infrastructure in communities, we have had an unprecedented year of success. We are going to continue that. 
We will take the member's specific request under advisement and will get back to him in due course.
Nuclear Non-ProliferationMr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. speaker, there is a treaty banning chemical weapons and one banning biological weapons. However, so far, no similar effort has been successful to ban nuclear weapons. The danger they pose cannot be underestimated.
Over 500 members of the Order of Canada continue to press the government in their campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons. They have joined the UN Secretary-General in calling for the negotiation of a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.
Will Canada support a nuclear weapons convention? Better still, will Canada seek a leadership position in its negotiation?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, Canada indeed has played a leadership role. In fact, last week the Prime Minister was at the nuclear summit that was convened by the President of the United States in which Canada played an important role. We will also be participating quite actively in the nuclear non-proliferation discussions that will take place in a short time at the United Nations. This is the five year review plan.
 Canada indeed has assumed its responsibility. I am very proud to see that we are taking that leadership role about which the member is talking.
VolunteerismMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week is National Volunteer Week, a time to thank volunteers all across Canada for giving their time to make Canada a better place. Over 12 million Canadians give over two billion hours of their time each year for a variety of causes and activities.
Could the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development please inform the House what our Conservative government is doing to recognize and encourage volunteering?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government values very highly the important contributions made by volunteers right across the country. That is why we are bringing in the Prime Minister's award for volunteerism. That is why we are investing in projects that help seniors mentor the next generation of volunteers. That is why we are investing in youth internships for not-for-profit organizations.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers right across our country who give so generously of their time and talent. I and our government say a huge “thank you” to them.
International AidHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everyone in this chamber knows that the KAIROS funding cuts were both unfair and slanderous. It is therefore extraordinary when both the Canadian Council of Churches and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada come together, representing virtually the entire spectrum of Christian churches, and ask for a meeting with the minister in order to “restore the relationship”.
When will they get that meeting?
Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have heard this question many times from the member and the answer remains the same. The criteria for the funding for KAIROS is the same as the criteria for funding for anyone else applying for such funding. KAIROS did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding. There was no surprise there.
 I am surprised that the member keeps on asking the same question.
Points of OrderHon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a matter before the House and before one of its committees.
I would like to inform the House that on Tuesday evening of this week, April 20, I was advised that in April 2009 a member of my staff in Calgary, Mr. Scott Wenger, was approached by Mr. Rahim Jaffer. Their discussion involved representations by Mr. Jaffer on behalf of a company. 
On my instructions, Mr. Winger has forwarded the details of those discussions and the documents relating to them to the Commissioner of Lobbying. The material was transmitted late yesterday, April 22. The same material is being transmitted today to the Ethics Commissioner.
No contract was ever awarded to the company. I was not involved in those discussions in April 2009. Nor was I aware that they took place.
As I have previously stated publicly, the only discussion I have had with Mr. Jaffer in the past one and a half years consisted of a 30 second discussion in this very building in early 2009, when I told him that I was not responsible for the administration of the so-called green funds. 
I felt it was my obligation, Mr. Speaker, to so advise the House today.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Combating Terrorism ActRob Nicholson:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
In accordance with the order of reference of Wednesday, April 14, your committee has considered Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy) and agreed, on Thursday, April 23, to report it with amendment.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2).
This report contains a list of items added to the order of precedence as a result of the replenishment that took place on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, under private members' business that should not be designated non-votable.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the report is deemed adopted.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, your committee has considered vote 15, under Parliament, in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, and reports the same less the amounts voted in the interim supply.
[Interjection]
Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports for interparliamentary delegations.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Interparliamentary DelegationsRuss Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports from the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning a bilateral visit to New Zealand in December 2009 and a conference in the United Kingdom in February 2010.
National Day of Remembrance and Action on Mass AtrocitiesPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you were seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That in the opinion of the House, April 23, which coincides with the birthday of former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, be recognized as the national day of remembrance and action on mass atrocities, in tribute to his commitment to peace and international co-operation to end crimes against humanity. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Ottawa Centre have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  (Motion agreed to) 
PetitionsMrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions in the House. The first petition is signed by thousands of people in my riding and across the entire country.
The petitioners ask Parliament to declare November 11 a national holiday observed in all provinces and territories.
Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks the government to instruct Canada Post to maintain its post office system and consult with major stakeholders before it makes any changes.
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition signed by people from my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville and other parts of the greater Toronto area.
The petitioners are concerned about the ongoing discrimination against Egypt's Christian citizens who seek systematic change for justice and equality within Egypt.
 Those who have attached their names wish to call our attention to the evening of January 6, the Orthodox Christian celebration in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, which ended in violence, 6 murdered and 15 injured. This is only the most recent example of religiously motivated attacks. Sadly this type of violence and persecution has become a common occurrence in Egypt over the last 30 years. Those who are victims feel unheard by their government. They feel it has failed to dissuade this violence or take the necessary steps that are needed to be taken to reach sustainable change.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to demand justice and equality within Egypt and to intervene and pressure the Egyptian government to ensure tolerance, freedom and safety to its Christian population.
France Bonsant: Mr. Speaker, once again, I am presenting a petition that calls for the adoption of my bill, Bill C-343, which provides assistance for victims of crime, and particularly their families, by extending the eligibility period for employment insurance and allowing the families of victims to take time off work and keep their job for an indeterminate period of time. 
On April 28, the House will vote to send this bill to committee. On behalf of the hundreds of petitioners and all the families of victims, I hope that a majority of this House will support the bill. These 35 signatures, in addition to all the others, show that the public is concerned about the families of victims and that they want the government to take action as quickly as possible.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
In the first petition, thousands of Canadians are calling upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengerss' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. 
The bill would provide compensation for overbooked or cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues, such as late and misplaced bags, and requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines on all of their advertising. 
Legislation such as this has been in effect in Europe since 1991 but, in its current form, for the last five years. The question is why Air Canada passengers should be treated better in Europe than in Canada. In fact, in the current environment in Europe, we find out that they are not being treated the way they should be even under European law.
Airlines would need to inform passengers of any flights changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would need to be posted at airports and airlines would need to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If airlines follow the rules, they would not pay any compensation.
The petitioners call upon the government to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by dozens of Canadians who call upon the government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the Chilean earthquake. 
On February 27, a Chilean earthquake of an 8.8 magnitude occurred in southern Chile. The Chilean Canadian community mobilized with fundraising events.
The petitioners are wondering why the government does not give the same treatment to the victims of the Chilean earthquake as it has for the victims of the Haitian disaster.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents and citizens across the land who strongly condemn the terrorist violence targeted at Egyptian Christians. They demand full religious freedom and call upon this Parliament to speak out against human rights abuses and sectarian violence in Egypt.
This Conservative government and this Prime Minister stand with Egyptian Christians and other persecuted religious minorities in defence of religious freedom. 
The petitioners call upon our government to continue its strong record of conviction and dedication to the value of religious freedom in Canada and all around the world.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to submit to the House the following three certified petitions from constituents in Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte who call upon the government to maintain the moratorium on post office closures and to withdraw the legislation to legalize remailers.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting four petitions. The first petition calls on the Canadian government to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from my constituents who are concerned about the new provisions or new elements in the 2010 budget implementation bill. 
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from the citizens of my riding, who are concerned by the Auditor General's recent report on crown corporations, in particular Canada Post.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first petition calls upon the Canadian government to follow up on the Goldstone Commission.
The second petition calls upon the Canadian government to work on an embargo of arms headed for Israel, Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups, which could be used to commit flagrant violations of human rights.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House concerning a very serious issue, that of child pornography and victimization.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that the creation, use and circulation of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians, that the CRTC and Internet service providers have a responsibility for the content that is being transmitted to Canadians, and that anyone who uses the Internet to facilitate any sex offences involving children is committing an offence. 
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all of the necessary steps to stop the Internet as a medium for the distribution of child victimization or pornography.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 105 and 106.
Mr. Glen Pearson:  With regard to the Canadian International Development Agency's requirement under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act to report annually to Parliament on its progress in three key areas: (a) what reporting requirements has the agency implemented in incorporating the act; and (b) how are these reporting requirements evaluated? 
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) the government tabled the summary of the Government of Canada's official development assistance 2008-2009 at the end of September 2009. It is the first report of its kind under the new Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. The report is fully compliant with the requirements of the Act.
It was the first time that the government presented a report including a comprehensive picture of the development assistance provided by all federal departments and agencies. The assistance reported in this report meets the official development assistance definition of the act and of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. Under these definitions, official development assistance must contribute to poverty reduction. 
In terms of CIDA’s implementation of the act, a number of actions were taken, including:
 i) Clear directions were provided to CIDA staff to ensure that the provisions of the act were integrated in our programming. We take the implementation of the act seriously. 
 ii) CIDA also coordinated the production of the above mentioned whole-of-government report that was tabled in September on behalf of the Government. In doing so, CIDA ensured all the provisions of the Act were respected, including the requirements to provide Parliament with a summary of its own departmental performance report. CIDA also published, as required by the act, a statistical report on the total Canadian ODA for 2008-2009. 
Poverty reduction has been at the core of CIDA's mandate for many years. CIDA’s ODA contributes to poverty reduction in developing countries in an effective and focused manner. We take the perspectives of the poor into account as a central element in delivering Canada's aid program, for instance through consultations with local partners and beneficiaries, participatory approaches and policy dialogue. Our programs are consistent with international human rights standards through our “Do No Harm approach”--ensuring that our programs do not contribute to violations of human rights.
With regard to b) there is no specific requirement for the evaluation of the reporting requirements of the act. However, the Federal Accountability Act, 2006, which modified the Financial Administration Act, section 42.1, requires that departments conduct evaluations of the relevance and effectiveness of each ongoing program for which they are responsible every five years. These evaluations are used as inputs for CIDA’s reporting to Parliament, including the departmental performance report. 
In that context, CIDA prepares a rolling five-year evaluation plan to address the requirements of the Federal Accountability Act. The evaluation committee, composed of a majority of non-CIDA members, reviews the evaluation plan every year and advises on the adequacy of it. The evaluation committee also reviews each of the program evaluations completed under the plan to advise on their adequacy and readiness for approval, so that they can made public.
The most recent program evaluations undertaken by the agency are posted at the CIDA website: www.CIDA.ca/Performance/Evaluation/Evaluation Reports. 
Glen Pearson:  With regard to KAIROS, which has lost their funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) as of November 30, 2009 due to KAIROS no longer fitting CIDA priorities: (a) what are the CIDA priorities that did not fit well with the priorities of KAIROS; (b) what sort of criteria does CIDA examine to determine whether or not a non-governmental organization will receive funding; and (c) what specific criteria did KAIROS not meet to have their funding cut by CIDA?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) The CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.
With regard to b) Non-government organizations’ proposals to CIDA are assessed on a variety of criteria, which are described on CIDA’S website www.acdi-cida.gc.ca.
With regard to c) CIDA receives more proposals than it has the resources to fund, so that even some proposals that meet the Agency’s basic criteria must be turned down. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, and 113 could be orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla:  With regard to lifting seniors out of poverty, what has the government done since being elected in January 2006, specifically: (a) what national and local programs have been created to specifically address poverty among seniors; (b) how much money has been spent on addressing poverty among seniors and from which government departments did this money come; (c) how much money has been given to each federal riding to address poverty among seniors; and (d) what initiatives have been undertaken to identify which ethnic groups have the greatest numbers of seniors living in poverty, and, if identified, what steps have been taken to address the needs of these ethnic groups?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ruby Dhalla:  With regard to addressing youth violence: (a) what programs has the government created since being elected in January 2006 to specifically address youth violence; (b) how much money has been spent on addressing youth violence and from which government departments did this money come; and (c) how much money has been given to each federal riding to address youth violence?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ruby Dhalla:  With regard to addressing child poverty in Canada: (a) what programs has the government created since being elected in January 2006 to specifically address child poverty; (b) how much money has been spent on addressing child poverty and from which government departments did this money come; and (c) how much money has been given to each federal riding to address child poverty?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Ken Dryden:  With regard to the Southern Ontario Development Agency: (a) what grants or contributions have been awarded by the Agency since its inception; (b) how many applications for those grants or contributions have been received; (c) who were the organizations or individuals who applied for those grants; and (d) in which federal electoral district is each successful grantee located?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh:  With regard to the Department of National Defence, what is the list of all equipment procurement projects with a value of over $25 million that are either currently in progress or have been announced publicly, including: (a) the piece of equipment being purchased and the quantity; (b) the date the project was announced; (c) the total value (or expected value) of the project and of any related contracts such as maintenance or repair; (d) the date the project received Treasury Board approval; (e) the date the contract was awarded and to whom; (f) the dates of commencement of delivery and end of delivery; and (g) for each project, what is the breakdown of the original and most recent schedule, including all project phases and costing, and a detailed explanation for each case where the original and most recent schedule are not the same?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ujjal Dosanjh:  With regard to the announced purchase of Close Combat Vehicles (CCV) and Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles (TAPV): (a) why was the solicitation of interest and qualifications (SOIQ) postponed to 2010; (b) what industry feedback contributed to non-issuance of the SOIQ; (c) what changes to the government requirements contributed to this decision; (d) what impact did the Department of National Defence (DND) internal reviews have on the CCV procurement process, including whether resources that had been allotted to the CCV procurement process were reallocated and, if applicable, what was the value of those resources and to where were they reallocated; (e) what are the key procurement priorities of DND; (f) what impact does the end of the military mission in Afghanistan have on the decision to not issue the SOIQ as scheduled; (g) what is the timeframe for issuing the SOIQ for the TAPV project and is this on schedule; and (h) if applicable, what are the details of the revised schedule for either project?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Glen Pearson:  With regard to the Canadian International Development Agency: (a) what percentage of Official Development Assistance (ODA) is allocated to maternal and child health; (b) which branches of ODA does the funding come from; (c) what are the programs that receive this funding; and (d) how are these programs’ performance evaluated?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal:  With regard to the Enhanced Language Training Initiatives since 2006, by year: (a) how much money has been transferred to the provinces or awarded via grants; (b) who were the recipients of each grant, and how much money did they get; and (c) how many applications did the government receive requesting funds under the program, and by whom?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ujjal Dosanjh:  With regard to the Department of National Defence and the purchase of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters: (a) when was the government notified that Sikorsky could not deliver the helicopters according to the agreed-upon schedule in November of 2007; (b) what were the “additional capabilities” that were added in the contract amendments and, if these capabilities were necessary for the Canadian operating environment, why were they not included in the original contract; (c) why did the government not impose late penalties in 2007 as agreed to in the original contract; (d) will the government impose late penalties now that Sikorsky has indicated that it will not be able to meet even the amended schedule; (e) what is the revised schedule for the commencement of delivery, and the end of delivery of both the interim and enhanced helicopters; and (f) how will this delay affect the cost of this procurement project?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Navdeep Bains:  With regard to the grant and business assistance programs that report to the Minister of Industry: (a) what are the names and amounts granted or released to companies for each fiscal year since 2005-2006; (b) what are the reporting requirements for those programs; and (c) what was the amount budgeted and what was the amount spent for each program for each fiscal year since 2005-2006?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Navdeep Bains: With regard to infrastructure spending in the Region of Peel by the government: (a) what is the total amounts spent in each municipality for each fiscal year since 2005-2006; (b) how much has been spent in each federal electoral district in the Region of Peel for each fiscal year since 2005-2006; (c) how much has been committed under the Infrastructure Stimulus Program for each of the cities in the Region of Peel; and (d) how much has already been spent in the Infrastructure Stimulus Program for each of the cities in the Region of Peel?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Navdeep Bains:  With regard to fees paid by the government: (a) how much does the government pay in merchant fees for accepting credit cards for government services, broken down by fee type and program area; (b) how much does the government pay in transaction fees for processing debit cards for government services, broken down by fee type and program area; (c) what are the details of agreements signed between the government and credit and debit card processing companies, including all terms, contracts and commitments; (d) what is the total cost of agreements signed between the government and credit and debit card processing companies; and (e) what does the government pay to banks in service fees, broken down by fee type and program area?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Jack Harris:  With regard to search and rescue (SAR) operations: (a) how many SAR operation reports have been produced since 1980 by the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Halifax in accordance with chapter nine of the National Search and Rescue Manual; (b) since 1980, what incidents warranted a SAR operation report; (c) what have been the lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations from each report and what recommendations were adopted from each report; (d) what have been the details of the SAR operation from each report, including a summary of significant decisions and timelines; (e) what is the criteria for warranting a SAR operation report; (f) what are the other methods of documenting SAR operations in the Atlantic region that have been used since 1980; and (g) what are the names of the comprehensive studies conducted by the Canadian Forces in 2003 and 2005 on the location of search and rescue assets, as referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Defence on October 21, 2009, during Adjournment Proceedings in the House of Commons?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to address the issue of private member's bill, Bill C-471, standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
As the House knows, the Conservatives have raised concerns on this issue in the House arguing that the bill needs a royal recommendation. The government contends that the repeal of the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act, or PSECA for short, requires a royal recommendation because delegating jurisdiction to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to oversee public sector pay equity complaints is “essentially a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations”. We take exception to this argument on two grounds.
First, this repeal is a restoration of the status quo. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal have been charged with these precise responsibilities for nearly a quarter century. This repeal hardly constitutes a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations. They have the expertise and resources necessary to continue to undertake these responsibilities in the short term.
Second, the PSECA has not yet come into force, meaning that Bill C-471's repeal of that legislation would have limited impact on the ability of either the Public Service Labour Relations Board or the Canadian Human Rights Commission to carry out procedures relating to pay equity complaints.
The government further argues that Bill C-471 represents a cost increase to the treasury but nowhere in the 2009 budget does the government indicate that the new PSECA represents a cost savings. It is difficult to evaluate cost implications when the government provided no such information in its own policy change.
Bill C-471 calls on the Government of Canada to ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place by a specific date. The creation of statutory oversight agencies simply constitutes the creation of a framework under which a proper, proactive federal pay equity system could function. Expenditure of public moneys and liability of the Crown need not be considered in the creation of such a timeline. The framework costs nothing.
I am reminded of two rulings made in 2006 that dealt with a royal recommendation in which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled on both occasions that there was no need for a royal recommendation.
Members will remember your decision, Mr. Speaker, on Paul Martin's private member's bill, Bill C-292 regarding the Kelowna accord, where you explained:
 ...the Kelowna accord tabled in the House sheds light on the plan of action, but it is not clear whether the accord could be implemented through an appropriation act, through amendments to existing acts, or through the establishment of new acts. From my reading, implementation would appear to require various legislative proposals. 
Also, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling dated September 27, 2006, regarding private member's Bill C-288 on the Kyoto protocol, which had been brought forward by my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier, you indicated:
 Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation. 
It would be the responsibility of the government to enact these changes in a manner that does not put a new charge on the treasury. We cannot prejudge how exactly this framework would be established. Once the government establishes the pay equity framework proposed in this bill, cost implications would become factors to consider. As this bill does not actually enact such changes, a royal recommendation is unnecessary.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a new point of order.
Earlier, we listened to the Minister of the Environment confess that his employee had discussions with Mr. Rahim Jaffer about project proposals. I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the environment minister submit his documentation—the documents he used, those that were submitted to him—to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In response to the point of order raised by the member for Hull--Aylmer, it is the Chair's understanding that the minister has the right to table documents if he wishes but does not have any obligations to do so.
The hon. member for Hull--Aylmer.
[Interjection]
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that I may ask for unanimous consent for the minister to table the documents. Is that right?
Taking into consideration the intention of transparency that this House has, it would just be the proper thing for the minister to do. The Minister of the Environment brought out these documents and brought out the fact that he wanted to have a point of order to explain his position, and that is fine. However, we are seeking transparency, presumably at all times in this chamber, so this is a good opportunity for him to participate in this transparency.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In response to the hon. member for Hull--Aylmer, it is my understanding that what he is seeking is the unanimous consent of the House that would require the minister to table those documents. Is that correct?
 It is my understanding that that request goes beyond the scope of what the member can raise in a point of order. I am sure this decision will be reviewed and, if there is any change, I trust that the Speaker will return to the House with that.
Hon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to help clear this up. The Minister of the Environment was very explicit during his short statement on his point of order following question period. He did not quote from any documents. Perhaps that is creating some confusion in the mind of the member opposite. Therefore. if he did not quote from documents, he is not required to table them here in the House of Commons if requested.
 Mr. Speaker, you will recall from the point of order made by the Minister of the Environment that he has done the right thing. At his earliest opportunity, he rose in the chamber and drew attention to this issue. He stated unequivocally that he has forwarded the documents to the Commissioner of Lobbying and to the Ethics Commissioner.
I do not know what more can be done. Obviously the Minister of the Environment has done the right thing.
[Interjection]
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for explaining that the minister was not quoting from any document. I was under the impression that he was reading from a document but he may not have been quoting.
As far as doing this at the best opportunity, we have been talking about this for the past two weeks. The minister must have known or should have known earlier than today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  I will restate what I said before, that this will be brought to the attention of the Speaker and, if there is any change, he will return to the House with that change.

Government Orders
Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders)[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I believe the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges has 17 minutes remaining.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I began my speech before question period. However, I would like to take a moment to inform the House that during this session of Parliament, an Allied veteran had to fight a long, hard battle to be admitted to Ste. Anne's Hospital. Mr. Speaker, you have heard various comments from several members here in the House. Some of my colleagues have fought for and debated the case of Dennis George Vialls in this House. He was a soldier who fought in the second world war and was even decorated for his service. Since I have the floor, I would like to take a moment to inform the House that Mr. Vialls passed away this morning. On behalf of my colleagues in the House, I would like to express our sincere condolences to his family. Lest we forget.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening. I will now continue my speech.
Before question period, I was saying that people who work in community organizations are also our front line workers. It was important that as a society, we develop an intervention plan centred on rehabilitation and prevention. That is what I was saying before question period. We needed to stick to some basic principles. History has proven us right: the youth crime rate in Quebec dropped considerably and in 2002, Quebec's approach enabled it to achieve the lowest rate of juvenile crime and recidivism in Canada since 1985. That is quite a result.
For purely ideological reasons, the Conservative government is trying once again to change the essence of the Young Offenders Act. Although Bill C-4 has been watered down somewhat compared to the previous bill, the Bloc Québécois would like to take the time to thoroughly examine each of its clauses.
Despite the changes, it is important to point out that Quebec has always had a good approach to dealing with young offenders. In 2003, Quebec's Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court both struck down a provision that required teens to prove that they deserved to be sentenced as young offenders. In other words, young offenders were automatically given the strictest possible punishment. They then had to argue against such sentencing and prove that they deserved a lesser sentence. The legislation did not take into account young offenders' records.
In Quebec, we believe that tackling poverty is one good way to prevent young people from committing crimes. When they do commit crimes, sentencing in Quebec takes all of the circumstances into account. Rehabilitation is integral to our morals and values, and everyone in Quebec knows that it has a positive effect. 
To properly understand our stance on Bill C-4, we have to take a closer look at what the Conservative government is proposing. The bill introduced in the House would make public perception a factor in the sentencing of young offenders to deter other young people who may be likely to commit crimes. Because of this desire to make examples of individual cases, prosecutors will have to justify any decision not to call for adult sentencing in cases involving serious crimes. This would turn things upside down by taking it for granted that young offenders should receive adult sentences regardless of their records.
In addition, Bill C-4, as written, would give judges more leeway to release the names of young offenders found guilty of violent crimes and sentenced as youths. This provision could have terrible consequences for young people whose names would appear on a public list. Once these offenders have paid their debt to society, people may still single them out and ostracize them. That kind of rejection would have an extremely negative effect on their rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation is a long-term undertaking with a strong track record in Quebec.
Judith Laurier, a spokesperson for the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, said: 
 By lifting the publication ban, we end up in a situation where the young person may be singled out and may have problems with rehabilitation and reintegration. That is the key item [in the bill] that we really disagree with. 
Are we to jeopardize the work accomplished with young offenders in order to satisfy Conservative ideology? I do not think so. We must instead give youth the opportunity to start their lives over again and regain their confidence.
The Bloc Québécois does serve a purpose in the House of Commons. Bill C-4 is a watered-down version of what the Conservative government had proposed in 2007. That is why the Bloc Québécois wants a detailed study of Bill C-4, the Conservatives' proposal to toughen legislation on minors who commit crimes.
As I was saying in my speech, giving adult sentences to young people who have been tried as minors is not the best way to prevent serious crime—it is the worst.
In Quebec, we are acting instead of reacting. Those who work with youth in Quebec believe that society must intervene in areas such as poverty, inequality and exclusion in order to prevent the youth crime rate from increasing. They must make young people aware of the consequences their actions might have. 
Quebec's youth protection branch and youth centres have some serious reservations about Bill C-4. These agencies have developed programs that directly involve young offenders in their rehabilitation. When it comes to young offenders, a number of groups work together on the same case. In Quebec, each case is dealt with according to its specific characteristics.
Quebec has long understood the importance of rehabilitation. In 2002, the Montérégie regional services comprised more than 300 active groups. One of their missions was to provide specialized case management services within the framework of the Young Offenders Act. To do so, they brought together the community agencies and establishments involved in order to provide an effective program for young offenders.
Another example of this is found in the Chaudière—Appalaches region where a system has been set up in cooperation with various alternative justice agencies in order to lead young offenders to a better understanding of their actions by incorporating victim reactions into the rehabilitation centre program. These techniques have been tested and found successful in Quebec. Youth centres, social workers and lawyers all agree that the Quebec model is an example to the entire world.
 We are investing in rehabilitation and social reintegration. It is better for a young offender to spend time with intervention experts than hardened criminals in prison. A young criminal can become a good citizen if he has the right services.
This week, I spoke with the police officers from my riding, from Quebec and from the Canadian Police Association who came to meet with us. They do not agree with the minister. These police officers, who work with young people in the community, believe in rehabilitation.
Quebec is following some 9,800 young people who need help and services. There are close to 70 in my own riding. Many of them have been rehabilitated and I want to thank those who have helped them. In most cases, the police will have no further contact with these youths who committed a minor offence. They will not see them again because they will not know them. These young people will have taken a better path in life.
We believe that the Conservative government is insisting on giving adult sentences to young people tried as minors. The Bloc Québécois agrees that the bill has been improved somewhat and the government deserves some credit. However, my current criticisms of the bill are that it does not give enough credit to rehabilitation and its effect on Quebec's youth and that this model will not be fully utilized in the rest of Canada.
We have explained a number of times that, if the government took into consideration the recommendations made by Quebec stakeholders, the Young Offenders Act would have much more positive and long-lasting effects on Quebec and Canadian society.
As for Sébastien's Law, which would toughen the law regarding minors, I must unfortunately say that I believe it contains major flaws. 
Giving adult sentences to young offenders as a deterrent is not a good way to rehabilitate offenders. I have had proof of this from community organizations, lawyers, youth centre workers and other individuals who work with these young people in the second life they are given.
Giving the public access to the names of young people convicted of serious offences may be detrimental to their development and reintegration into the community. Quebec is held up as an example in other countries because of the way it deals with young offenders. The Bloc Québécois wants to study the bill, but we refuse to amend the legislation to conform to a right-wing Conservative ideology. Society must be proactive, not reactive, to eliminate serious youth crime. That is why Quebec's approach involves setting up programs to help eliminate poverty, exclusion and social inequality.
Obviously, the Bloc Québécois knows that young people commit crimes and must answer for those crimes, including in the courts. But the measures brought forward have got to have a real positive impact on crime; they have got to be more than just rhetoric or fear-mongering. 
Our youth criminal justice system must be different and distinct from the adult system. The purpose of the youth system should be to reinforce young offenders' respect for social values. Organizations like Quebec's youth protection branch and youth centres have succeeded in creating effective intervention programs in cooperation with various community stakeholders. Quebec has adopted a model based on social reintegration and rehabilitation, and we believe in that model.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, near the end of her intervention, I think the member made a plea to the House to consider other priorities, which are related in terms of crime prevention such as the reduction of poverty and the linkages between poverty and crime. The last time that we had a recession if we were to look at the charts tracking unemployment and property crime, they tracked almost perfectly. So that should tell the government that there are many approaches to crime prevention.
Unfortunately, when the bill talks about prevention, it talks about prevention with programs after the young offender has committed an offence. It appears that a bill such as this cannot really go forward with that kind of an approach to crime prevention without having other legislation directed at crime prevention, which is a more efficient dollar spent. I wonder if the member would like to comment.
[Interjection]
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, I just spent a day as a delegate at the Millennium Summit, where we spoke about poverty. Before question period, I mentioned that I had participated in a one-day forum on homelessness with youth from my riding.
What the member has brought up is rather important. I do not have the statistics here in front of me. However, every time the economy slows down or we experience difficulties, people have lost their jobs as a result. I do not have the statistics here, but I am sure that it has serious repercussions, which explains the increase in crime.
However, if we took a look at the stories of the young people who commit theft and petty crimes, we would see that there are reasons to explain why they ended up in that situation.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges for her speech. Today, I heard several times that the Quebec model could serve as an example for the rest of Canada. I would like the member to tell us what lessons the federal government could learn from the Quebec model.
[Interjection]
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, the government could start by recognizing the positive effects rehabilitation can have on young people. It should also listen to what police officers in Quebec have to say about this issue. It should listen to lawyers and people who work with young offenders to hear what they have to say, and it should respect the opinion of professionals in Quebec.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about calling this Sébastien's Law, since Sébastien Lacasse's murderer was tried in adult court. He received the maximum sentence, life in prison. It is difficult to imagine a more serious sentence. I think this shows that the current legislation works well and that, even though it favours rehabilitation in some cases, it is capable of producing appropriate sentences.
What does she think of this message?
[Interjection]
Meili Faille: I loved my colleague's comments. I think he is touched that before question period I acknowledged the excellent and eloquent speech he made yesterday on this topic. I urge those watching at home to read my colleague's speech.
I asked myself the same question. What was the government's real intent in naming this bill, since the current legislation works well? I think in committee we could suggest that the name be changed, because it has nothing to do with the government's intent.
As my colleague said, the murderer of Sébastien Lacasse, one of my colleague's constituents, received the harshest sentence, and was recognized and tried in court as an adult. Nothing in this bill, as it stands, would have applied.
France Bonsant: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been talking about social reintegration. I think that this bill makes it is easier to imprison young offenders than to help them. Would releasing the names of these young men not make it easier for organized crime groups to recruit them, in the knowledge that they tried to change but have a criminal record?
Does she think that if these names are published, the mafia or other organized crime groups will be more inclined to recruit these young people?
[Interjection]
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague is asking that question. The young people at the forum talked to me about this. They said that if the bill allowed young people's names to be published, they would be exposed and could then be recruited by criminal gangs or people with malicious intentions.
These youths have come a long way. I believe that the professionals who have worked with them have given them a second life. I spoke about a second life earlier. These young people have a right to be rehabilitated, to be reintegrated into society and to succeed. I wish them a brighter future. I will stand with them and support them on the path to this future.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, earlier there was a speech by one of the members, which referred to some statistic that about 40% to 50% of the inmates in the prisons across Canada suffer from what is now called fetal alcohol spectrum disorders or alcohol-related birth defects. 
If that is indeed the case, and this is an incurable but preventable affliction, there should be something in the legislation dealing with youth criminal justice issues to address those individuals for whom rehabilitation is not possible because of brain damage. There should be that other option of the courts and provincial jurisdictions to provide supports to those families and those individuals as to how to cope and to deal with permanent brain damage.
I wonder if the member is aware of any interventions or initiatives in Quebec in this regard.
[Interjection]
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, the question of mental health is another major issue. It is not that I do not want to answer this question, but I would like the member to raise this point in committee when this bill is being studied. Mental health is also an important issue.
In terms of their stories and appropriate intervention strategies, each case is looked at individually and different professionals do everything they can to rehabilitate the young person through an agreement or by taking action. If that is not possible, we could hear from professionals in this area. I would like to hear testimony from professionals about the strategies and other options that exist.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. To review, this bill contains numerous amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the youth justice regime, including changes to the general and sentencing principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
As our critic has indicated, Liberals will be supporting it at second reading and sending it to committee for further debate. I believe very seriously that it needs extensive debate in committee and the calling in of witnesses to look at some of the impacts. Although there are some good points in the bill, some of which I will go through, it raises some serious concerns about previous improvements that were made to the youth criminal justice system.
In the remarks by my colleague from Halifax West in the House on this bill, he summed it up about right in only around 25 words. He said:
 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. 
I thought that was an appropriate comment because it seems to be where the changes in this act are really leading. It is so often all about penalty with the government and never about rehabilitation.
In our ridings and all across the country, and I certainly saw a lot of this when I was solicitor general, we see young people in trouble. Is it always all their fault? Yes, they do get in trouble, but some come from seriously broken homes, some may have gotten on drugs and got in trouble, some did not have a chance in life at all. By throwing them in jail and throwing away the key, this country is losing potential. 
Yes, they got in trouble, but it is not just about penalties. It is about a social safety net, daycare programs, child care programs, literacy programs, education programs and working with young people to try to prevent them from getting into trouble. Young people have tremendous economic opportunity to benefit the country and themselves and raise families and so on.
My point is that we have to be very careful that we do not get on this mantra to build more jails, put them in jail, throw away the key and forget about rehabilitation and other social programs that can make a difference in people's lives in terms of preventing crime in the first place. We have lost too many lives in this country as a result of governments not doing enough in other areas to assist people.
There are elements of this bill that appear to favour punishment more than rehabilitation. We in the Liberal Party have serious concerns about the bill, which presents sweeping changes to the youth criminal justice system itself. While we support serious consequences for people who commit serious crimes, we believe that youth must be treated differently from adults.
As my colleague from Halifax West said in his remarks, this bill goes to the heart of what the government's mentality is when it comes to justice. It is a justice system that is based more on penalties than rehabilitation.
I would ask Canadians who may pay attention to these debates that, in terms of our justice system as a whole, in terms of our country as a whole, as we compare ourselves with the United States, where do we feel safer walking on the streets? In Canada or in the United States? I think if we asked 1,000 Canadians, 998 of them would say any place in Canada.
Yet, when we look at the two justice systems, the United States incarcerates somewhere around 690 or 700 people per 100,000 and Canada incarcerates 106 or 107 per 100,000.
We incarcerate less people, but people feel safer on our streets. Yet, the government wants us to go to the U.S. system of justice. That is what it is basically trying to do, and that is just not the way to go.
In the youth criminal justice system, we need to emphasize prevention and rehabilitation rather than just penalties.
Basically, the government's approach is to throw them in jail and throw away the key. In fact, even within the prison system itself, the government is withdrawing itself from good programs that rehabilitate people--
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Why?
Wayne Easter:  Why is questionable.
What the government is really doing within the prison system itself, it is closing down prison farms.
I am a farmer. There are several members here who are farmers. We all know how wonderful farmers are, working with livestock, growing crops, and how rehabilitative that is. 
The government has announced it is going to close all the prison farms in Canada. It makes absolutely no sense at all. So my colleague, the critic for public safety, and I toured those farms. We were out west at the one outside of Winnipeg. We were at the Frontenac Institution, in Kingston, which has a marvellous dairy herd and a good egg operation. We were at the Pittsburgh Institution in Joyceville, which has an abattoir and a greenhouse. The greenhouse is already closed down. And we were at the Westmoreland Institution in Dalhousie, New Brunswick, which has a wonderful dairy herd and egg-laying operation.
The Conservatives have made a lot of crazy decisions as a government over there, but closing down prison farms just makes absolutely no sense at all. 
We had a couple of committee hearings. The sad part about those committee hearings is that we did not get hardly any answers from CORCAN or government representatives. I will make a couple of comments about what others have said, just to fill members in on the issue. The reason I am mentioning prison farms in the context of the young offenders act is because it goes to the attitude of the current government that it is all about penalities, not about rehabilitation.
On prison farms in both New Brunswick and Ontario I have seen young offenders, well, they are below 35 years of age, so, they are fairly young people. One individual was an older gentleman, who went into the system when he was very young. He has been in that prison system for 31 years. He said that he was a bad fellow, that he did lots of crime, and that he was a bad fellow even within the prison system. The only time he really became a human being is about four years ago, when he happened to get moved to the prison farm at the Frontenac operation.
The dairy herd is called the Pen Farm, a herd that was established at the turn of the previous century, a herd that is in the top 20% of production in Canada. When people walk into that dairy barn, they look at the herd and they see the quality of cattle. They see the care and attention that inmates are giving those cattle. They are actually making equipment to assist downer cows.
My point about this individual and what he said to me is, “I never became a real human being until I got here to this farm to work with cattle”. It has a tremendous rehabilitative impact.
Again, the Government of Canada is throwing that opportunity away. Just like what it is doing in this bill, it is throwing the opportunity away to make young people better people, to find the good qualities in them, and make them productive citizens in Canadian society again, not throw them in jail and throw away the key, where eventually when they do get out, all it has done is make better criminals of them. We need a system outside of the prison system to work with people, young people. We also need a system within the prison system to work with folks who have done crime and are paying a penalty. We need to rehabilitate them.
However, the thing that angered me most on the prison farm side of the equation was the attitude of the former minister of public safety. He is President of the Treasury Board today, but he did make it clear why facilities were to be closed. It was the opinion of the minister, and no doubt the Conservative government as well, that the funding for these facilities and the farming skills acquired “could be more adequately redirected to programs where people would actually gain employable skills”.
This is what we heard at the public safety committee with CORCAN and Correctional Service Canada about prison farms. They were saying that those farm skills are not as important anymore. One of the members of the Conservative Party tried to make the point that only 14 people came out of that system and got jobs on farms. What about all the others who went through the prison farm system? They got jobs. Not every lawyer goes into law. What they learned in that prison system on the farms was discipline, getting up on time, doing work, and managing their time. They learned farming skills, welding skills and other skills. They learned all kinds of skills that could be used in many occupations.
I am the agriculture critic and I can understand why a members over there would say they do not value farm skills because we know they do not even value farmers in this country by the lack of programs they are putting in place, but that is a subject for another day.
Just a note on the Frontenac Institution before I move back to the act itself. The Frontenac facility has been described in the agriculture media in the following way:
 It ranks in the top 20 per cent of Ontario’s dairy herds for management, is quick to embrace new technologies and make them work. It won Frontenac County’s most improved herd award in 2005 with a jump of 147 points and supplies milk and eggs to Corrections Canada institutions in Ontario and Quebec. And if a recent report is to believed, it is among six prison farms in Canada which not only aren’t making money, but aren’t supplying inmates with the skills they need upon release. Its abattoir services 300 local farmers, processes 60 animals per week and supplies 150 local butcher shops. 
That is a productive operation. It teaches those inmates wonderful skills, and for the Government of Canada to be closing them down makes no sense at all, but it comes back to my original point that the government does not care about rehabilitation. The government only cares about penalties and it is actually going to lose. Once those farms are gone they are gone forever.
There are many questions that have been raised by even the people in Kingston, where the government wants to close that institution down, so it can sell off the assets to pay the massive debt that it has imposed on our children and grandchildren as a government. Or is it looking to build a super jail there and go the way that the United States has gone where we will build more jails in Canada and incarcerate more people, and adopt a system that has been found in the United States not to work.
Let me come back to the bill. The major provisions of Bill C-4 are articulating that the protection of society is a primary goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, there is no problem with that; altering pretrial detention rules to make it simpler for judges to keep violent and repeat offenders in custody prior to trial; adding specific deterrence and denunciation of the sentencing principles for youth; expanding the definition of what constitutes a “violent offence”; allowing for more serious sentences for youth with a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions for so-called repeat offenders; requiring the consideration of adult sentences by provincial Crown prosecutors for youth 14 and older, or 16 and older in Quebec, who commit serious offences like murder, attempted murder aggravated sexual assault; and requiring courts to consider lifting publication bans on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences even when youth sentences are applied. Those are basically some of the areas and some of those points we agree with.
However, on the negative side, and this is unfortunate. The government has been in power four and a half years now and each day of the week that it is there it begins to wear on Canadians more and more. It is just like an old machine getting rusty, that is for sure.
It is unfortunate that what the government has shown over its four years in government is that it would rather create jail spaces than child care spaces. There is no evidence to indicate that jailing more people works as a deterrent.
That is what I said earlier when I compared it to the United States. This analysis builds on what has been provided by other experts and the Conservatives have chosen to ignore. Penalties in and of themselves are not the answer. We need systems of social programs that assist people, that help families in trouble. We also need them within the jail system itself.
This plan, along with some of the government's other so-called law and justice proposals, will lead to higher incarceration rates and increased costs for Canada's justice system without a significant improvement in Canadian safety.
I will close with a couple of quotes from others who know the system well because I believe they make the point. Rick Linden, who is a criminology professor at the University of Manitoba, states:
 It's designed more for the political effect than to actually have much affect on crime. 
That goes right to the mantra of the government. It is all about messaging. I believe we have called it a culture of deceit in question period just the odd time. That is what it is about with the government. It is all about messaging. Do not let the facts get in the way of a good story. It is all about messaging.
There is lots more that could be said about the defaults of this bill, but I will close and turn to questions.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it seemed that I was listening to the member ad infinitum.
I thought we were talking about Bill C-4 for a while, but he strayed off to prison farms. What he does not realize is that very few people are finding work in the animal husbandry business because, as he and I both know, farmers are struggling.
My riding is home to Canada's largest federal penitentiary, and I can tell the member that a lot of good things are happening with the people who are serving time there. They are learning trades. Some of them are actually getting their ticket as sandblasters for instance. In some cases they are finding jobs before they leave prison. They are learning a trade while they are in jail. They are getting an education so that they can get a better job to provide for themselves and their families. I could go on and on.
The member for Malpeque should avail himself of the statements of Professor Martin of the University of the Fraser Valley who appeared before the justice committee. He said that sentencing does provide a deterrent.
I wonder if the member for Malpeque could tell the House when the protection of society should be given consideration when sentencing young offenders. Is he of the opinion that the protection of society should be continued?
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, in response to the last point, the protection of society is extremely important and it should be given consideration all of the time in fact.
However, there are many ways of considering that protection of society. One of them is having governments at both the federal and provincial levels work on the preventive side, providing child care and daycare, which the Conservative government took away, for instance.
The other way to protect society is to do what was suggested earlier, have rehabilitation programs in place so that people in the prison system come out rehabilitated. What the government is emulating is the system in the United States which is to build more jails and throw people into them.
The member for Northumberland—Quinte West talked about other skills. They are important. Of course those other skills are important, but what is also important is what people learn by working on the farm.
I know there is a government over there that does not care about farm policy. I believe the member said that farmers are struggling. It is no wonder they are struggling. They are struggling because last year the government spent $900 million less on farm safety programs than it did the year before. The hog industry is in trouble. The potato industry is in trouble. The beef industry is in trouble. We have a government that just does not care.
The Conservatives do not care about farmers any more than they care about the people they throw in prison. It is unacceptable and sad.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised some interesting perspectives on an approach to crime prevention and the related public safety issues.
I want to remind him of a comment by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. His characterization was that the government is not interested in reducing crime, but rather in trying to win votes by using slogans like “We are tough on crime”.
 The member is well aware of what the government has done. We have seen these bills circulating and circulating and then Parliament is prorogued and the government introduces them again at different stages. The government is not really attempting to get any of them through. There does not seem to be a commitment.
I must admit that if a slogan were to be adopted by this place, it should not be a matter of being tough on crime but rather of being smart on crime.
 The member gave some examples of the experience of the United States versus Canada in terms of its incarceration rates, its level of public safety and the quality of crime prevention.
I wonder if the member would care to comment.
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the question goes right to the point of the difference between the official opposition and the current Conservative government which is that we want to be smart on crime. We want to improve bills so that we have less crime, that when the people who commit crime come out of the prison system they are rehabilitated, that within the prison system itself there is the training systems and policies to work with people to make them better and more productive citizens in Canadian society.
The member is absolutely right. He mentioned that the government really is not about reducing crime, but is really about trying to win votes, something we have not heard much of here lately. Some of these bills have been introduced three or four times. It was not the official opposition that prevented them from getting through. It was the Prime Minister himself with his prorogation of Parliament. The Conservatives went to great lengths to try to blame it on the Liberal dominated Senate, but there was only one bill that was slowed down by the Liberal dominated Senate and the government tried to allege all of them were. 
Now we have a Conservative dominated Senate, but the government still has not brought all the bills forward. The Conservatives are still dragging their heels. It comes back to what we talked about earlier, the culture of deceit. They want to be able to find another reason to go to the public to blame those big bad Liberals and try and message that we held them up, when really it is the Prime Minister who prevented them from getting passed and the Conservatives have not even introduced some of them.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member and he talked about anything but Bill C-4 and went off topic continually. 
He talked about this government going after the votes on justice issues. After looking at his comments carefully, he is suggesting Canadians do not know anything about justice issues, that the Liberal Party does not agree with Canadians wanting safer communities. He is suggesting the Liberals know how to be smart about justice issues like two for one credit for violent offences. Canadians said absolutely not and this government changed that. Why would the member call that type of ridiculous attitude toward justice smart and say that Canadians do not know what they are doing about justice issues? Why would he disrespect Canadians in the way that he is doing? He needs to stand up for the victims, not just the offenders.
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Oh my goodness, Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is certainly off the wall today, but it goes to the Conservatives' point about messaging. They want to try and attack the Liberals rather than own up to their own responsibility that they have not dealt effectively with this issue since they came to government.
As I have said, this party on this side of the House does believe in smart policies to deal with crime. We do believe in penalties, but we also believe in pensions and the social side. The government just withdraws all the money it can from social programs whether it is with Status of Women or child care and daycare, whatever it may be. It does not assist the families who need assistance so that youth can be more productive members in society. Instead, the Conservatives go right to the penalty side.
 I had better add in this point because it is an important one. Frank Addario of the Criminal Lawyers' Association said that there is no evidence that more severe punishment does anything to reduce recidivism among youth. He is an individual who should know. What the Government of Canada has to do is listen to some of those folks who work within the system and build better policies around what they say rather than its own attitudes that do not make a lot of sense.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Let me say from the outset that I have very serious concerns about this legislation. That will not come as a surprise to many people given my concerns about the approach of the Conservative government to criminal justice issues generally. I have expressed that concern on many occasions here in the House.
There is a body of opinion, some represented here in the House and more broadly in the community, that the Youth Criminal Justice Act does require some tweaking. It is not an old piece of legislation but it is a piece of legislation that does need attention. There are people who think some minor aspects of it need some attention. However, I think the bill before us goes way beyond tweaking and way beyond fixing the small problems with the act that need attention. The bill contains some very significant changes.
Here is how some of the bill's key provisions have been described.
The bill would make protection of society the primary goal of the act. The bill adds denunciation and deterrence to the sentencing provisions. That is a very significant addition. The bill would require the court to consider lifting the publication ban on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences when youth sentences are given. It is very important to note that the government has also changed the definition of violent offences and serious violent offences in this legislation.
The bill would require police forces to keep records of extrajudicial measures used to deal with young persons in order to make it easier to identify patterns of reoffending. I will speak about that later.
The bill proposes to detain youth charged with a serious offence while he or she awaits a trial.
The bill would allow custody of young persons where they have committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions.
Finally, among other provisions, there is a provision that would require offenders under the age of 18 who are sentenced to custody to be placed in youth facilities only, even if they receive an adult sentence.
The last provision in this legislation is the one that is clearly supportable. It marks a huge turnaround for the Conservatives. It comes after they blew it in the last election when folks in Quebec in particular made it clear that they thought youth should not be doing time in adult prisons. That was a significant issue in the last federal election campaign.
I am concerned, however, that the burden of implementing this provision falls to provincial governments, and the federal government has not indicated if it will assist them to assure it is fully implemented. Without that kind of assistance, it could easily be an empty promise.
Even the best part of this bill, ensuring that youth are not sentenced and serve time in an adult prison, could very well be inoperative without a specific commitment from the government to assist provinces to implement that provision.
I do have very serious questions about other provisions in the bill.
Our justice system has always held that youth must be treated differently with respect to criminal justice issues. Children are not adults. We assume they do not have the same maturity as adults. We know they rarely appreciate the consequences of their actions when they break the law. The distinction between how we deal with adults and youth and child criminals must be maintained and not weakened. This is an important principle of our criminal justice system.
It is particularly true when we limit the rights of children in other ways. For instance, we do not allow them to participate in the democratic process in this country until they are 18. 
If we are treating children as adults in the criminal justice system, we are not giving them a say in developing the rules of that system until they have become an adult. That is an indication of the unfairness of this kind of proposal.
The bill would make a significant change to the goals of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This bill would place protection of society as the primary goal of the act rather than accountability for the youth who are convicted, rather than the promotion of rehabilitation, and rather than support for crime prevention.
There is no doubt that in criminal justice matters the protection of society has to be a key goal, but I believe that by making it the primary goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is a step in the wrong direction.
We must never write off young people. We must do all we can to ensure their rehabilitation after they have committed a crime. We must put the restoration of their relationship with their community after a criminal conviction as they key goal of our youth criminal justice system. If we want a primary goal or a key goal, that is the goal that should be in place.
Placing the protection of society first, especially when the current Conservative government often uses protection of society as a euphemism for being tough on crime and more punitive, runs contrary to what youth criminal justice should be about.
There has been some considerable debate already about this legislation. Here is what a recent Toronto Star editorial says on this issue:
 What Sébastien's Law would do, though, is change the tone of our youth criminal justice system from rehabilitation and reintegration to punishment and public shaming. 
 This is particularly troubling given the likelihood that the bill will do nothing to reduce crime but may, in fact, turn more juvenile offenders into hardened criminals and cost taxpayers plenty to keep them locked up. 
 The government says it will “make protection of society a primary goal of the legislation.” 
 But legal experts argue compellingly that this can't be done by tinkering with our criminal justice system. Harsher sentences, particularly for impulsive and immature young people, do not make offenders think twice about committing crimes, says criminologist and youth-justice expert Nicholas Bala. 
 Contrary to the government's assertions, this view is supported by evidence both here and in the United States, the poster child for tough-on-crime laws that have cost taxpayers billions without actually helping to reduce crime. 
That is what the Toronto Star said in a recent editorial. It has used very strong language to say that the bill is about punishment and public shaming, and not about rehabilitation and reintegration. It is very, very troubling.
Other commentators have also been very critical of the bill. The Montreal Gazette looked at the changes to sentencing that are included in this legislation. It noted in an editorial that it had concerns about the provision that would allow the courts to take into consideration so-called extrajudicial sanctions, and here is what it said on that specific issue:
 A sentencing judge would be allowed, for example, to take into account previous “extra-judicial sanctions”—warnings or referrals to community agencies—that were not subject to a court hearing and did not result in a formal criminal conviction. 
 By their very nature, extra-judicial measures do not involve a careful sifting of evidence, or even the opportunity for a young person to mount a proper defence. To base a prison sentence on such informal interventions is contrary to the normal course of justice. The very goal of informal sanctions is to give young people another chance. No family would go along with extra-judicial measures if there is a risk they will be used against a youngster at any time in the future. In one fell swoop an approach that has amply proven its worth could be undermined. 
That is what the Montreal Gazette, in an editorial, said about the whole issue of how the government is proposing to use extrajudicial sanctions when it comes to sentencing a young person. I think again it is very, very strong language and very troubling.
Overall, the Montreal Gazette gave a big thumbs-down to the bill. In the editorial, it concluded:
 The thrust of this bill, unfortunately, is to move away from rehabilitation and toward retribution. 
It also said:
 This legislation still appears to be driven by ideology and political showmanship, not by research or common sense. 
It says that it should go back to the drawing board.
That is another editorial board of an important Canadian newspaper that has looked at this legislation and in very strong language has criticized it and said, in fact, that it should be withdrawn because of the serious problems.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I must interrupt the member for Burnaby—Douglas at this time. He will have 11 minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.
Points of OrderThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on December 10, 2009 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
 I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Joliette for his remarks concerning the bill.
In presenting his concerns with respect to Bill C-343, the parliamentary secretary stated that, in his view, the bill infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown. Specifically, he pointed out that the bill seeks to modify the Canada Labour Code to permit employees to take leave without pay for a number of family-related reasons. He explained that the bill would also amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to allow these employees to receive employment insurance benefits while on such leave for a period of up to 52 weeks, thus resulting in new government spending.
In his intervention, the member for Joliette argued that a royal recommendation is not required since the funds in the employment insurance account consist of premiums paid by both workers and employers and do not constitute government funds.
The Chair has examined the bill carefully, and it is quite clear that Bill C-343 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. The argument put forth by the member for Joliette regarding whether or not funds contributed to the employment insurance fund constitute public revenue was addressed in a Speaker's ruling delivered on November 16, 2009, at Debates page 6751, where it stated:
 In essence, all monies received by the government, regardless of source, are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and become public funds, that is, funds of the Crown. The Constitution Act of 1867 and Standing Order 79 apply to these funds. Thus, a bill proposing a new or increased expenditure of public funds, that is, an appropriation, requires a royal recommendation. 
 The employment insurance program operates under this framework. The funds in question are public funds and their management is subject to the financial initiative of the Crown. 
By extending benefits to employees taking an unpaid leave from work for family-related reasons, Bill C-343 is increasing the expenditures under that act. These expenditures would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1). 
Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a usual practice of the House with regard to points of order. One of them, on a question of whether a matter is a point of order, has to do with whether it is inconsistent with our usual practices of the House. I would like to refer to an incident that occurred at the end of question period prior to routine proceedings when the Minister of the Environment rose and stated, and I am quoting from the blues: 
“I rise on a point of order relating to a matter before the House and before one of its committees. I would like to inform the House that on Tuesday evening of this week, April 20, I was advised that in April 2009 a member of my staff in Calgary, Mr. Scott Wenger, was approached by Mr. Rahim Jaffer. Their discussion involved representations by Mr. Jaffer on behalf of a company. On my instructions Mr. Wenger has forwarded the details of those discussions and the documents relating to them to the Commissioner of Lobbying. The material was transmitted late yesterday, April 22. The same material is being transmitted today to the Ethics Commissioner. No contract was ever awarded to the company. I was not involved in those discussions in April 2009. Nor was I aware that they took place. As I have previously stated publicly, the only discussion I have had with Mr. Jaffer in the past one and a half years consisted of a 30 second discussion in this very building in early 2009, when I told him that I was not responsible for the administration of the so-called green funds. I felt it was my obligation, Mr. Speaker, to so advise the House today.” 
What the minister rose to do was not to raise a point of order, but rather, in my view, to make a ministerial statement, which is a specific item under routine proceedings. Mr. Speaker, as you know, ministerial statements are usually accompanied by a notice to the other parties so that representatives of the other parties can make due representations and equivalent statements in the House related to the matter of the ministerial statement.
My point of order is that I believe the matter that occurred was in fact not a point of order, but rather, a ministerial statement, that it should be corrected and that the opposition parties should be given the opportunity to make representations to this place with regard to the statement by the Minister of the Environment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair appreciates the point of order raised by the member for Mississauga South. It will be considered and the Speaker will return to the House on this matter if necessary.
It being 1:37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Canada Labour Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-343 introduced by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. 
This private member's bill would provide leave and benefits to federally regulated workers whose family members have been victims of crime. It calls upon Parliament to amend both the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act.
All members of this House want to support victims of crime and their families. The question is whether or not this bill provides as comprehensive a solution as our Conservative government believes that it should. As mentioned by the parliamentary secretary previously, our government cannot support this bill as it currently is drafted. To do so would be to support a bill that lacks the scope to address the full nature of this very important issue.
To the families who, as victims of violence, are struggling with the loss of a loved one, to the children who have suffered serious injury as the direct result of a criminal offence, to those who have had to live through the nightmare of a child going missing, and to those who have lost a spouse, a common-law partner or child to suicide, as a father to four children and a grandfather of eight grandchildren, I personally empathize with them and I sincerely recognize their pain and hardship.
Looking after the needs of citizens who fall victim to crime is a priority of this government. It is a pledge we made in the 2007 Speech from the Throne indicating that:
 In addition to tougher laws, our Government will provide targeted support to communities and victims. 
In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, we gave a fair bit of detail about what we plan to do this spring. We said:
 Our Government will also offer tangible support to innocent victims of crime and their families. It will give families of murder victims access to special benefits under Employment Insurance. It will introduce legislation to give employees of federally regulated industries the right to unpaid leave if they or members of their families are victimized by crime. And our Government will introduce legislation to make the victim surcharge mandatory, to better fund victim services. 
Through budget 2010, the government proposed facilitating access to EI sickness benefits for eligible workers who have lost a family member as the result of a crime. To further demonstrate our government's commitment to ensure that the men and women who put themselves in harm's way have the programs and services they need, this measure will also be extended to immediate family members of military personnel who died resulting from a service-related injury.
Already our government has taken decisive steps to better support victims of crime. This includes investing $52 million over four years to provide programs and services that deal directly with the needs of these victims. We also created the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which is promoting the concerns of victims and ensuring that victims can gain access to federal services and programs. It is very clear that supporting victims of crime is consistent with the government's overall strategy to tackle crime and to strengthen the security of all Canadians.
I will take a moment to highlight the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code and the EI Act that provide access to certain types of leave for victims of crime. 
For example, under the Canada Labour Code, a federally regulated employee who is a victim of crime or whose family member is a victim of crime may be entitled to unpaid leave under one of the current leave provisions, including sick leave, compassionate care leave and bereavement leave.
Also, certain employees may be eligible to receive EI benefits through the EI Act. Although the EI program does not provide benefits explicitly for those affected by violent crimes, persons affected in this situation are eligible for up to a maximum of 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits if they are unable to work due to health reasons. That includes stress caused by the injury or loss of a loved one.
In addition, EI compassionate care benefits are available to eligible workers who take a temporary absence from work when an individual considered to be a member of that family falls gravely ill and is at significant risk of death.
Unlike what is proposed in Bill C-343, although well-intended, these measures that we just suggested apply to more than just workers in the federal domain. They apply to all workers in insurable employment, and thanks to our government's recently introduced fairness for the self-employed bill, the special EI benefits I have outlined, including sickness and compassionate care benefits, have also been extended to self-employed individuals who opt into the program.
It is also important to point out that the provinces and territories are largely responsible for the administration of justice. All provinces, except Newfoundland and Labrador, have some form of compensation program for victims of crime and their families. While the compensation available under these provincial programs varies from province to province, one type of compensation that is commonly available is for lost earnings. It is also worth noting that several of these compensation programs are more generous than what could be offered through the EI program and provide more broad-based coverage.
I would point to the good example that Quebec has set for the rest of Canada in the comprehensive way it approaches supporting victims of crime. 
This legislation sets a strong benchmark to compare to other legislation. I believe the member who introduced this bill was headed in the right direction when she borrowed heavily from that particular text in Quebec.
Our government has sincere sympathy for the family members of victims of violent crime. Our legislative record demonstrates that we are continuing to work in this area to improve services and to improve support.
Although I and our party cannot support Bill C-343 as it is currently drafted, I respect the good intentions of the member opposite. However, as I have indicated in my remarks today, the government believes in a more comprehensive approach and such an approach can only be accomplished through a different piece of legislation and that legislation will be forthcoming from this government.
I can tell members that introducing new leave provisions, including unpaid leave for victims of crime, will be a part of that proposal, as it was promised in the Speech from the Throne.
I would echo the call of the parliamentary secretary for members of this House to be patient for a short while and wait for the proposal of the government to be tabled in this place. Members can then choose which proposal is more comprehensive in its approach on this particular important issue.
We all want to support the victims of crime and I believe all parties will be pleased when they see the measures that the government will be unveiling in the days ahead.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to take part in the debate at second reading of Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave).
This bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead has four components. First, it amends the Canada Labour Code to allow federal government employees to take unpaid leave from work under very exceptional circumstances: if their spouse, common-law partner or child has died during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence; if their minor child has gone missing; if their spouse, common-law partner or child commits suicide; or if their minor child is unable to carry on regular activities, in other words lead a relatively normal life, following the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence. 
In addition to granting unpaid leave, the bill also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these same employees to receive benefits while on leave for a limited period.
There is no provision in the Canada Labour Code that would allow a federal employee to take unpaid leave for the loss of a loved one under circumstances such as the ones I just mentioned.
One of the legislator's roles is to review and reinterpret legislation in light of society's ever-changing needs. In this case, we are concerned about the needs of families that have been struck by tragedy: the death or suicide of a spouse or child. Moreover, we believe that victims of crime who are left with serious injuries need the support of their immediate family.
Our society has undergone huge changes in recent years. Spouses and parents usually work outside the home and have a fixed schedule. We know that women and mothers commonly work both at home and at paid jobs, so they can seldom take time off work, even for a reason as important as wanting to mourn with their family.
Other changes have also left their mark on our society. Our legislation has always been designed to punish the perpetrators of crime. But until quite recently, the plight of victims of crime has received little or no attention. For some time now, government has altered its perception of what causes crime and what constitutes appropriate punishment, but it has done so unevenly.
As part of this humanistic approach to crime, government is now focusing on victims' rights. This bill is designed to help victims' immediate family members by providing them with financial support for a given time. The fact that it has been introduced here is an indication that our employment insurance program and our labour code no longer meet the needs of Canadians, the vast majority of whom now hold paying jobs.
The sudden disappearance of a child or spouse is a traumatic event. Even though there is very little we can do to help a crime victim's family, it is clear that not having to worry about losing one's job and having access to employment insurance benefits can offer some relief.
When the Liberals were in power, they proposed providing financial support to families through compassionate leave. The goal was to help employees, regardless of whom they worked for, who were forced to leave work to take care of a seriously ill or dying relative. Since January 2004, eligible workers have received six weeks of employment insurance benefits for compassionate care leave along with eight weeks of job protection under the Canada Labour Code. Such individuals could leave work temporarily without worrying about losing pay or the job itself if a parent, spouse or child was dying or seriously ill.
Along the same lines, Bill C-343 seeks to help families in certain extremely exceptional cases for “family reasons” by providing them with employment insurance benefits and protection under the Canada Labour Code. However, this is only for federal government employees. It makes sense for the Government of Canada, as an employer, to set an example for businesses in Canada.
This bill should be studied in committee to give the House an opportunity to review and rationalize the entire concept of “family leave”, which already includes parental leave, compassionate care leave and maternity leave.
Right now, all of these components can cause some confusion with the way the law is written.
We are waiting for the Conservative government to follow up on the recent throne speech with a proposal for Canadians. We are waiting. We will have to make sure that the government's bill is not contrary to the fundamentals of Bill C-343.
We believe that there is a clear need for this bill. However, a number of elements require closer examination. This bill proposes that “close family members” should include spouses, common-law spouses and children, but it does not include the death, under similar circumstances, of the employee's mother or father.
Second, the duration of the unpaid leave requires further study. The bill provides for 104 weeks of leave for an employee if their child is injured during the commission of a crime and needs the constant presence of the parent. This amount of leave, as well as the 104 weeks of leave following the death of the spouse, common-law partner or child as the result of a crime, should be reviewed. Finally, the bill provides for 52 weeks of leave in the case of the disappearance of a minor child.
The bill raises a number of questions regarding the duration of the unpaid leave under the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act especially since the 2004 legislation provides only six weeks, or 42 days, of compassionate care leave with employment insurance benefits and eight weeks of employment protection under the Canada Labour Code.
There should be greater consistency in the duration of the different types of family leave.
What is being proposed in Bill C-343 is not new. Quebeckers in these circumstances are already protected by Quebec legislation.
We should take a closer look at Quebec's legislation in order to determine what it has to say regarding this bill when the bill is studied by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
The newspapers and television often report terrible news about the death of an individual during the commission of a crime. Or we hear about an entire neighbourhood or village that has volunteered for days or weeks to help the police find an eight-year-old who disappeared without a trace while returning home from school.
Canada is not a country where families are afraid to walk in a park on a Sunday afternoon. However, crimes do take place here and we must recognize, in our Canadian legislation, that the state must help victims of crime and their families.
I will be voting in favour of Bill C-343 so that it can be studied in committee and I congratulate the member for Compton—Stanstead on her initiative.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave). I thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for tabling this important legislation.
The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for the following family-related reasons: (a) the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffers a serious physical injury during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence; (b) the disappearance of their minor child; (c) the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child; and (d) the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence.
The bill would also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these employees to receive benefits while on leave.
Very clearly I support this bill. It is a very important improvement to our social service network in Canada. I support the bill because I believe it is a significant measure that would help people who are victims of crime.
We hear a lot of talk in this place, especially from the Conservatives, about supporting victims of crime, but here we have a measure that is a real and tangible assistance. It is very important to note that the member for Compton—Stanstead has gone out ahead of the pack, ahead of the government on this issue and developed an idea that has real meaning for victims of crime.
Helping people in these circumstances, when someone they love, a child, a spouse or partner, is directly affected by a criminal act or when they take their own life is most appropriate. It is one of those areas where we, working collectively as a community, can act to be of significant assistance.
Ensuring that people have time, that their employment is protected and that they have income, while they deal with the consequences of a serious crime, is a good thing. The member for Compton—Stanstead put it very well in her speech, when she said:
 We know very well that suicide, violent crimes and disappearances are tragic events that are very difficult for the families of the victims. These events cause great psychological distress for many relatives and parents. The victims’ families wait and worry, mourn and frequently feel depressed, often over extended periods of time. In cases of murders and disappearances in particular, more than two years can pass between the criminal act and the resolution of the investigation. During this period, family members are deeply affected. They cannot pursue their regular activities. They have access to support and help, but they have no financial support. Additional financial worries are the last thing they need. 
The member put it very eloquently in that quote from her speech in the first hour of debate on the bill. We know there are many needs associated when families are victims of crime in our society. We know there are many ways we can offer assistance. We know there are gaps in that assistance. The bill goes a significant way to fill one of those major gaps.
There are some people who would say that we cannot afford such a measure, and we have heard that kind of commentary from the government benches. I would say we cannot do without it. We cannot afford not to do it. It is very important.
Others will say that it is too generous, that it places too much of a demand on employment insurance resources. That is nonsense.
We know that in the past the federal government has collected far more in EI premiums and employer contributions than was ever spent on the program. I think $57 billion is the figure to be exact. That money could have easily be spent on improving the EI program, protecting workers, supporting families and communities, but Liberals and Conservatives used it to pay off the deficit that they were responsible for running up.
We could have had a program that supported workers during a recession. We could have expanded EI to assist workers when their families were victims of crime. However, no, that money was taken from workers and employers. We were told it would be used for EI, but it used for another purpose altogether. That was not right or fair.
The bill before us today shows us an appropriate use for the EI fund. I doubt that few workers, when pressed, would not support helping others in the way the bill proposes.
The current Conservative government seems to be heading down that road again, where we are increasing premiums for workers and employers, increasing the payroll taxes that they pay for EI. That measure was announced in the recent budget, and it will come in this coming year. Employers and employees will pay more into the EI program starting next year, there again, building a new surplus in the program. It is predicted to balloon to $19 billion in only a few years.
This might be okay if the money were being directed toward improvements in the EI program, but there is no guarantee of that in what has been proposed. If more people were made eligible for EI, if the qualifying periods were reduced, that would be a good thing, but that is not what will go on here. If the benefits paid to unemployed people were improved, that would be a good thing, but, again, that is not what has been proposed with this increase. If the waiting period were eliminated, that would be a good thing too, but, again, that is not proposed by the government with its increase in payroll taxes.
We know that is not the intention of what will happen with the increase in EI premiums. Again, we are about to face 800,000 Canadians ending their EI claims, coming off EI in the next few months and there is no program in place to extend that, no program to continue or extend support for those people. Many Canadians are going to be in crisis as a result of that. If we were using the resources that are collected from Canadian workers and employers to improve the EI program, that would be one thing, but there is no plan to do that.
I think Canadian workers and employers would accept increases if they knew there was a benefit to be had, if there were a benefit to workers who might lose their job, if there were a benefit to employers to ensure that the people who work for them would be taken care of, if there were a benefit to communities to ensure that people would continue to have an income to spend in those communities to support other businesses and local economies. There is not much question that Canadian workers and employers would support that kind of program.
 The bill would provide a very specific benefit. It would provide benefits to workers and families who have been victims of crime. We know that is a very significant moment in anyone's life and it is a time when they can use all the support and consideration that can be mustered for them. The bill would be a significant addition to that.
We know employers would benefit from this kind of measure. Employers would not necessarily lose employees in whom they might have invested training, who knows their business, who knows how to do the job. If they are the victim of a crime and are forced to leave that position, there is a loss to employers, a loss to a business in that situation. The bill would help to ensure that does not happen in the future.
The bill would also assist communities because communities want to help people who are in these circumstances. They want to ensure that their neighbours are taken care of. They want to ensure that the people next door have the support they need when this kind of tragedy strikes them. The bill would provide those benefits. Therefore, it is a very significant measure in that way.
I am happy the Canadian Labour Congress has supported an earlier version of the bill. I am sure it supports this bill too. It knows it is a measure that supports Canadian workers and improves the lives of workers and communities. It knows it supports the Canadian economy, that it supports Canadian employers and that is why it has given this measure its support.
We know it is of limited scope. The Canada Labour Code, unfortunately, only affects certain workers in Canada, workers in federal jurisdiction, people who work in transportation, communications and banking for instance. However, this would set a new standard for support of workers, one that hopefully other provinces will copy. We know Quebec has certain programs in place already, but this will stimulate activity to support families and workers who are the victims of crime in other jurisdictions. It is a measure on which we should move forward.
Again, I want to thank the member for introducing the legislation and I am happy to say that I will be supporting it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead for her five minute right of reply.
France Bonsant: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Liberals and NDP for supporting me with this bill. One has to experience the death of a child in one's family in order to understand how difficult it is.
I lost one of my nieces in an accident. It was hard, but it was an accident. When we are talking about victims of crime, the loss must be even harder to endure, because it so unnatural. That is why my bill talks about victims' families, the mothers, fathers and spouses. It would be very hard to go through such a difficult period without help. We talk a great deal about different amounts of money. It is true, very true; we talk about money. But how can we put a price on someone's life?
These people need psychological and financial help to get through the difficult time ahead. If the person does not have the means to pay their rent or mortgage for example, that can lead to depression. It would be impossible to return to work after only six weeks at home. I am speaking as a mother. I have children and I think that losing one of my daughters would be the worst thing that could ever happen to me.
If this person does not have the financial support to get through this crisis, they will have to return to work. As my NDP colleague said, when a person returns to work after six, eight or fifteen weeks, the depression sets in later. It is not cost-effective for a company to take back an employee who has suffered a terrible tragedy because the company knows it will lose this employee, it just does not know when.
The bill protects the employee and the employer for up to two years. The employer can try to find a temporary replacement for two years. The employee has two years to return to work, but if, after one year, he feels he can return to work part-time, he may do so. But we must at least give people an opportunity to deal with this tragedy.
Everyone has lost someone close to them. Everyone. Whether it was a relative or someone else. Everyone knows what this bill represents. The senator and I have worked on this bill for a long time and I find it despicable that the Conservatives are not taking into consideration what he went through and what my daughter went through when she lost a friend to crime.
I am in politics in order to make a difference. I want to make a difference for families. It is not hard to understand. We estimate it would take $40 million, but the Conservatives think it would take $400 million. It was probably the same Minister of Finance who, in 2008, denied there was a financial crisis.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau:  The very one.
France Bonsant:  The very one? It is chilling. We have looked into this and it would cost roughly $40 million.
This bill truly needs to be adopted. We have to think of the families. This might affect another child in the family. If depression sets in, then the child will not only have lost a brother or sister, but he may lose his parents as well. We also have to take into consideration the family unit. When things start to deteriorate financially speaking, then troubles begin. It is extremely difficult to go through.
I have one more minute to persuade my Conservative colleagues. I urge the Conservatives to focus on something other than their CF-18s and their fun new weapons. I want them to take a minute to think about the human beings close to the victims. I want them to think about the dads, the moms, the husbands and the wives. Do they really think that, as a mother, I would ever sit down next to a pedophile or start voting against children? Not on your life. I hope that members will use their heads, if they have one to use. This is just grandstanding. 
I want them to take two seconds to reflect on the family unit. I am sure that somewhere in their hard little hearts, they can find space for my bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it.
  And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 28, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:13, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:13 p.m.)