Louis Sebert

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that nothing has been finalized to this point, but that the discussions have been encouraging. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't know if I have anything really new than the information that I provided in the House last week. We are, of course, aware about how important this issue is, and we are continuing to work with the RCMP with respect to this matter. Of course, this arose out of a report in 2017 in the Globe and Mail and led to questions about this whole issue, not only in this House, but across Canada, and the police have made efforts. In December 2017 the police released the results of their national review in a document called "The Way Forward," and this included actions to make the police...

I understand the question or the comment very well because, as I stated before, there is not much point having a program if it is not successful. We will look into it. I don't think there would be privacy issues involved in this, but I will look into it. Thank you.

Certainly in the department we're always looking at our programs that are delivered to those in custody with a view of improving their lives and hoping to rehabilitate them so they can re-join society. Looking at the programs is an ongoing process, and obviously we will continue to do that. Thank you.

Certainly, I would be very happy to work with the Minister of Health and Social Services with respect to this issue, and I understand from some information provided to me by him that his department fully realizes this is an important issue. I note that, in 2018-2019, to enhance services for autism and FASD, they invested $848,000, or we as a government did, so both in Corrections and in Health and Social Services we do realize this is an important issue.

When I first thought about the decision, I perhaps wasn't as aware as the Member opposite of the ramifications that it may have. I thought of it mostly in relation to the oil and gas industry, but it may have ramifications beyond that, possibly, although it is an oil and gas case. I'm not certain of the ambit or the effect of the case, and I'll have to look into that. That's why we're analyzing the case at this time. If it does point to the necessity of legislative change, we would certainly have to seriously consider that, as it is a Supreme Court of Canada case. Thank you.

Frankly, I don't know whether our definitions would include trustee or whether there has been any case law that might assist. However, it is an important issue, and I will get back to the Member opposite on this important issue. I understand what he is asking, I think.

Yes, certainly that might make a major change in the law if they were included in the definition of operator. I think that is the question. I don't know whether the Member opposite is suggesting that the trustee would be personally liable for environmental obligations. All I can say is that I, myself, will read the case and...

I am not certain about the question, whether the question had to do with financial resources that were going to be provided. I will again talk to the parties, involve the RCMP and, of course, the Department of Justice, and get as much information as I can as to timelines, certainly. As to financial commitments, I will have to look into that. Thank you.

I do know, obviously, that there are many partners in this important work. I am not certain as to when the last meetings took place or what level of engagement has been made, but I will look into that and get back to the Member opposite.

I don't think I can commit to the creation or development of such a program at this time. There may be certain costs involved that we would have to look into. However, I do recognize that this is an important issue and will consider the question posed by the Member opposite.