Bill C-10 (Historical)

Safe Streets and Communities Act

An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment creates, in order to deter terrorism, a cause of action that allows victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters. It also amends the State Immunity Act to prevent a listed foreign state from claiming immunity from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in respect of actions that relate to its support of terrorism.
Part 2 amends the Criminal Code to
(a) increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties, and increase maximum penalties, for certain sexual offences with respect to children;
(b) create offences of making sexually explicit material available to a child and of agreeing or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child;
(c) expand the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and use of the Internet or any other digital network;
(d) expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions; and
(e) eliminate the reference, in section 742.1, to serious personal injury offences and to restrict the availability of conditional sentences for all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life and for specified offences, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.
It also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marijuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.
Part 3 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to
(a) clarify that the protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Correctional Service of Canada in the corrections process and for the National Parole Board and the provincial parole boards in the determination of all cases;
(b) establish the right of a victim to make a statement at parole hearings and permit the disclosure to a victim of certain information about the offender;
(c) provide for the automatic suspension of the parole or statutory release of offenders who receive a new custodial sentence and require the National Parole Board to review their case within a prescribed period; and
(d) rename the National Parole Board as the Parole Board of Canada.
It also amends the Criminal Records Act to substitute the term “record suspension” for the term “pardon”. It extends the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension and makes certain offences ineligible for a record suspension. It also requires the National Parole Board to submit an annual report that includes the number of applications for record suspensions and the number of record suspensions ordered.
Lastly, it amends the International Transfer of Offenders Act to provide that one of the purposes of that Act is to enhance public safety and to modify the list of factors that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness may consider in deciding whether to consent to the transfer of a Canadian offender.
Part 4 amends the sentencing and general principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as its provisions relating to judicial interim release, adult and youth sentences, publication bans, and placement in youth custody facilities. It defines the terms “violent offence” and “serious offence”, amends the definition “serious violent offence” and repeals the definition “presumptive offence”. It also requires police forces to keep records of extrajudicial measures used to deal with young persons.
Part 5 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow officers to refuse to authorize foreign nationals to work in Canada in cases where to give authorization would be contrary to public policy considerations that are specified in instructions given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.

The bill, which is known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, fulfills the commitment in the June 2011 Speech from the Throne to quickly reintroduce law and order legislation to combat crime and terrorism. This commitment, in turn, reflects the strong mandate that Canadians have given us to protect society and to hold criminals accountable.

We have bundled together crime bills that died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament into a comprehensive piece of legislation and it is our plan to pass it within the first 100 sitting days of Parliament.

As I met with victims of crime and their families yesterday in Brampton, I was once again struck by the importance of having this legislation passed in a timely manner. Both in Brampton and in Montreal yesterday, people such as Joe Wamback, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Sheldon Kennedy, Yvonne Harvey, Gary Lindfield, Maureen Basnicki and Line Lacasse spoke about the need for these changes to our laws.

We have a duty to stand up for these victims, which we are doing by bringing in this legislation.

The objective of our criminal law reform agenda over the past few years has been to build a stronger, safer and better Canada. This comprehensive legislation is another important step in the process to achieve this end.

As I travelled across the country holding round tables or meeting people on the street, the message was clear. People want to ensure their streets and communities are safer and they are relying on us to take the steps needed to achieve this.

There are five parts to Bill C-10.

Part 1 includes reforms to deter terrorism by supporting victims of terrorism and amending the State Immunity Act.

Part 2 includes sentencing reforms that will target sexual offences against children and serious drug offences, as well as prevent the use of conditional sentences for serious violent and property crimes.

Part 3 includes post-sentencing reforms to increase offender accountability, eliminate pardons for serious crimes and strengthen the international transfer of offenders regime.

Part 4 includes reforms to better protect Canadians from violent young offenders.

Lastly, part 5 includes immigration reforms to better protect vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including through human trafficking.

Some may say that this comprehensive bill makes it difficult to understand. In response I would note that these reforms should be very familiar to members of Parliament, indeed all Canadians, given that these reforms were before the previous Parliament when they died on the Order Paper with the dissolution of that Parliament.

Many of these reforms have been previously debated, studied and even passed by at least one of the two chambers of Parliament. For the most part, the comprehensive legislation reintroduces these reforms in the same form they were in previously, with technical changes that were needed to be able to reintroduce them in this Parliament in one bill.

A few additional changes have been made and I will describe them as I provide a summary of the individual areas of reform. However, I want to note that these additional changes remain consistent with the government's objectives when these reforms were originally introduced in the previous Parliament and, therefore, should also be supported today.

I will now take hon. members through some of the elements of Bill C-10.

Part 1 is comprised of clauses 2 through 9. These amendments seek to deter terrorism by enacting the justice for victims of terrorism act.

As reflected in the proposed preamble to the new act, these reforms recognize that, “terrorism is a matter of national concern that affects the security of the nation”, and that it is a “priority to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against Canada and Canadians”.

As Canadians recently marked the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, it was a stark reminder that the threat of terrorism remains and that we must continue to be vigilant.

Accordingly and with a view to deterring terrorism, part 1 proposes to create a cause of action for victims of terrorism to enable them to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism or omission committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985.

It also would amend the State Immunity Act to lift immunity of those states that the government has listed for support of terrorism.

Part 1's amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, in the previous session of Parliament. They include technical changes to correct grammatical and cross-reference errors.

Part 2 is comprised of clauses 10 through 51. It proposes sentencing amendments to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to ensure that the sentences imposed for child sexual exploitation, serious drug offences, as well as for other serious violent and property crimes, adequately reflect the severity of these crimes.

The exploitation of children is a most serious crime, one that is incomprehensible and must be met with appropriate punishment. Bill C-10 proposals addressing child sexual exploitation were addressed in the previous bill. These reforms seek to consistently and adequately condemn all forms of child sexual abuse through the imposition of new and higher mandatory sentences of imprisonment, as well as some higher maximum penalties.

They also seek to prevent the commission of sexual offences against children through the creation of two new offences and by requiring courts to consider imposing conditions to prevent suspected or convicted child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate or further their commission of sexual offences against children.

The bill's proposed reforms addressing child sexual exploitation are essentially the same as the bill we had in the previous Parliament, that was passed by the House of Commons and was before the Senate at third reading debate when it died on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, some members kept on talking so that the bill did not get passed.

The primary difference is that this bill also proposes to increase the maximum penalty for four offences, with a corresponding increase in their proposed mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment to better reflect the heinous nature of these offences.

The bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction for a number of offences. All of these are consistent with the objectives of the former Bill C-54 as originally introduced.

It also proposes Criminal Code reforms to further restrict the use of a conditional sentence, or house arrest as it is often called.

Originally proposed in Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders act in the previous Parliament, these proposals seek to make it explicitly clear that a conditional sentence is never available for: offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life; offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, involve the import-export, trafficking and production of drugs or involve the use of a weapon; or listed serious property and violent offences punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictment, such as criminal harassment, trafficking in persons and theft over $5,000.

The bill's proposals are in the same form as previously proposed in Bill C-16 which had received second reading and had been referred to the justice committee but not yet studied when it died on the Order Paper.

It includes technical changes to the list of excluded offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years: to include the recently enacted new offence of motor vehicle theft; to coordinate the proposed imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment in section 172.1(1), luring a child; and to change the listed child abduction offence to section 281.

We are also addressing the serious issue of drug crimes in this country, particularly those involving organized crime and those that target youth because we all know the impact that such crimes have on our communities.

Part 2's proposals to address drug crime include amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for the offences of production, trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking or importing, and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting of schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

These mandatory minimum sentences would apply where there was an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard, or the offence was committed in or near a school.

As well, it would double the maximum penalty for the production of schedule II drugs, such as marijuana, from 7 to 14 years and it would reschedule GHB and flunitrazepam, most commonly known as the date rape drugs, from schedule III to schedule I.

As a result, these offences would now carry higher maximum penalties.

The bill would also allow a court to delay sentencing while the addicted offender completed a treatment program approved by the province under the supervision of the court or a drug treatment court approved program and to impose a penalty other than the minimum sentence if the offender successfully completes the treatment program.

These proposals are in the same form they were in when they were passed by the Senate as former Bill S-10

Part 3, which is comprised of clauses 52 through 166, proposes post-sentencing reforms to better support victims and to increase offender accountability.

Canadians have told us they expect their government to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their crimes because only then can they have complete confidence in our justice system.

Part 3 introduces reforms previously contained in bills in the previous Parliament. It includes proposals from the ending early release for criminals and increasing offender accountability act that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to recognize the rights of victims, increase offender accountability and responsibility, and modernize the disciplinary system for inmates.

As now proposed in Bill C-10, it includes technical modifications that would delete provisions that were ultimately passed as part of the Abolition of Early Parole Act, as well as clarifications regarding, for example, sentence calculations, adding new offences recently enacted by other legislation, and proposes to change the name of the National Parole Board to the Parole Board of Canada.

It includes proposals previously contained in Bill C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (the International Transfer of Offenders) Act and which seek to enhance public safety by enshrining in law a number of additional key factors in deciding whether an offender would be granted a transfer back to Canada. The bill proposes these reforms as originally introduced.

It includes proposals included in the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act in the previous Parliament and that propose to expand the period of ineligibility for a record suspension, currently referred to as a “pardon”, and to make record suspensions unavailable for certain offences and for persons who have been convicted of more than three offences, prosecuted by indictment, and for each of which the individual received a sentence of two years or more. This bill corrects inconsistencies that occurred in the former bills before Parliament.

One of the areas of criminal law I received an extensive number of letters, emails and calls about is that dealing with violent and repeat young offenders. I have been particularly interested in correspondence I have received from young students themselves and I am always pleased to hear everyone's views on this subject.

Part 4, which is found at clauses 167 through 204, proposes reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to strengthen its handling of violent and repeat young offenders.

These reforms include: highlighting the protection of the public as a principle, making it easier to detain youth charged with serious offences pending trial; ensuring that prosecutors consider seeking adult sentences for the most serious offences; prohibiting youth under the age of 18 from serving a sentence in an adult facility; and requiring police to keep records of extrajudicial measures. These reforms were previously proposed in Sébastien's law, which had been extensively studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it died on the order paper in the previous Parliament.

The bill includes changes to address concerns that had been highlighted by the provinces regarding the pretrial adult sentencing and deferred custody provisions in the former bill. A number of the provinces requested a less restrictive regime for the pretrial detention provisions than that of Bill C-4, and therefore the changes found in this bill respond by providing more flexibility to detain youth who are spiralling out of control and who pose a risk to the public and to themselves.

The test for pretrial detention will be self-contained in the act without reference to other sections of the Criminal Code.

Other changes are more technical, if that is possible, and include removing Bill C-4's proposed amendments in two areas: deleting reference to the standard of proof for an adult sentence, and the expanded scope of deferred custody and supervision orders.

Last, part 5, which is found at clauses 205 through 207, proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize immigration officers to refuse work permits to foreign nationals and workers where it would protect them against humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking. These proposals are in the same form they were in when they were previously proposed in former Bill C-56, the preventing trafficking, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants act.

I would point out as well that the proposed reforms would come into force in the same manner as originally proposed by the predecessor bills. Part 1 would come into force upon receiving royal assent, and the balance would come into force on a day to be fixed by the governor in council. This will enable us to consult with the provinces and territories on the time needed to enable them to prepare for the timely and effective implementation of these reforms.

I realize that I have taken some time to go through some of the details of this bill. We were very clear in the last election that this was a priority for this government. We have put these bills together and they better protect victims. As members know, in all the legislation that we have introduced, we always highlight how it better protects victims in this country and stand up for the interests of law-abiding Canadians.

I am pleased and proud to be associated, as are my colleagues, with this important piece of legislation.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, the public safety minister has pretty well lost all credibility when it comes to estimating what these crime bills are going to cost. I point out the estimate he made originally on a couple of bills. His estimate was that it was going to cost $90 million. That escalated up into the hundreds of millions and then into the billions. We are up to $2 billion now just on the bills that have already been through the House of extra costs to the Government of Canada, and more important, to the provinces, because more of the burden has gone there.

With regard to this omnibus bill, are you planning to present to justice committee and/or the House a full analysis of how much it is going to cost the federal treasury and the provincial and territorial treasuries?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would remind all members to direct their questions through the Speaker's chair.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member will remember that when the public safety minister and I were before a committee of the House of Commons, we tabled hundreds of pages giving breakdowns and an analysis of what these pieces of legislation would cost the Canadian taxpayer.

In one sense I am pleased. If those members are truly worried about expenditures by the federal government, this is something new. I really have not heard this too much from the NDP over the years. Let us be fair. Most of the questions are always about spending more money. Those are the ones we get. If those members are now worried that somehow taking violent criminals off the street is going to cost money, I can assure them that the Minister of Public Safety has taken that all into consideration. Hundreds of pages have been tabled before them.

I would ask the hon. member to please look at the cost to victims in this country. Victims tell me every time I see them that they pay most of the costs. A study by the Department of Justice in 2008 confirms that. About 83% of all the costs of crime in this country are borne by victims. If those members are worried about costs, about taking a violent criminal off the street and locking up that individual, that is okay because that is their concern and their priority. That is fine, but they should also worry about the victim, the law-abiding Canadian who could be a constituent of theirs. I want them to worry about that individual as well.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, this morning the minister appeared on Canada AM on CTV. He was interviewed by Seamus O'Regan, who asked him five times what the cost would be to the Canadian public, to the taxpayers, of the implications of this bill. Each time the minister refused to answer.

The minister has been asked several times today in the House of Commons, and perhaps he was asked the same question elsewhere. He still has failed to tell the House.

In fact, one of the minister's answers to Seamus O'Regan was that it would be a sustainable cost. If he can come to the conclusion that it will be sustainable, then surely he must know the amount. Does he know the amount and is not willing to tell the Canadian people, or will he tell us today? Will he give us the answer to the question he has been asked all day long?

If the minister absolutely refuses to answer the question of what the bill will cost, perhaps he will answer the question of how many times he has been asked that today.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think I have been very clear. I can refer the hon. member to the hundreds of pages that were tabled before the parliamentary committee just prior to the previous election. I invite him to go through all those hundreds of pages and to note the comments of my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, with respect to this.

I did indicate that in 2008 there was a Department of Justice study on the costs of crime. It estimated that approximately $99 billion is the cost of crime in this country. I will repeat that so the hon. member understands. The cost of crime is $99 billion.

I appreciate that this is not a priority for the hon. member or for his party, but it is a priority for the Conservative Party that 83% of that cost is borne by the victims of crime. They are the ones who pay the price. I would hope that at some point in time those members will stand up and say that they are worried about costs and have become fiscal conservatives and they are worried about spending every dime, but they realize that most of the cost continues to be borne by victims in this country, who are the ones we have to stand up for. Those are the ones we have to protect.

I want the support of the hon. member and his party.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a British Columbian, I welcome members to visit the Okanagan any time.

It is a pleasure to be here and to have an opportunity to thank my hon. colleague for keeping our campaign commitment to keep our streets and our communities safe.

There was a horrific shooting this summer in our community. In British Columbia organized crime and the gangs, guns, and drug trafficking are serious issues. I am very appreciative that our government is committed to bringing some balance to standing up for victims within our court system.

One of the concerns raised is that judges are losing some of their ability to decide and that the government is forcing their decision making. I stand to be corrected but it is my understanding that the flexibility will remain within the judicial system and we are providing more tools for our law enforcement and judicial systems to be more effective and efficient.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly thank the member for Kelowna--Lake Country for his continuing interest in this. I very much appreciate his support on all these efforts to better protect Canadians.

Our job as legislators is to provide guidelines for the courts. We provide maximum sentences on all criminal law legislation.

I recall a colleague saying many years ago, “Why put a maximum on? Just let the courts decide. If they want to give a guy more than five years, do not put a maximum”. I said that it was our job as legislators to put a maximum. On many occasions we are putting minimum sentences as well, but within the guidelines that we provide to the courts, it is obviously up to the courts where a sentence should lie for an individual who has been found guilty.

Many of those mandatory sentences are for drug crimes. I appreciate that and certainly it is my hope that this bill will quickly go to committee and will soon become the law of this country.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the history, since 2006 in the justice committee and the public safety committee, I have repeatedly asked the various ministers of the government for cost assessments of all the bills that have gone through in this period of time. The information we got from the minister a few minutes ago was grossly inaccurate in that regard. I am not new to this file. I am not new to asking about the costs.

I ask the minister again. Is he going to say to the House at some point that he has gone to the public accounts officer, that he has checked with other sources and provide his analysis, not what the government did last time, even after it was found in contempt of the House for not providing this information? At best, it gave about 60%, probably only about 40%, of the information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer wanted to make a proper assessment.

Is the government going to give it all to us this time and is it going to do a valid assessment both for the federal government and the provinces?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I invite the hon. member to have a look at the documentation that was tabled before the committee. There were hundreds of pages of breakdowns.

What is really going on here is that if one does not agree that some of these violent individuals should be taken off the street, if one does not agree that people who are sexually exploiting children should receive mandatory minimum sentences, one will never be satisfied with the cost. I and my colleagues emphasize that the costs are borne by the victims right across the board. I hope, for once, that New Democrats would make that their priority. However, we have not heard it up to this point in time.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really a historic day with regard to this bill in terms of the debate that we will see in the House over the next number of days and weeks.

It is historic because we have had a government for the last five years that has attempted to reverse the approach to the criminal justice system that we have taken in our country for the better part of 40 years.

It was about 40 years ago when governments, and not just governments in the ideological centre or left of the political spectrum, but progressive Conservative governments as well, followed this pattern. Then we saw the advance of the Reform and the Alliance, the radical right wing ideology adopted mostly from the United States, which, incidentally, is now reversing itself and looking at Canada as an example of how to deal with crime, with anti-social behaviour and how to build a fair, just and effective criminal justice system.

The current government is driven entirely by ideology, never by fact, never by solid evidence.

It is interesting. I always think of the minister who was the minister of justice before the current one, now the Minister of Public Safety, being challenged by Dan Gardner, one of the reporters or commentators for one of the Ottawa papers, to send him studies that showed deterrence worked, so he did. He sent him five studies. Three of them, when Mr. Gardner looked at them, showed that in fact deterrence did not work. The other two were totally unequivocal and were very subjective in their analysis and were not valid studies based on normal methodology for sociological and criminology studies.

The Conservatives have never been able to do anything better than that.

We heard today again that expression. The Conservatives stand in the House and talk about victims with the assumption that the bill, and the kinds of bills they have passed in the last five years, will somehow deter crime, that they will reduce that $99 billion figure, which is highly suspect, as I keep repeating. They say they will do something to reduce crime by the use of punishment, by the use of deterrence, by the use of putting thousands and thousands more people into jail.

Not one study, not just in Canada, but any place in the developed world, any place in the democracy we can go to and find a study, says deterrence works. We are about to spend an additional, depending on whose estimates we want to use, anywhere from at least $2 billion to $11 billion, $12 billion and $13 billion over the next five years on a philosophy, on an ideology on criminal justice that does not work. The bill just repeats that.

This is me wearing my lawyer's hat to some degree. I have stood in the House over the last seven years as the critic for our party on both public safety and justice. I have advocated a number of times that we do need major reform to our Criminal Code and the methodology of doing that would be with omnibus bills. This is not the first omnibus bill we have had from the government; it actually is the second one. When I first heard the Conservatives would do that, I thought that they were finally listening to those of us who have advocated for the need for reform to the Criminal Code because of the duplication and contradictions in the Code, particularly around sentencing, but around offences as well.

However, the Conservatives are not doing that. All they are doing is lumping a whole bunch of bills together and sending them through, a number of bills that have no relevancy to each other. If they are to do an omnibus bill, if they are to do major reform to the Criminal Code, they have to do it systematically. For instance, even in the bill we are seeing conflict in terms of sentencing principles that they are going to use as an example. We saw it in one of the newspapers reports overnight.

The bill will have this kind of a consequence. We are going to have a mandatory minimum penalty for an offence of trafficking a drug that is double what the mandatory minimum is for the rape of a child. We have that kind of confusion and contradiction just in this bill, and we have huge numbers of those kinds of contradictions.

Therefore, if we were really intent on building an effective criminal justice system that did not have these kinds of contradictions, that make it difficult for our police, judges, defence lawyers and the prosecutors to enforce the law, we would have started reform a long time ago.

I am going to go to the bill itself. As opposed to what the minister said, the bill is actually a composition of nine bills from the past Parliament. Although it has five parts to it, it actually encompasses nine different bills, and I will not have enough time to address all of them. Therefore, I will concentrate my comments, because of the cost factor, on the drug part of the bill.

This will be the third time that the bill is before the House. It has had some changes since the first time, but it is essentially the same. When it came before the House at that time, both the Conservative government and the Liberal party supported the bill. They got it passed. I am quite sure it went to the Senate. We had an election and it failed and we started over again.

In the last Parliament, it was a bill that came out of the Senate. At that time because of a change in leadership for the Liberals, they flip-flopped and decided they would oppose it.

We have been opposed to the bill in its various incarnations for two reasons: the cost; and the reality that the cost is totally unjustifiable in terms of this bill doing anything to combat drug trafficking. It is easy for us to say that.

I live in the most southern part of our country. In fact, I live in an area of the country that is south of our neighbours to the north in the United States. I have watched the United States legislature try to deal with the problem of drug trafficking. Starting about two and a half years ago, the Americans began to repeal legislation that had mandatory minimums. It was simply that they were going bankrupt in terms of keeping that many people in jail.

There was a similar pattern in California that hit its epitome a year ago in the spring. In the jails, people were double and triple bunking and were in fact being housed in the cafeterias and the gyms, with no rehabilitation or treatment, or sense that these people were going to get out, with a large number of them with mental health problems as well, the usual pattern. California was going to be required by the courts to release 35,000 to 45,000 inmates in that year. A good number of these inmates had been convicted of serious violent crimes, had no treatment or rehabilitation while they were in and they were going back out onto the streets. That kind of crisis occurred in the United States when it passed these kinds of laws and proceeded to enforce them. Over a period of 10 to 15 years, the prison population doubled there.

We are following the same route. It is back to the government refusing to look at the facts and accept any hard evidence of what this kind of legislation does. It is going down the same route that the United States went down between 15 and 20 years ago, and is now reversing itself. Now the Conservative government is starting down the same path.

It is not just the United States. If we go around the globe very few other countries have attempted this, I am happy to say. No other government in our western democracies has attempted this successfully. It does not work, yet in the next five years we are about to spend between $10 billion to $13 billion just on this bill.

The drug part of the bill in particular is going to increase the prison population, mostly at the provincial level. We have provinces that are double-bunking now to the rate of 200%. They are over capacity by 200%. There is not a province or territory that is not in excess of its capacity.

Perhaps the House should also appreciate this fact: we have signed on to an international protocol that says we will not do double-bunking at either the provincial or the federal level. We are in complete contravention of that protocol and have been for a number of years, and it is going to get much worse.

I know I am emphasizing the drug part of the bill because it is where the costs primarily are. It is not the only area, but it is the overwhelmingly large one. The vast majority of the people who are going to be affected by the bill are not the Hells Angels, not the bikers, not the people we have seen historically as organized crime. Again, I say that because we have studied the situation in the United States when it passed bills identical to this one. It is the low-hanging fruit that gets caught. The vast majority of those people, the petty traffickers in marijuana in particular, are the ones who get caught, especially because they only have to have six plants, and they do not have to be six-foot-high plants. It just says more than five plants. Someone with six plants that are three inches high will be considered a trafficker, in spite of some of the comments we have heard from the minister.

I do not think the minister has ever done a drug trafficking trial. I have, and the way the act is worded, anyone who has six plants or more cannot justify that he or she is not a trafficker. We are going to have a huge number of young people who are now being convicted of simple possession going to jail, including some of the children of the people sitting across the aisle from me and some of the children of the people sitting on our side of the table. They will be going to jail for at least six months simply because they have six marijuana plants.

That is the consequence of the bill, and we are going to end up, as taxpayers, paying the toll.

I would like to deal in some detail as well with the bill that was Bill C-4 in the last Parliament, the bill that dealt with young offenders.

This one had a very interesting history. It was the attempt on the part of the government to return us to an old pattern of history, when we used to treat youth much more harshly than we have in the last 15 or 20 years. We heard from the minister again today that they are justifying it on the basis that they are going after the young offender who is already a serious violent offender. I say this from all of the parties that are sitting in the House and that were at the justice committee last time that we all accepted that as a reality. That is just a historical side note. We had major reform to the young offender law almost six years ago now. When the minister brought this bill forward, there was a lot of commentary from a number of sides that it was too soon to amend the bill. The committee as a whole, all political parties, said no. It was true generally, and some of the things they were trying to do--in particular, to reintroduce deterrence to young offenders--we rejected. We said no. We said we needed to look at whether there were mechanisms or enforcement tools or legislative tools that we could give our police and our prosecutors, and ultimately our judges, to be able to deal with that small percentage of young offenders who are already serious, violent risks to our society.

We all conceded that this group existed and we also felt that we could do something about it. Interestingly, three prosecutors came before the committee voluntarily. I and the other opposition parties do not take any credit for finding these senior prosecutors of young offenders in their respective provinces of Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Alberta. They got together and asked collectively to come and make presentations.

The first thing they said to the committee was that the government's bill would do just the opposite: it was going to make it more difficult for them to prosecute serious, violent youth offenders.

In the last few weeks I received a letter from the attorney general confirming the prosecutors in Saskatchewan. We had representation from two Conservative governments and two NDP governments before the committee saying that we had messed up really badly, that our bill was going to do exactly the opposite of what we were telling the country it was going to do.

I take credit for asking them if they could give us the amendments they needed, and they did that. I want to recognize the work that they did. They gave us three amendments. Basically they let the youth criminal justice system focus in on the serious offenders and let the rest of the system work, because the rest of the system, from everything we heard at committee, is working reasonably well. It is effective, fair and just and it deals with youth crime quite effectively, but it is not doing so with serious offenders.

The prosecutors gave us three amendments and came back a second time to present and explain them to us in detail. I asked government members if they would adopt them. They said no. They were so certain they had a perfect bill that in spite of the experts, their own prosecutorial experts, the government refused to accept those amendments.

Interestingly, and I will give them credit for this, in this incarnation, this omnibus bill, Conservatives have taken two of the amendments. The third amendment deals with sentencing of youth as adults, and they need that amendment again for this one. I have no answer for why it is not in here. I was hoping I would have enough time to ask the minister today, but I will have to do that subsequently. However, it is not there.

Those amendments are necessary in the bill. Again, I repeat that the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc members were prepared to support those amendments, and the government refused to do so simply because, in dealing with the Conservatives, it is their way or the highway. They were absolutely adamant about refusing to take those amendments.

The third part I want to address is the international transfer of prisoners. We have had a long history in this country of signing treaties with other countries that say that if we have one of their citizens convicted of a crime in prison in our country, we will allow the prisoner to apply to his or her country to be returned to that country of origin. Of course, we have the vice versa arrangement for ourselves, so that one of our citizens in another country can apply to be returned to Canada. I do not how long we have had those arrangements, but it has been a number of decades.

When the Conservatives first came into power in 2006, they unilaterally decided they were going to change the pattern and reject a whole bunch of these applications. We went from accepting something in the range of 90% of those applications to less than 50%. There were court applications made against the government's conduct, and it was slapped really hard by the Federal Court.

The Conservatives have now tried to put into the bill what really amounts to absolute discretion for the minister to be able to continue that practice of reducing those numbers. This has created an international incident between ourselves and the United States, with which most of these prisoner exchanges occur. Americans actually sent a note of protest to the Canadian government in January 2010 because it had so radically changed the pattern.

The bill has major problems. There are parts of it that New Democrats could in fact support; I could not get to them because my time is just about up, but with the attitude we have of the government, it is going to be very difficult to work out those kinds of compromises.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have three quick points to make to my colleague, whose remarks i enjoyed, as I always do. These points all relate in one way or another to costs.

First, he is forecasting massive increases in the prison population. Until now the forecasts that were put out by Correctional Service Canada were based on what we did in the past, and these huge increases simply have not materialized, so I am not sure what he is basing that on.

Second, obviously a lot of prison structures are very old and crumbling and a lot of infrastructure has to be replaced right now, regardless of anything else. Would he acknowledge that replacement will cost some amount of money? I do not know what that is.

Third, I think we all believe in rehabilitation and deterrence, but it is difficult to quantify. The statistics I have seen say that a habitual criminal commits about 15 offences a year. Would he acknowledge that there is a significant cost, which we really could not determine, to society and victims of leaving that person on the street for a year, when as a habitual criminal the person could be incarcerated, which would prevent the 15 crimes that would prey on victims?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Centre for those questions, although I still have not forgiven him for the damage he caused to the centre. I could not bring my grandson to visit it the day I was there. The centre is right across the street from his office, and I am sure he caused the flood in the centre the day I was there and my grandson could not visit.

With regard to past estimates that I know the government has been putting out, those estimates are based longitudinally. They have not all come to fruition up to this point. They will eventually. I do not think the estimates are that far off.

Let me say to the member that since the Conservative government has been in power, the budget for corrections has almost doubled. It is not quite 100%, but it is very close, just in five years. It almost six years now, but we have not seen the last year, so it probably has doubled by now. That is very real. Even though those estimates have not fully come to fruition, I believe they will, because I think they were properly done by Correctional Service Canada. We have very good Correctional Service Canada people. We need more of them, but they are very good.

With regard to prison repair, I agree with that. I know that in Ontario, in and around Kingston in particular, there are prisons that are over 100 years old and have had minimal repair in that period of time. There is no objection if that was the purpose, but that is not the purpose of the money that is being proposed to be spent. It is to house new prisoners, not to do the major repairs that are needed.

Finally, with regard to habitual criminals, there are studies in the United States that suggest or show exactly what the member has suggested, which is that if people are kept in prison longer, the crime rate is going to go down. For a short period of time, I would accept that. However, when criminals are in for an extra length of time, they are in prisons where there is no rehabilitation for them at all. That was the California experience. There was no rehabilitation at all. When they get out, the crimes they commit are more violent, and in fact the crime rate goes up.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we have seen this type of law and order policy in the United States, as he has articulated. If putting more people in prison for longer periods of time created safer communities, American cities would be the safest in the world, because nobody incarcerates more people than the Americans.

Earlier today, in response to the hon. member's questions, the minister stated that he had totally fulfilled the demands of the House in terms of the information requested regarding the costs of the government's justice bills.

I want to inform the hon. member that the answer given by the minister earlier today in the House was false. In fact, it was my motion that led to the minister's appearance before the operations and estimates committee due to the Speaker's ruling of contempt of Parliament by the Conservative government. When the minister appeared before the government operations committee, he did a data dump the morning of his appearance, dumping thousands of pages of paper, and he responded to only 26% of the information requested by Parliament for the cost of the legislation.

How does the hon. member feel about the continued stonewalling by the government and the minister of this Parliament, and about their refusal to respect Parliament and provide that kind of—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge and I am quite aware of the circumstances of how that occurred. For the first time in the history of this Parliament, and perhaps of every Parliament in the Commonwealth, a government was found in contempt for adamantly refusing to provide material. The hon. member is right. The contempt did continue after the contempt order and the majority vote that took place which found the government in contempt.

Specifically with regard to crime bills, it is my understanding that the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that under that contempt order the information he received was no better than 60% and perhaps as little as 40%. Accordingly, he was not fully satisfied with the results of the analysis he had prepared. However, in retrospect, he did provide a much closer analysis than what was prepared by the Minister of Public Safety.

The Minister of Public Safety repeatedly told the House that the crime bills would only cost $90 million, a figure which has now increased to $2.2 billion. These are the kinds of discrepancies we are seeing.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it appears sometimes we seek justice through headlines. Whenever there is a violent crime somewhere in the country the media and talk shows go on about it for weeks feeding the fever of all Canadian citizens who then get rattled and feel that we have to do something.

I take offence when the Minister of Justice indicates or hints to the Canadian people that we on this side of the House do not care for victims. That is nonsense. There is not one member of Parliament from any party in the House who is not concerned about crime and what it does to victims in the country.

The serious concern I have is that I have heard the anecdotal and not factual evidence that one-third of our prison inmates have mental illness. There is a huge push in this country from academia, corporations and governments of all sides to deal with this serious issue. However, the provincial and federal governments ignore the plight of the mentally ill and incarcerate them. Instead of having institutions for the mentally ill to get the help they need, they are thrown in jail.

Would my hon. colleague comment on how many more people who commit crimes due to mental illness would find themselves incarcerated instead of getting the help they so richly deserve if the bill goes through?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the assessment, Mr. Head, who is the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, was before the public safety committee two or three years ago. His estimate then was that 50% of all inmates in federal prisons would be able to get mental health treatment under our provincial health plans.

On the 33% or 30% to 35% figures that my friend raised of those who have been diagnosed with serious mental health problems and given a prognosis, treatment in fact would be available in the community. However, very little of that treatment is available in our federal institutions.

I forget what the bill was we were dealing with a year or so ago, but evidence came forward from a psychologist who had received the Order of Canada and was recognized as an international expert in treating mentally ill people who had committed serious crimes that 10 psychologists had been cut out of the federal system in the Kingston area and that their contracts would not be renewed.

In terms of the second part of my colleague's question on the consequences of the drug bill, it is the small-time traffickers who are drug abusers and addicts who would end up in prison.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cardigan, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Canada Revenue Agency.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, today marks the second speech that I have given in the House. It has been a busy week.

As some of the members may know, I am a new member of Parliament for the riding of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation. I trust I will be allowed this opportunity to thank the good people of Charlottetown for bestowing upon me the honour and privilege of representing them here in the chamber.

Madam Speaker, I very much look forward to working with you and with my colleagues on both sides of the House.

As members may know, my colleague, the justice critic and hon. member for Mount Royal, a former minister of justice and a world-renowned advocate of human rights, a law scholar and professor, is at the United Nations today participating in meetings. We wish him, along with our Prime Minister, well in their deliberations at the United Nations meetings as the world watches the events regarding the Middle East unfold.

I am here today to talk about Bill C-10. The bill is large and includes nine bills from the previous Parliament all lumped into one big buffet of division and fear. The title of the bill goes on for about seven lines. I can just imagine how much time, effort, deliberation in meetings and agonizing it must have taken to come up with a name for this bill.

I tried to imagine some of the other names that might have fallen on the cutting room floor. I will speculate on a few of the names that did not quite make it: an act to divide Canadians and keep the Conservative base happy; an act to provide inmates for empty prisons; an act to fill prisons in order to build new ones; an act to take more aboriginals off reserves and put them into prisons; an act to provide a Conservative comprehensive affordable housing strategy; an act to make prisons the largest mental health institutions in Canada; and, one I particularly like, an act to stimulate the penal sector.

After many lunches, dinners and late night meetings, the Conservatives finally settled on a short title for the bill. I understand this was the runner-up to the one that actually made it, that being, we won a majority, now get out of our way act.

Never has a piece of legislation been more deserving of the title “an act” because that is what this is. It is a performance. Facts be damned, crime statistics and effective crime prevention do not matter because the government is determined to put on a show. Simply put, it is a disgrace of the highest order.

With all the new prisons being built as a result of this "hang 'em high" mentality, one wonders who will staff these new prisons. Is this an opportunity for an alternate service delivery or a public-private partnership? Perhaps we could have the operations of these institutions farmed out for profit. Is that the plan? I am sure it is a question that the Conservative propaganda machine will surely avoid and deny.

This is a bill worthy of mockery. It is a bill that plays on fear, not hope.

It is a bill that ignores evidence and facts. It creates an illusion that crime is out of control and there is mass insurrection in the streets. It is without costing. It is a bill that does not reflect the values of Canadians as a smart, caring society.

We seem to be well on our way to a system of justice more reflective of our neighbours to the south and not reflective of a country like Canada.

Catherine Latimer from the John Howard Society stated:

We think it will endanger corrections workers and inmates and compromise rights and not promote good corrections and undermine principles of justices and have a disproportionately harsh impact on some of the most vulnerable members of our society...blindly following failed American policies is not in the interest of Canadians--

As it appears that the bill was influenced if not drafted by our Republican friends in the United States, l will quote from a recent U.S. editorial. With regard to crime and prisons it states:

California spends more money on prisons than on higher education. The governor is right--we’ve got it backwards and it's time to reverse course.

Only sixty-eight percent of our high school students are graduating. Yet we pay prison guards substantially more than teachers.

Fear of crime led us to vote for long prison terms and the three strikes law. We didn’t intend to spend $4 billion more on prisons than colleges--

The less educated our workforce…the more we feed the prisons.

It’s time to admit our mistakes and make tough decisions. By pumping so much money into prisons, we’re starving education. We cannot afford the consequences.

With regard to crime rates, in a report released earlier this year by Statistics Canada it stated:

Police-reported crime reaches its lowest level since the early 1970's.

It goes on to state that the “police-reported crime rate, which measures the overall volume of crime, continued to decline” right up until last year. In fact last year it was down 5%, “reaching its lowest level since 1973”.

There is more. It claims that violent crime is at its lowest since 1999.

Last year both the volume and severity of violent crime fell 3% from the previous year, while the decline in the violent crime severity index was more notably down 6%. This is the fourth straight year where there has been a decline in the violent crime severity index and the largest drop in more than a decade. Overall, violent crimes accounted for just over one in five offences. Among the violent crimes that saw a decline were: attempted murder, down 14%; homicide, down 10%; robbery, down 7%; and serious assault, down 5%. In contrast, increases were reported among firearms offences.

We on this side of the House are partial to public policy based on evidence. However, despite the evidence the Conservatives, or should I say the horsemen of the apocalypse, would like us to believe that there is mass chaos in the streets. Only in the Conservative world would we see a statistic showing firearms offences increasing by 11% only to be followed by the decision to get rid of the gun registry.

I mentioned our aboriginal community earlier in my speech. According to the 2006 census, 3.1% of our adult population identified themselves as aboriginal yet in the same year aboriginal adults accounted for 18% of our prison population in provincial and territorial institutions and 19% in federal institutions.

The bill would do a lot of bad things for Canada, not the least of which is an increase in aboriginal Canadians in our prisons.

How can a government, in any way, be taken seriously when one of the likely results is that the bill would lock up even more aboriginal Canadians? That is a national disgrace.

I understand that my words today might cause some difficulty and, in fact, I would suggest perhaps some disagreement from the members opposition. Although I am a new member of Parliament, I have views, which is part of the reason I am standing here today. My views are rooted in values of fairness and justice. I want to see crime legislation that is evidence-based, cost-effective and focused on crime prevention, not retribution. I will not stand for any suggestion that I, or the members of this caucus, are soft on crime. It is simply not the case. It will be rejected in the strongest possible terms.

I will close by saying that the government pretends to be tough on crime. It pretends to care. It is a game for the Conservatives. It is a diversion from the real issues that matter to Canadians. This week the government House leader told Canadians that the government will be focused on the economy during this session of Parliament and yet the first two days of this House have been occupied, not by proposals to help the economy and create jobs, but by a bill that is not evidence-based and that seeks to divide Canadians. It is a diversion.

The government likes to use slogans and gimmicks. It likes to look tough. Many of us on this side are wondering when the Conservatives will get tough on creating jobs, get tough on fighting poverty, get tough on fighting climate change, get tough on fighting for health care and get tough on helping the most vulnerable.

The only thing the government is tough on is the truth and it is Canadians who will suffer as a result.

I move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg North:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, because its provisions ignore the best evidence with respect to public safety, crime prevention and rehabilitation of offenders; because its cost to the federal treasury and the cost to be downloaded onto the provinces for corrections have not been clearly articulated to this House; and because the bundling of these many pieces of legislation into a single bill will compromise Parliament’s ability to review and scrutinize its contents and implications on behalf of Canadians”.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague across the aisle not recognize that in the last election there was a very clear distinction given to Canadians? On one side, there was the Conservative government which would finally get tough on crime and finally reverse the damage that the Liberals did to our criminal justice system by being soft on criminals and ignoring victims. Does he not recognize that the Liberals were reduced to 34 seats? Canadians do not want the Liberal way of dealing with criminals. Could he recognize that, acknowledge it and get in touch with Canadians as they view the criminal justice system today?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Charlottetown, I should have acknowledged that the amendment was receivable.

The hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that, yes, 40% of those who voted or roughly 25% of Canadians did support her party in the last election. I also acknowledge that there were significantly less who supported our party.

However, I would point out that this absolutely flies in the face of evidence. This is driven by ideology. This absolutely ignores the statistics that indicate that crime is going down. How this can be steam-rolled through in this manner is not reflective of Canadian values. Canadians are better than that. We are a smart, compassionate society.

We need to focus on the root causes. We need to focus on crime prevention. We need to focus on the economy.

When I am in my riding and people come through the door looking for help from their representative in the federal government, it is not crime on the streets that they want to talk about. They want a job.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will recognize members who are sitting in their proper place.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Charlottetown for his critique of the bill we are now examining on safe streets, otherwise known as the omnibus crime bill.

My question is whether there are any portions of this bill that the hon. member finds that he might want to support were they not bundled together as an omnibus crime bill. For myself, the justice for victims of terrorism act as a stand-alone bill was one I would have voted for. However, I cannot imagine voting for other sections of this omnibus crime bill, such as those that would make it an offence to have more than five marijuana plants, as an example, to add longer sentences for criminal activity.

Is there any part of this bill the hon. member for Charlottetown could support?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, the short answer to the question is, yes.

It is most unfortunate that the bill has been presented in the manner that it has, putting together 110 pages and compiling 9 acts. If there were any room for movement, compromise, amendment or to have this bill severed up into pieces, there are elements of it that our party could support. In the manner in which it is presented, it is not supportable.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the motion by the member for Charlottetown were to fail would his party be prepared to support Bill C-10?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I had hoped that I made that fairly clear in the course of my remarks. Lest there be any confusion, should the motion fail we will most certainly be voting against the bill.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I was back in the campaign in May, crime was a big thing. People really wanted to know what we were going to do about crime and they were really concerned that our crime legislation did not actually pass last spring. Now they want to see it pass.

I am kind of concerned why the Liberals, all of a sudden, are starting to back criminals again? Why can they not get behind victims for a change? Why can they not recognize the importance of a victim and preventing victims. Could the member please explain to me why his party in such great support of criminals?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, here we go again, the language of division. This party and this member are not soft on crime. We are absolutely not backing criminals. I absolutely reject that suggestion and, quite frankly, it is offensive.

We stand in favour of victims. We stand in favour of crime prevention. We stand in favour of putting more resources into the root causes. This is all about division. It is all about streamrolling something through that is based on ideology and not on statistics.

Why will that member not recognize that crime rates are going down and address the root causes? This is not the answer. This is not the right way to go about it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Charlottetown on his first speech in the House. It was excellent.

Earlier today, the minister, in introducing the bill, talked about his concern for victims, and I think that is a concern that is shared by all members of the House. As my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore said a few minutes ago, it is time the members on the Conservative side recognized and accepted that. However, if this does not have the effect of lowering crime, how does it help victims?

It is reasonable to look at what has happened elsewhere when measures like this have been taken. We just need to look, for instance, at the U.S. where the incarceration rate is 700% higher per capita than it is in Canada. In California, where it had the “three strikes you're out” rule, there have been huge increases in incarceration. Does it have a much lower crime rate than we do? The fact is, its crime rate, like ours, has been dropping for 20 years. However, the rate of violent crime in the U.S. is still far higher than in Canada, suggesting that what the government is doing here will have no appreciable effect, perhaps none at all, on the rate of crime in Canada and will not help victims whatsoever.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, the evidence is irrefutable that in the United States this tough on crime legislation, the increasing of mandatory minimum sentences, does not work. It is extremely costly. It costs $108,000 per year to house an inmate in a federal institution. Is that caring for our economy?

There is absolutely no evidence in Statistics Canada nor in other jurisdictions that have taken this approach that it works. It is ideologically driven and it flies in the face of facts and evidence. For a government that purports to be focused on the economy, it is a backward step.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, the safe streets and communities act fulfills this government's commitment, as noted in the June 2011 Speech from the Throne, to reintroduce law and order legislation to combat crime and terrorism. As highlighted by the Minister of Justice, the bill is in five parts and brings together the criminal law reforms that were proposed in nine bills in the last session.

Amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are found in part 2 of the bill, from clause 39 through clause 51 inclusively. These amendments are the same as those proposed in Bill S-10, which was introduced in May 2010, passed by the Senate last December and died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved last March.

I also note that the government first introduced these amendments to address serious drug crimes as Bill C-26 in 2007 and again as Bill C-15 in 2009. We remain committed to enacting these reforms now included in the safe streets and communities act.

These amendments are not about imposing mandatory minimum sentences for all drug crimes. These amendments propose targeted, mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug crimes and ensure that those who carry out these crimes will be penalized. These amendments clearly send the message that Canadians find this type of criminal behaviour unacceptable.

A mandatory minimum sentence is the starting point for the judge's consideration of the appropriate jail term. Where a minimum sentence applies, the sentence imposed by the judge cannot be less. Presently there are no mandatory minimum penalties in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA. The CDSA provides for maximum penalties based on the prohibited activity involved as well as on the substances involved. The maximum penalty for the most serious offences involving the most dangerous drugs is life imprisonment.

The most serious drug offences in the CDSA, as measured by their maximum penalty, are trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importation and exportation and production in respect of schedule I drugs. What are those drugs? They are drugs such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and morphine, and schedule II drugs which are cannabis-related.

All of these offences involving Schedule I drugs are punishable by up to life imprisonment. The offence of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking of cannabis in amounts over three kilograms is punishable by up to life imprisonment, as are the offences of importation and exportation of any amount of cannabis. The offence of producing cannabis in punishable by up to seven years imprisonment.

The least severe penalties in the CDSA for designated substances offences, up to 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction, are reserved for offences involving substances listed in schedules IV and V; that is, substances such as diazepam, or Valium, and secobarbital, Seconal. it should be noted, however, that most of the prohibited activities in the CDSA are legal if committed by someone possessing the proper licence, permit, or exemption.

There are some who do not agree with the drug-related amendments proposed in the bill. They are of the view that serious drug offences do not require a response such as that contained in this proposed legislation. However, serious drug crime is a serious problem in Canada and it requires a serious legislative approach. That is what we are bringing to this issue.

Marijuana cultivation offences have increased significantly in the past several years. According to a study on marijuana grow operations in British Columbia, my home province, in 2003 approximately 39% of all reported marijuana cultivation cases, or 4,514, were located in B.C. Between 1997 and 2000, the total number of these cases increased by over 220%. Although the number of individual operations in B.C. levelled off between 2000 to 2003, the estimated quantity of marijuana produced has increased from 19,729 kilos in 1997 to a seven year high of 79,817 kilos in 2003, due to the size and sophistication of individual operations.

Investigations by BC Hydro indicate the existence of thousands of possible marijuana grow operations. The increase in the illicit production of marijuana has occurred not just in B.C., of course, but across all of Canada.

Available RCMP data indicates a rise in synthetic drug production operations in the last 10 years. The RCMP indicates that there were 25 clandestine labs seized in 2002. In 2008, 43 clandestine labs were seized across Canada. In 2009, 45 clandestine labs were seized by various Canadian police agencies. The majority of labs seized were methamphetamine and ecstasy labs.

It is in part because of the existence of these illicit activities that the Prime Minister unveiled Canada's national anti-drug strategy in October 2007. The national anti-drug strategy provided new resources to prevent illegal drug use, including illicit drug use by young people, to treat people who had drug addictions and to fight illegal drug crime.

The strategy comprises a two-track approach, one which will be tough on drug crime and the other which will focus on drug users.

The national anti-drug strategy includes three action plans: preventing illicit drug use; treating those with illicit drug dependencies; and combatting the production and distribution of illicit drugs.

The action plan to combat the production and distribution of illicit drugs contains a number of elements, including ensuring that strong and adequate penalties are in place for serious drug crimes. It is within this context that the drug-related amendments of this bill are to be viewed. Moreover, these amendments follow through on one of this government's key priorities, which is combatting crime and making our communities safer for all Canadians.

As I have mentioned, domestic operations related to the production and distribution of marijuana and synthetic drugs have dramatically increased, resulting in a serious problem in some regions of Canada. The situation has reached such a point in some parts of Canada that law enforcement agencies are overwhelmed.

Illicit drug production can pose serious health and public safety hazards to those in or around them. They can produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems and endanger the lives and health of whole communities. They are lucrative businesses, and I use that term loosely, and attract a variety of organized crime groups. Huge profits are available with little risk to operators and these profits are used to finance other criminal activities.

The penalties for drug-related offences and the sentences imposed on offenders are considered by many to be too lenient and not commensurate with the level of harm imposed on communities by such operations. The reforms that the government is pursuing in this bill are meant to deal with these concerns.

As members are undoubtedly aware, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act contains a complex offence and penalty structure. Penalties depend on the nature of the prohibited activity and on the type of substance involved. The most problematic and dangerous substances are listed under schedules I and II and the most serious offences involving these substances attract the severest penalties, up to life imprisonment. As I have noted, the CDSA does not currently contain any minimum penalties. The drug-related amendments of the safe streets and communities act propose to enact such minimum penalties for specific offences.

The offences being targeted are: trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, production, importing, exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting drugs.

The drugs that would be covered are schedule I drugs, such as cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine, and schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

The drug-related mandatory minimum penalty scheme proposed in the bill is based on the presence of specific aggravating factors, most of which are commonly present in serious drug crimes. The scheme would not apply to possession offences or to offences involving drugs such as diazepam or valium.

As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, the drug-related proposals contained in the bill reflect a tailored approach to MMPs for serious drug offences. Some further details about the targeted or tailored regime will assist hon. members in understanding the approach and supporting speedy passage of the bill, we believe.

For schedule I drugs, and that is heroine, cocaine, or methamphetamine, the bill proposes a one year minimum sentence for the majority of the serious drug offences if there are certain aggravating factors. The aggravating factors exist where: the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with organized crime; the offence involved violence, or threat of violence, or weapons or a threat of the use of weapons; or the offence is committed by someone who was convicted or served a term of imprisonment for a serious drug offence in the previous 10 years. If youth are present or the offence occurs in a prison, the minimum sentence is increased to two years.

In the case of importing, exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting, the minimum sentence would be one year if the offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking or the person, while committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority or had access to an area that is restricted to authorized persons and used that access to commit the offence. The penalty will be raised to two years if the offence involves more than one kilogram of a schedule I drug. Again, these are drugs such as heroine, cocaine, or methamphetamine.

A minimum sentence of two years is provided for a production offence involving a schedule I drug. The minimum sentence for the production of schedule I drugs increases to three years where aggravating factors relating to health and safety are present. That is where: the person used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence; the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or were in the immediate area; the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or the person placed or set a trap.

For schedule II drugs, such as marijuana, cannabis resin, et cetera, the proposed mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing or exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting is one year if certain aggravating factors such as violence, recidivism or organized crime are present. If factors such as trafficking to youth are present, the minimum is increased to two years.

For the offence of marijuana production, the bill proposes mandatory penalties based on the number of plants involved: production of six to two hundred plants and if the plants are cultivated for the purpose of trafficking, six months; production of 201 to 500 plants, the penalty, one year; production of more than 500 plants, two years; and production of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, one year. The minimum sentences for the production of schedule II drugs increases by 50% where any of the aggravating factors relating to health and safety, which I have just described, are present.

It is important to note that the drug-related proposals of the bill are not limited to creating minimum sentences. Amphetamines, as well as the date rape drug GHB and Rohypnol would be transferred from schedule III to schedule I, thereby allowing the courts to impose longer sentences for offences involving these dangerous drugs.

The maximum penalty for producing marijuana would be increased from seven to fourteen years imprisonment. That is the maximum penalty, speaking about the other end of the scale now.

Last, I wish to point out that this legislation is not just about punishing drug offenders by enhancing the sentence provisions. The proposed legislation would allow the courts, including drug treatment courts, to exempt an offender from the mandatory minimum sentence that would otherwise be imposed where the offence involved no other aggravating factors other than a previous conviction for a serious drug offence, and the offender successfully completes a treatment program.

The proposed reforms to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act also require that within five years after the coming into force of these provisions, a committee of the Senate or of this House or a committee of both places undertake a comprehensive review of these provisions and their operation, including, my friend opposite will be pleased to hear, a cost benefit analysis of the minimum sentence provisions.

It is a fundamental principle of the Canadian sentencing framework that a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Criminal Code provides that the purpose of sentencing is to impose sanctions on offenders that are just in order to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, something we all want.

Accordingly, the objectives in sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offenders and others from committing crimes and separate offenders from society where necessary, as well as to assist in rehabilitating offenders, have them accept responsibility for their actions and repair the very real harm that they have caused to victims or the community.

I would submit to members of the House and to Canadians in general that the proposed drug related mandatory minimum penalties contained in this bill meet these requirements. These are strong measures but they are reasonable and they are meaningful, and a meaningful response to a problem that is increasing in and plaguing our cities.

The manner in which these minimum penalties would apply is intended to ensure that they do not result in grossly disproportionate sentences being handed down.

As parliamentarians, we are this country's lawmakers. It is incumbent upon us to see that our laws provide appropriate and adequate measures to address this very serious problem.

Some members of the House may be of the view that serious drug offences do not require a response such as the one contained in the bill. However, serious drug crime is a growing problem in Canadian cities and in smaller towns, and a serious legislative response is required.

The government has made tackling crime a priority in order to make our streets and our communities safer. This bill is a reasonable, balanced and narrowly structured approach which the government is taking toward realizing this goal.

I am certain that we will have the support of the majority of the members of the House for these measures. I ask everyone to please consider them carefully.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, currently, only one out of five prisoners has access to anger management programs or to drug and alcohol abuse programs. Right now, these prisoners are released without having had access to treatment, which increases their risk of reoffending. This bill will send even more people to prison, which will increase pressure on the limited resources for these programs.

How can the government introduce a bill that will send even more people to jail, when existing prisoners do not even have access to the rehabilitation treatment they need?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government does not create offenders. We are not in that business. We are in the business of dealing with offenders when offences have been committed and standing up for victims of crime.

With respect to the issue of the mentally ill in prisons, we are aware of that. It is a serious problem. It is one the Canadian Bar Association has identified and it is one we continue to work on with our partners in the provinces who are primarily responsible for treatment and those kinds of health issues. However, that does not make the suffering of a victim any less and it does not make their recovery any shorter.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a different concept of what harm reduction is. To me, harm reduction has less to do with the penalty phase in drug offences and more to do with the abuses that are caused by drugs, trying to rehabilitate and the programs that we have, which is more of an international concept.

I do want to speak to the issue of the mandatory minimum as it serves as a deterrent to crime. Now I ask this honestly. I am not infusing any opinion at this point. I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion. The hon. member says that in order to make the streets safe, we are imposing a mandatory minimum. We have heard from my NDP colleague who spoke passionately about mandatory minimum records around the world and, in many cases, it did not live up to what was expected.

In this particular situation, if a mandatory minimum is imposed, will it actually deter the crime that is being spoken about here? Will it actually make communities that much safer?

I would like the hon. member to explain reducing crime and reducing the number of future victims as a concept of mandatory minimums.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, would that I had a crystal ball and I could determine ahead of time just what all the effects would be both of crime and the impact on victims.

What we do see in the 2008 Department of Justice study is that the victims of crime bore 83% of the cost of crime in that year in Canada, which was over $99 billion. Costs include costs to property, costs to time off work and costs of injuries. There are so many costs borne by the victims.

When we speak of minimum sentences, we are also trying to achieve some consistency of sentencing across Canada. As the hon. member may know, there are vast differences in sentencing from province to province with respect to very similar circumstances. We are trying to target that as well.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a retired police officer and one who has conducted countless cannabis-marijuana operations and was qualified as a expert for the Supreme Court of British Columbia in relation to grow-ops and the amounts that are required for the purpose of trafficking, I applaud this act coming forward as it would give the police officers, who work on the streets on a daily basis, the knowledge that something will be happening when they lay a charge.

Could my colleague please further explain how this bill would instill confidence to the public, something that Canadians have asked us to do?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, even though my colleague sits on the other side, we are on the same side with respect to where we actually sit in the House.

I appreciate what the hon. member said. We are trying to give law enforcement the tools it needs to deal with what is, as evidenced by my earlier remarks, a growing problem. My home province and the hon. member's home province of British Columbia particularly know the damage and costs caused by large grow-op operations, the connections to organized crime, the use of these operations and their products as currency in other crime, and it escalates from there.

This gives law enforcement some better tools to deal with those situations.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the parliamentary secretary. I have had occasion to meet her a couple of times outside the House. I have always found her to be very reasonable and rational. I think we will have to say that we simply disagree on the efficacy of mandatory minimum sentences.

I would like to ask the hon. member about another provision of the bill, which she did not touch on, which was the international transfer of prisoners. I think this is very much a public safety issue.

Would the member not agree that it would be better for almost all of those international prisoners, rather than completing their sentence abroad and coming back to Canada with no notice to Canadians and with no supervision, to be transferred back here and, on their release, be subject to our monitoring and parole system?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to that particular aspect, that is under public safety. As I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, it is not directly under my ministry. We do recognize that this is an issue when are incarcerated in other countries. It is something that the minister needs to consider when agreeing with transfers. There are inter-jurisdictional issues that come into play. In other words, it depends on the country, our relations with that country, how the rule of law is seen in that country and what that country's laws are.

However, we are aware that this is something we need to be vigilant about.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary if the government would give any consideration to allowing this House to consider these individual bills as individual bills and not as an omnibus bill. The omnibus bill does present difficulties for many of us who would like to see amendments to some sections, approval of others and so on. However, as a package, this presents problems.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am aware that the member is new to this House, as I am in this session, and, therefore, may not be aware that all of these bills have come before the House before, as mentioned in my early remarks, some going back several years. With respect to the trafficking provisions, it is the fourth time this has come before the House. These will be studied in committee, as all bills are. They will looked at clause by clause, discussed and witnesses will be heard, but they are being put forward as a comprehensive package. That is what we promised the voters. We are committed to protecting victims of crime. We told the Canadian public that and we will honour our commitments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, does the member not see the value in terms of investing more resources into things that would prevent crimes from occurring in the first place? I am talking more about crime prevention type of programs by investing in young people so they have alternatives to hanging around the streets. Does the member see the merit in that and would she support those types of initiatives just as enthusiastically as--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has about 40 seconds to respond.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my role as parliamentary secretary and also as a mother of four, I always applaud initiatives that help youth to keep themselves busy, active and engaged in our communities. Politics is a good place to start.

Of course this is all about protecting communities and protecting youth. A lot of these provisions are targeted at helping youth and helping youth get away from this kind of activity. I would always applaud initiatives that help youth.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives introduced nine pieces of legislation in one big bundle. There are over 100 pages in the bill. These pieces of legislation fall under the purview of three separate ministries. The bills range from broad changes to our corrections system that are based on a failed U.S.-style approach, to giving the minister absolute power to approve or deny the international transfer of offenders. These changes are sweeping and will fundamentally change several aspects of Canada's criminal justice system.

The way this bill was introduced speaks a lot to the Conservatives' approach to crime. They have introduced a big bill to help them appear to be tough on crime, but again they have proven that they are not smart on crime.

The goal of any changes to our criminal justice system should be public safety first. It should be safer streets and communities. We should accomplish this by finding cost-effective programs and policies that really make a difference. However, that clearly is not the priority of the Conservatives. They are not interested in looking at the evidence or studying the real impacts of the measures in this bill. The way they introduced them in an omnibus bill shows they have no intention of studying impacts. They just want to ram the legislation through before the public learns how ineffective and expensive it will be.

I will say that some measures in the bill make some sense, but unfortunately the vast majority of the bill really does not matter. We need to be able to examine this on a case-by-case basis. This is also an incredibly fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation. Earlier in the House the minister was asked a number of times about the cost. We do not know the cost. How much is it going to cost?

The government is asking us to support a bill it has not costed. It has refused to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with information so he can cost these initiatives. I imagine the government is withholding that information because it does not want Canadians or Parliament to know how big the tab for its big crime bill is going to be, not just for the federal government but for much of what is going to be downloaded to the provinces. Unfortunately, taxpayers in this country are going to be the ones left to pay this big crime bill's tab.

The experts agree, as many studies have been done, that the Conservative approach on crime is the wrong approach. It is not based on evidence and the majority of these measures will not make our communities any safer.

Across the U.S., governments have tried this before and have seen it fail. We have seen this south of the border. Many of the states are now abandoning the ineffective approach to crime that the Conservative government is pursuing in this country. Governments in the U.S. are abandoning it because it does not work, because it is incredibly expensive and it has been shown to be very ineffective.

I do not know how the members across the aisle can justify ramming a bill through that is so reckless that it has the potential to be financially crippling to the government and will not make any of our communities safer. I come from a community where crime, gang violence and drug-related crimes are real problems. I want to see changes that stop gangs from recruiting young children. I want to see more police officers on the streets. I want prisoners to come out of prison rehabilitated and able to be contributing members of society, but clearly that is not a priority for the Conservative government.

I have a number of concerns with key parts of the bill. One major area is the changes that are being proposed for our pardon system.

Our pardon system needs to be fair to all Canadians and it needs to be strengthened. It must protect public safety by promoting the reintegration of reformed offenders and ensuring that the public is protected from those who still pose a threat to society.

This portion of the bill proposes a number of changes which must be carefully considered.

Changes to the pardon system must be rational, evidence based, and put public safety first. There needs to be a thorough study of the pardon system, and any changes should come from the results of that study. Unfortunately, the Conservatives across the aisle seem more interested in using this issue to score political points.

Of course we need to make changes to protect Canadians from pardons in outrageous cases where clearly our system has failed over the years, but making broad changes, such as disallowing pardons for those with four or more indictable offences, changes the nature of our system completely.

Pardons serve a very important function. They allow people who have made positive life changes and who have abstained from criminal behaviour to be freed from many of the negative impacts of having a criminal record, such as what occurs when securing employment and housing.

Approximately 3.5 million Canadians have a criminal record. I find it hard to believe that the government has thought of the impact these changes will have on these Canadians.

Four offences can occur in one incident. Someone could have one misguided event, but under this legislation the individual would not be able to have his or her record sealed. For people trying to turn their lives around, the inability to get a pardon can have very detrimental implications on their lives.

Employment is a stabilizing factor in reintegrating individuals and the inability to gain employment only increases the risk of reoffending. Stable meaningful employment, as well as the income, housing and social networks that employment can foster, are significant protective factors against reoffending. From a public safety perspective, this type of incentive offered to individuals trying to reintegrate successfully back into the community makes good sense.

By summarily making pardons more difficult to get, and by doing it without any study or rationale, the Conservative government will make it more difficult for people to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. If the Conservatives make it more difficult for deserving people to get pardons, those people will not be able to get back into society and will be far more likely to commit crimes in the future. It is entirely possible, in fact very likely, that in some ways this legislation will actually increase crime.

Another area of concern for me are the corrections and conditional release changes in the bill.

Aspects of the bill would open the door to the violation of human rights in Canadian prisons. These changes would have Canada adopt a U.S.-style approach to prisons that is regressive, expensive and which has shown to be very ineffective.

One particularly disturbing part of this legislation about which many experts have expressed concern is the changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The act currently reads that the Correctional Service of Canada must use the “least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of the public, staff members, and offenders”. The least restrictive measures language is a time tested and court derived standard for the acceptable treatment of prisoners.

This legislation removes the “least restrictive” language and changes the standard to “measures...that are limited to only what is necessary and proportionate” to the objective for which they are imposed. This change will open the door to more severe treatment of offenders. In the absence of any evidence that the “least restrictive” language is hindering the ability of the CSC to fulfill its mandate, it should not be carelessly discarded.

I support changes to our federal corrections system that will result in more offenders being successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated into communities upon their eventual release. This is the most effective way to promote public safety, to make our communities safer places for our citizens to live. However, the reality is that our federal prison system is lacking in the programs needed to get offenders to turn their lives around.

This omnibus bill creates a paper obligation for prisoners to participate in non-existent rehabilitation programs and then sets out how to punish them for failing to get rehabilitated. To me it makes no sense. Experts in the corrections field have stated very clearly that this is the wrong approach to take. The government is setting itself up for failure because this legislation will not achieve its stated objective. In fact, it will make things worse.

The bill reflects an outdated U.S.-style approach to prisons which wastes money and incarcerates more people for longer. We have seen the results in the United States. Most importantly, it does nothing to reduce reoffences. Public safety means getting smart on crime. Those are not smart changes.

Another part of the legislation that concerns me is the changes regarding the international transfer of offenders. This bill claims to enhance public safety, which of course is something I agree with. However, the bill grants absolute discretion to the minister to pick and choose who is brought back to Canada. The act needs to be strengthened, not shredded. The bill does away with a clear legal process that has been in place since 1978 and it replaces it with decisions made at the minister's whim. This bill opens up the process to bias. It does away with any transparency and accountability.

There is no doubt there are offenders who should not be brought back to this country and public safety needs to be considered when we are making these decisions. There are cases when public safety is enhanced by allowing the transfer to take place, which gives Canada the control of the offender's rehabilitation program and supervision after the offender has finished his or her sentence, rather than have the offender return to Canada unsupervised after finishing a sentence abroad.

To allow the minister such wide-ranging discretion to ignore criteria completely and to use his or her own subjective opinion as to the test for the criteria he or she does consider is wrong. It replaces an established law-based process with a politicized subjective process.

This is not the way to make wholesale changes to our criminal justice system. Before any changes like this are made, Parliament must study their effects. We owe it to Canadians. It is part of our job.

All indications are that the changes Conservatives want to make are the same mistakes that many state governments have made in the United States. We have seen this approach fail in the U.S. Many states are now repealing these laws, but the Conservatives seem determined to repeat mistakes made in the United States. We should be learning from our neighbour's mistakes, not repeating them.

Where does this leave us? What is the goal of this legislation? It would seem that effectiveness is not the goal. The goal seems to be stoking fears among Canadians and playing up those fears for political gain. A responsible approach for any large policy change would be to thoroughly study proposed changes and seek advice from experts. The Conservatives seem intent on refusing to do that and on ramming this through recklessly.

Why are they doing that? It has been mentioned in this place many times before. Key stakeholder after key stakeholder, expert after expert has spoken out against the kinds of legislation that the Conservatives are bringing forward. However, they will not talk about whether or not this will actually make our streets and communities any safer. They will not talk about how this initiative has been tried and has failed elsewhere. They will not talk about how much of a huge financial burden this will be on our economy and on Canadians.

It seems that many goals of this legislation are to score political points and play on fears. New Democrats have been clear about the approach we should be taking. We should be taking an approach that is based on evidence, that works in our communities, that hires more police officers, that is built on more than simply the outdated megaprison system. Most of all, we need an approach that is based on putting public safety first.

I urge the government to listen to experts. Earlier in question period we had the finance minister talking about how the government needs to listen to experts; I encourage the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public safety to listen to experts, to look at the evidence, to look at the cost, and at the very least to give this massive piece of legislation a proper study in Parliament.

We owe it to Canadians to be clear about the costs and to be clear about the effectiveness of this legislation. It will cost untold billions of dollars and will not make our streets any safer. This is not tough on crime and it is not smart on crime; it is wrong on crime.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that as opposed to some of the other speeches that were given in the House, my colleague's speech is worthy of compliment. I think this is one of his first speeches in the House, and it was on subject matter that is very important to British Columbia. I want to compliment him also for doing giving his speech in what I thought was a respectful tone, which I think is helpful.

The thesis of his speech was that the government should do three things. First he said that we should have thoughtful study before we bring forward legislation. Well, we are halfway through our sixth year as a government, although of course only a couple of months into our majority mandate, and we have tabled this legislation in the past. It is legislation that has been debated thoroughly in the House. In fact, it was a centrepiece of our election campaign platform, and Canadians had an opportunity to have input during the campaign. I can say that after five and a half years, this subject has been studied, and it is indeed time to act.

He said that the government should propose changes. In fact, we are proposing changes. We are proposing changes that we presented to the Canadian people, and the Canadian people have given us a mandate.

He also said we should seek advice. We have sought advice. I have to point out to those Canadians who are watching that what we are doing in this legislation is precisely what we told Canadians we would do if we were entrusted with a majority government. This is what we said we would do, and we are going to do it.

If we were to break up this legislation, as the leader of the Green Party says, she would ask why we were breaking up legislation and say that we were breaking our word with Canadians. If we were to consider a battery of amendments that would slow down the process, the NDP and the opposition would ask why we were not acting and why we were slowing down the process.

What we have done here is what we said we would do if we were elected. It is the right and appropriate thing to do. The opposition is more than free, obviously, to make its case and to propose amendments at committee, but we are going to move forward, because that is what we said we would do.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a new member to the House. Frankly, over the last number of months and the last couple of years I have read about speaker after speaker and expert after expert talking about this bill and the crime agenda for the Harper government. It failed in the United States. It did not work. In fact, the United States is repealing most of the tough-on-crime laws that were implemented back in the 1980s and 1990s.

To spend billions and billions of dollars on prisons does not make sense to me. Maybe it does to my partners across the aisle, but it does not make sense to me, and I do not think it makes sense to Canadians. I think we need to invest in education. We need to invest in health care. That is where the priority should be. The priority should be jobs.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage mentioned that the member is free to oppose this legislation. I would like to put forward that if we follow democracy to its logical extent, he is in fact mandated to oppose it, as he received the majority of votes in his riding.

Regarding mandatory minimum issues, how does he feel that mandatory minimums in this case will not be able to make the community safe as a stand-alone tool in the toolbox of devices used to help curtail crime and to help victims?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this from my Conservative colleagues not only today but many times. They have talked about how they are standing up for victims and how they get behind victims.

The mandatory minimum sentence for marijuana is more than that prescribed for child rape. How is that standing up for victims? That is troubling to me. Members across the aisle need to look at this. How is that standing up for victims?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it struck me during one of the first speeches in the House by the member for Surrey North that his speech had a common sense to it, a balance of what we should be talking about in the House.

The point he just raised is so troubling. When we pause to think about it, we see that the mandatory minimums for marijuana are more than for child rape. Someone somewhere in the government did not take a good solid look at what the Conservatives were about to do. I would like to hear the member's views on their lack of common sense, which I would suggest is not necessarily common on the other side of the House.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am the father of two children. I have a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old and I am very concerned that the government proposes a longer sentence for a marijuana offence than it does for the rape of a child. That is troubling to me, as well as the whole concept of where the government is going in regard to how many billions it is going to cost. In the United States it has almost brought a number of states to bankruptcy, and they are reversing much of the tough-on-crime legislation introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. We need to learn from our neighbours and not repeat those mistakes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member for Surrey North to the House and congratulate him on his position as critic for the official opposition on public safety.

I was troubled by his speech. He talked several times about the so-called U.S. failed system and how sending more people to jail does nothing to deter crime or protect citizens. If he truly believes that, if he truly believes that sending more people to jail does nothing to protect society, he must believe that no one should be sent to jail.

Is that his position? If jail is so ineffective as a crime deterrent, does he subscribe to the notion that no one should be sent to jail?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the premise of the question is absolutely wrong.

We believe people should be punished for crimes that are committed, but the punishment must fit the crime. We must look at it in a little bit bigger context. We cannot just narrowly focus on setting minimums. It is very troubling when a minimum sentence for marijuana use is longer than for the rape of a child. That is very troubling to me.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech. He talked about crime, the drug problems that exist in his community, and street gangs. He also spoke very clearly about the ineffectiveness of the harsh legislative measures that have been taken in other countries to try to reduce crime. Those measures have not worked.

I wonder if he could give us some examples of measures that he believes would be more effective in reducing crime and recidivism.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of ways corrective measures have been put into place.

We can have better programs in the prisons to help rehabilitate prisoners so that when they do come out, they are better able to integrate into society more productively.

We need to have better programs for our children and our youth, and more programs in schools. These programs would keep our youth from hanging out at the local 7-Eleven stores or from being recruited by local gang members. We need recreation programs for our kids so that they would not only have a healthy life but would also be able to stay away from criminal activities.

Certainly there are many things that can be done in order to have safer communities

However, this approach by the Conservative government, this tough-on-crime approach, has not worked anywhere in the world. In fact, anywhere it has been tried, they have been repealing those laws. They are getting rid of them and focusing more on youth and more on preventative programs.

In Texas alone there were 21 youth detention centres. Can we guess what happened? They have now reduced that number to about five or six. That is clearly the right approach, and they have saved billions of dollars in prison costs.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise here today to speak at second reading of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

As many of my colleagues know, this government committed to introducing once again—yes, once again—any law and order bills that died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament.

The proposed changes aim, for example, to protect children from sexual crimes, to clarify ineligibility for conditional sentences and pardons, and to protect other vulnerable members of our society.

With all that in mind, the bill before us constitutes a comprehensive bill incorporating all the changes previously proposed in nine separate bills introduced during the previous parliament.

The first part of the bill—clauses 2 to 9—contains the changes suggested in the former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Part 2 contains clauses 10 to 51 of the bill, which include the amendments found in former bills C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, which was designed to protect children from sexual predators and certain sexual offences; C-16 , the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act, intended to limit the use of conditional sentences; and S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, to increase sentences for serious drug-related offences.

Part 3—clauses 52 to 166—includes measures to increase the accountability of offenders, eliminate pardons for serious crimes and modify the factors considered in the international transfer of Canadian offenders. These amendments were contained in former bills C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; C-23B, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act; C-59, the Abolition of Early Parole Act; and C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Part 4 of the bill—clauses 167 to 204—amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better protect Canadians against violent young offenders. These amendments were included in former Bill C-4 , Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

The last part of the bill—clauses 205 to 207—proposes amendments contained in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act, that would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to protect workers who want to work in Canada and are at risk of being subjected to humiliating or degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation.

In particular, I would like to elaborate on clause 34 of Part 2 of the bill, which seeks to curtail the use of conditional sentences for some property crimes and other serious crimes.

As I mentioned earlier, these amendments were contained in a previous bill, Bill C-16, which died on the order paper with the dissolution of the third session of the 40th Parliament. However, there are some technical differences, which I will discuss later.

Currently, under the Criminal Code, conditional sentencing, sometimes referred to as house arrest, can be imposed when an offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence and the court hands down a prison sentence of less than two years.

In fact, since December 2007, conditional sentences have no longer been available for indictable offences with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more in the case of serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences or organized crime offences.

What is more, the court imposing a conditional sentence has to be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community will not jeopardize the safety of the community and that the sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

It is important to note that the fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; to separate offenders from society, where necessary; to assist in rehabilitating offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders.

The Criminal Code also informs us that a just sanction is a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. To achieve this, the courts take into consideration aggravating and mitigating factors in each case. Before describing the key aspects of the proposed changes, I want to provide some background on the provisions in the Criminal Code on conditional sentences.

Conditional sentencing came into effect in 1996, when the government wanted, among other things, to reduce excessive use of incarceration for less serious crimes. I repeat: less serious crimes. Moreover, the information document that accompanied these sentencing reforms states that the addition of conditional sentencing as a new form of sentencing means that offenders who have committed a less serious crime and who otherwise would be incarcerated can serve their sentence in the community under close supervision.

The limits that I mentioned earlier were established in order to guarantee that conditional sentences could be given only for less serious crimes, in keeping with the fundamental principles and purpose of sentencing. However, in the years following the creation of this type of sentencing, there has been a complete lack of consistency when it comes to determining when conditional sentencing is appropriate.

At the time, many court decisions gave a conditional sentence for serious and violent crimes. This contributed to the public's loss of faith in the justice system. Clearly, many people, and some provinces and territories, wondered whether the limits on conditional sentencing set out in the Criminal Code were sufficient.

In order to deal with this lack of consistency in conditional sentencing, this government introduced Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) on May 4, 2006. This bill proposed the elimination of conditional sentencing for any indictable offence with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more. However, Bill C-9 was amended by the opposition parties to limit the ban on conditional sentencing to indictable offences with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more that constitute serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences or criminal organization offences. These amendments took effect on December 1, 2007.

The definition of serious personal injury was developed in the context of dangerous offenders, which is why this definition is found in part 24 of the Criminal Code. According to this definition, serious personal injury offences include any indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder—punishable by at least 10 years in prison—involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person.

The second part of this definition is clearer, as it lists sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault as serious personal injury offences.

It is important to understand that the opposition parties borrowed a term straight from the dangerous offender regime in order to put limits on a sentence that should only be applied to less dangerous offenders. That created two philosophical approaches for interpreting the definition of serious personal injury in the context of conditional sentencing.

Another issue with the definition of serious personal injury is that it only targets violent offences. The definition of serious personal injury cannot ensure that a conditional sentence will not be used in the case of serious fraud or theft over $5,000.

The amendments in this bill will ensure that certain non-violent serious offences will still be treated as serious offences, thus avoiding the use of conditional sentencing. The amendments to the conditional sentencing regime proposed in this bill aim to establish clear benchmarks to allow for consistent use of conditional sentencing in order to respect Parliament's intention when it created this sentence.

That is why the bill proposes eliminating the reference to serious personal injury offences and restricting the availability of conditional sentences for all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life.

The same will apply to indictable offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment when they result in bodily harm, involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs or involve the use of weapons.

When an offence is committed under these circumstances, it is even more important to deter the offender and denounce the crime. This justifies restricting the availability of conditional sentences in such cases. It is possible however that the limits I just described do not cover all offences prosecuted by way of indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Therefore, the bill also proposes limiting the availability of conditional sentences for prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction of a person under 14, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, and arson for fraudulent purpose.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there are technical differences between the changes proposed in this bill and those contained in the former Bill C-16.

For example, Bill C-16 proposed the abolition of conditional sentencing for the offence of luring a child, described in section 172.1. This is no longer on the list of offences that would not be eligible for conditional sentencing, since article 22 of this bill proposes a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year in the case of an indictable offence, or 90 days in the case of a summary conviction.

Another change from Bill C-16 is that the list of offences that are no longer eligible for conditional sentence includes the new offence of motor vehicle theft, described in section 333.1 of the Criminal Code.

The final change would correct an error that slipped into Bill C-16. That bill did not include the offence of abduction of a person under 14 by a parent or guardian. The intent was, however, to target the offence described in section 281 of the Criminal Code, which has to do with the abduction of a person under 14 by a stranger.

I want to reassure my colleagues that even though the reference in section 742.1 to serious personal injury offences is set to be eliminated, the changes in this bill will ensure that those who are convicted of sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault will not be eligible if prosecuted by way of indictment.

Note also that conditional sentencing will no longer be available for persons convicted of sexual assault against a person 16 or under since clause 25 of the bill proposes a minimum sentence of one year when the offence is prosecuted by way of indictment, and 90 days on summary conviction.

This government is addressing the concerns of Canadians who no longer want to see conditional sentences used for serious crimes, whether they are violent crimes or property crimes.

For the reasons I have just mentioned, I urge my fellow members of this House to unanimously support the proposed changes to the conditional sentencing system.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments.

He said that the government is very attentive to Canadians' concerns, but we already know that this bill will cost us billions of dollars that could be invested in the education or health care systems. I think that the government is not very attentive to what is actually of concern to Canadians.

We know that this bill will criminalize and target the people who are already the most marginalized in society, such as youth and people with mental illness. We also know that the first nations represent 10.8% of the population of Canada but 18% of the population of federal prisons.

I would like to hear the hon. member's reaction to these figures, and I would like to know why he wants to pass a bill that will increase the overrepresentation of first nations people in federal prisons.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

Certainly, many people who pass through in the penal system may not have the same mental capacity as an ordinary Canadian citizen. However, methods of defence are available for people who lack this capacity. In addition, it is important to remember that, as painful as it may be for the person who is incarcerated, the prison system has rehabilitation programs. In many cases, the problems that people in the system have were not identified at a young age. It is often once they enter the penal system that they are diagnosed with mental or other problems. In such cases, it is always possible to transfer them to another centre that can help them to become more productive members of society.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for a number of years I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. When Ottawa makes changes and brings in legislation, quite often it has a profound impact in terms of the budgets at the local and provincial levels governments. That impact is fairly profound on this bill. We have had great difficulty in terms of trying to come to grips with just how much Bill C-10 will cost the taxpayers and how much money the provinces will have to come forward with in order to compensate the bill.

When I was the critic, I was always pretty gung-ho on wanting to prevent crimes from happening. That meant taking those scarce resources and trying to invest them so that little Johnny, as opposed to getting involved in a gang activity, would be involved in a school activity.

Does the parliamentary secretary have a sense of how much money this will cost the different types of jurisdictions, or can he take this as notice and provide us information on how much, for example, it would cost the province of Manitoba to implement Bill C-10?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected on May 2 and I am not aware, of the hundreds and hundreds of pages that were tabled, of the cost of these systems. I know, in speaking to the hon. minister, that there has been much co-operation between the provinces and the federal government. In fact, many of these bills have been on the order paper and have been debated. The provinces have asked for them to be put in place because they also want their streets to be protected.

I am sure the provinces could perhaps provide a more detailed look at what the cost would be. It appears from their willingness to co-operate that they are more than willing to see these measures put in place so that they, like us, will stand up for Canadians and protect them.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues missing from this debate thus far is the issue of judges and their ability to make rulings and judgments. When mandatory sentencing is present, a lot of the discretionary power that judges have is taken out of their hands.

One of the reasons our justice system works as well as it does is because judges do have discretion. There will be many situations where we must remember that these are actual people appearing before judges and not pieces of paper or machines. Judges need to have that discretion.

Would the member like to make a comment about that issue?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a very relevant question, which was canvassed at length by the Canadian Bar Association and on which it focused.

However, in our role as parliamentarians, we fix maximum sentences, we fix minimum sentences and we give guidance to the courts as to what is appropriate and which crimes are determined to be more heinous than perhaps others. We dictate the severity.

I do not remember the exact year, but not long ago Parliament abolished the death penalty. That was our call as well. Yes, there is a spectrum, but it is Parliament's call to give the courts guidance on where the crime fits with respect to the question of severity.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the honourable member point the House, in any way, shape or form, to a scintilla of evidence that shows that minimum mandatories actually contribute to the reduction of crime or repetition of crime?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Once one is in jail, one certainly does not commit crimes. That is the way in which our streets and our citizens are protected.

There are two types of dissuasion. There is general dissuasion and there is specific dissuasion. Specific dissuasion is particularly important upon repeat offenders. The sentence is upped, it is made more severe each step of the way and there is no vacation when criminals are in jail. They are not committing crimes or stealing cars.

From the point of view of general deterrence as it relates the question of the issue of the drug bill, we have people flying from Seattle because they would rather be caught in Canada for a drug-related offence because there is no sentence. People who deal with drugs in Canada will go to jail. The people of Canada have spoken on that and that is what we are standing up for. We walk the walk and talk the talk.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the logic he has presented in the House, that basically because young people are overlooked, there are no resources to diagnose or address mental illness, offenders go to jail and their mental illness is addressed there.

It seems to me that this is an argument for prevention and investing in resources, which has not happened in our country. The Conservative government has been as guilty as any government in terms of undermining any ability to address the problem of mental illness among Canadians and Canadian youth.

Perhaps the hon. member can square the circle for me and explain how building more jail and investing more in incarceration will help, while at the same time rehabilitation and efforts to help people with mental illness have been reduced over and over again.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted, oftentimes issues are identified at a very late stage and many of the entry points where issues of mental problems or perhaps difficulties in coherence are identified are in provincial areas such as schools, in social services and various ports of entry in provincial jurisdictions. Certainly there is work to be done between the federal government and the provincial jurisdictions to identify these issues early. I am sure that in the future we will be willing to work hand in hand with them.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary's comments on deterrence.

Before I came to this chamber, I spent 20 years working in the area of criminal justice, where it is very well known that deterrence that actually works is based on the certainty and the swiftness of detection and prosecution.

Why does the government insist on trying to work at the other end of the system where deterrence does not work, rather than investing resources into prosecution and police officers on the street, which actually does have a deterrent effect?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a perfect answer, but I do know that violent criminals who are in jail do not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens, and that is who we are standing up for.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I often like to do when we stand in the House and have a dialogue and debate among each other about issues of crime and safety in our country, I like to start with what I think is a bridging set of statements in which we all believe.

I think every member in the House believes in and wants to create policy that keeps our communities safe.

I think every member in the House, legitimately and sincerely, wants to ensure that we have a justice system that is efficient, effective and geared toward the goals that we all hope our justice system would be geared toward, which is to ensure that our justice system accomplishes the goals that it purports to have.

That goal would be twofold, when we combine effective public policy on crime and an effective justice system, and that is to adopt policies that prevent crime as much as we can from happening in the first place and once crime is committed, to do everything we can to ensure that the person committing the crime does not commit it again.

I had the honour of being our party's public safety critic in the last Parliament and spent a good part of almost two years examining, in detail, the situation in our corrections system. I had the distinct honour and privilege of touring some 26 federal correctional institutions and seeing first-hand the work that our correctional officials do every day in our prisons. It also gave me an eye-opening experience into the real situation that was occurring in our federal prisons. I would encourage all members of the House, as members of Parliament, to inspect our federal institutions and learn first-hand what is going on.

A provision in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act specifically gives MPs the untrammelled right to go into our federal institutions and inspect them. As legislators, that is a very important responsibility so we can be supervising, monitoring and inspecting our federal prisons.

I will tell the House what I have noticed in visiting those prisons from my point of view. The people who populate those prisons are, as has been said, among the most marginalized people in society, in general. It is true that there is a small segment of the prison population who are incorrigible, dangerous and violent people for whom we have very little option but to keep locked away from society. Nobody in the House would suggest that the Clifford Olsons and the Paul Bernardos of the world should safely ever be returned to the streets of our country and they should pay a price for the crimes they have committed by being incarcerated for the rest of their lives.

However, we cannot make policy based on that small percentage, because what I also saw was that 80% of the people who are in our federal prisons today, men and women, suffer from an addiction. This figure is widely accepted on all sides of the House. The public safety committee heard expert testimony after expert testimony from corrections officials, from wardens, from the John Howard Society, from the Elizabeth Fry Society, from all manner of people who all agreed with that figure, that 80% suffer from an addiction.

Another commonly accepted fact on all sides of the House is that there is a substantial number of men and women inside our institutions who suffer from mental illness. Leaving aside, the obvious point is addiction itself is a mental illness. Issues like fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, brain damage, low cognition and those with brain injuries also are disproportionately represented in our prison system.

That leads me to my first point. If we truly want to ensure that when those people come out of prison they do not recommit offences, then we need direct resources at the real problems they face.

It is true that well over 90% of people in our federal institutions will leave those institutions and come back into our communities. They will be walking down our streets, walking down our alleys, sitting beside us in restaurants, applying for jobs. They will be members of our communities.

It is only common sense. It is not only from a moral point of view but it is from a self-interested point of view for us to ensure we do everything possible when we make policy to improve the situations that cause them to commit their crimes in the first place. That is why the New Democratic Party is a consistent voice for putting resources into crime prevention and into resources that address and attack the fundamental causes of these people's criminogenic behaviour where we can do so.

What I see in Bill C-10 is an accumulation of ineffective policies to solve a diminishing problem that is inexorbitantly expensive. I do not see how that will make a noticeable dent in the problem that we have in this country.

At the public safety committee, we asked a person from the United States who is a member of an initiative called right on crime to appear before our committee to tell us about the experience in the United States. The person who came up was the appointee of Ronald Reagan as the original drug enforcement agency czar. He also was the chief architect of the tough on crime policy that has been pursued by the United States over the last two decades.

What he told us was remarkable. He told us that the policies of toughening up sentences and incarcerating more people in the United States by pursuing policies like mandatory minimums, lengthening sentences, taking away judge's discretion and reducing sentencing options for judges has resulted in poor outcomes. He said that it threatened to bankrupt the treasuries of every state in which these policies are being pursued and that it has made no noticeable dent in crime. So, after spending billions and billions of dollars and locking up hundreds of thousands of citizens, the net result was that they were nearing bankruptcy and the crime rate was unaffected.

I said to members opposite in the House at that time that they had the benefit of the justice department and public safety department and that they had access to our civil servants who can access research that one hopes is being done before legislation is being brought before the House. I asked them to tell me the name of one jurisdiction anywhere in the world, a state, a government or a province, where these policies that the government seeks to put into law have resulted in safer communities with lower crime rates.

The answer I received was that there were none. No country could be named. That is instructive. Before we embark on a policy that will cost the Canadian taxpayers billions and billions of dollars, it is instructive and responsible of us as legislators to do our homework and to at least have an even chance of accomplishing the goals that we seek the money to achieve.

Crime is not an issue that is restricted to Canada. Every society in the world is grappling with this, whether it is Europe, Asia, South America or Africa. Crime exists everywhere. This is not a unique situation. We have examples all over the world of different approaches to dealing with crime. We have very harsh approaches, like the current government seeks to take our country in, and we have examples of more lenient approaches.

Surely there is a wealth of information in this world that we can glean from and craft best policies to ensure we accomplish the goals that Canadians want us to accomplish, and that is to ensure we prevent crime as much as we can and to reduce the possibility that somebody will commit a crime a second time.

I want to talk a little bit about police officers because our party, the New Democrats, has been calling, through the last three elections, for the increase of 2,500 police officers in this country. We do believe in putting police officers on Canadian streets and using them properly.

In my view, that means putting them in our communities and having police officers on bikes. Putting them around high-crime areas like sky train stations in my city of Vancouver is an important way that we can improve community safety.

The Conservative Party promised to create 2,500 police officer positions in the 2008 election. I have met with police boards and police chiefs across this country and they all tell me the same thing, that only a fraction of those 2,500 police officer positions have been created. The reason is that the money the federal government promised to give jurisdictions to create those positions has been reduced from ongoing funding, to five-year funding, to three-year funding. Police chiefs have looked the Conservatives in the eyes and said that they are not creating a single position when they only have funding for only three years.

There is no funding for the civilian staff that each police officer position engenders. The money has been transferred to provinces with no strings attached. The provinces have received that money without any obligation to actually create police officer positions and, in some cases, that money or portions of it have disappeared into provincial treasuries' general revenue.

The Conservatives have not fulfilled their promise to Canadians to create those 2,500 police officer positions. I would encourage them to do so because they have unanimity on this side of the House to do that.

If we really want to improve our justice system and reduce crime on our streets, we need to add more prosecutors and judges in this country. Our courts are overburdened. There are cases kicked out of courts across this country every day for want of prosecution and delay. I see nothing in Bill C-10 that adds police officers, judges, prosecutors and nothing that addresses addiction, mental illness and crime prevention. Those are valid, fact-based criticisms of this bill.

I will talk about what I have also seen in our federal prison system. There was a program in our federal prisons called CORCAN which allowed inmates to learn skilled trades and engage in programs like making furniture. The furniture would then be sold to the federal government at reduced prices. It was a win-win situation. It gave underskilled inmates an opportunity to learn soft and hard skills, to learn the discipline of work, to learn skills that would allow them to survive on the outside and maybe have a better chance of escaping the criminal lifestyle. It also gave the federal government much needed equipment at a reduced price.

Do members know what has happened to the CORCAN program? It has been reduced. I am not saying that rhetorically. If people were to go to Kent Institution 90 kilometres outside of Vancouver, they could walk into the CORCAN rooms, which are three big rooms that look like industrial arts labs in junior and senior high schools, and all they will find are storage rooms. They are empty.

The government has closed prison farms. We have had big debates, and I do not intend to open that debate again, but there were prison farms operating at four or five institutions in this country that were absolute models of success. They gave offenders a chance to learn soft skills, to get up in the morning and show up for work. They had responsibilities. The arguments I heard in the House about the closing of the farms were absurd, like those people would never find work on a farm. That is not the point of prison farms. The point of prison farms is to teach skills of responsibility, of working together, of having to show up at the same time every day, working with animals, for hardened people to emotionally reconnect and consider the feelings of other people and learn responsibility. They were very effective programs and the government closed the farms.

This bill is titled “the safe streets and communities act”. I think it should more aptly be called “the overcrowded prisons, no crime prevention and overburden taxpayers with no results act”. That is just as accurate a title as any other.

I want to talk a little about some of the pieces of Bill C-10. Part of this practice of governing that the Conservative Party has proven a predilection for is to take a whole bunch of unrelated bills and throw them into one great big conglomeration before the House, which is a very imprecise and ineffective way to govern because we then need disentangle all of the pieces, some of which are good, some of which are bad. I want to focus on some of the pieces of this.

I want to talk about the international transfer of offenders provision of the bill.

For many years, Canada has had a provision whereby Canadians who are convicted abroad have the opportunity to apply to serve their sentence in Canada. This is not done just because they want to. The host jurisdiction must agree, Canada must agree and the offender must agree.

There are criteria and the criteria are that they must satisfy the Canadian authorities that they are not able to access proper rehabilitation services in the country of origin, sometimes because no English or French is spoken, sometimes because there is no rehabilitation programs and sometimes if there is particularly compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds. We all remember the fellow who was convicted with Conrad Black, his compatriot, who successfully applied and came back to Canada.

There is another important reason that the bill is important for public safety. If a Canadian in the United States finishes his or her sentence, the second after that sentence is completed the individual is deported back to Canada. The individual comes into our country and we have no record of him or her coming and we have no probation and no parole. We do not even know that the individual is in our community.

If the person is actually transferred back to Canada, however, and serves his or her sentence in Canada, we have a record of the sentence and we often will have parole conditions so that when the individual is released from jail we can impose conditions and monitor his or her re-entry into Canadian society. It is actually better for public safety and community safety to have this program.

This bill essentially would gut that program. It would allow the minister to have virtually unparalleled discretion to refuse such a request without any real kind of review. That is not good legislation.

I want to talk briefly about the pardon system.

The New Democrats, not last June but the one before, worked with the government to toughen our pardon system. We are the ones who proposed that we give the National Parole Board the power to deny a pardon in any case in which the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. We added the provision that someone convicted of manslaughter would be prohibited from obtaining a pardon for 10 years whereas it was 5 years before.

Those are the provisions that would prevent Karla Homolka from getting a pardon, which, under the Conservative government's watch, was going to happen unless we did something. The New Democrats worked with the government to ensure that did not happen.

The government has now come forward with further pardon provisions that are simply unjustifiable. It wants to deny the ability of anybody with more than three convictions from ever in their entire life qualifying for a pardon. We heard evidence before our public safety committee from people in that situation, people who had four convictions or ten. We heard from one who had 26 convictions, and it sounded really bad.

The person with 26 convictions had a constructive story. He was a young executive who was recently married and bought a house and his wife developed leukemia and died. He went into depression and he started selling steroids for six months. Over the course of those six months, he engaged in selling steroids over the Internet. When he was convicted, he pled guilty. For every one transaction involving the sale of steroids, he had multiple convictions: possession, trafficking and there were offences because he was selling across the border. He is now an executive with Corus media. He appeared before our committee as a bright, rehabilitated, productive member of our society. This is the kind of person who would be prevented from getting a pardon under this legislation.

The “three strikes and you're out” approach that has been prevalent in places like California are being repealed in those jurisdictions because they have found that it has put a straitjacket on their justice system. That is not effective and it does not result in better community safety. It is also expensive.

The New Democrats are opposed to this because we want to create effective, strong, rational, fact-based policy that will likely result in safer communities, which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is the goal of everybody in the House.

I would urge the government to listen to what the experts say, listen to what people across the justice system have to say, and not pursue a blind, ideological approach because it may be good wedge policies, but to actually work together with all members of the House to craft good policy to make our communities and our country safer for everyone.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway demonstrated again with his speech why I have such respect for him and the thoughtful way in which he presents his perspective on criminal justice reform, but I would encourage him to recognize that the approach our government has taken, both in the previous two Parliaments and again in this Parliament, is actually based on a great deal of consideration of the perspectives of provinces and of those who are not necessarily Conservative supporters and voters.

As a matter of fact, in the last Parliament, as the member knows, we eliminated the faint hope clause, we got rid of two-for-one sentencing for criminals, and we established mandatory minimum prison sentences for those who are sexually abusing our kids. We did these, by the way, with the support of the NDP government in Manitoba and, in British Columbia, as he knows, the then solicitor general critic for the NDP, Mike Farnworth, who is now the House leader for the NDP in British Columbia. These are radical right-wing people. Mike Farnworth, I think, would describe himself as a proud socialist, but he recognized the common sense of standing beside those who are victims of crime and not having a litany and a constant focus as a government on only those who are committing the crimes.

I entirely respect the approach that he recommends rhetorically, which is to have a balanced approach as a government, and we do. We have programs. A Chance to Choose is a phenomenal program in my riding that supports kids who are at risk of becoming career criminals, who are without any kind of structure in their lives. We support those kinds of programs. However, we also believe in making sure that the common-sense approaches to ensuring that we are tough on crime are in fact a part of the government's agenda. That is what this legislation is about.

By the way, Canadians are with us. It is why we have a majority. It is to pass this legislation and to get it done, and we are going to do it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the thoughtful intervention by my hon. colleague from British Columbia, but I am not sure whether there was a question. I suppose it just reflects a different philosophy of how best to achieve those safe communities that we all want.

For instance, I understand why the Conservatives would have criticized the faint hope clause. They would want someone who has committed murder to serve the full sentence. In general, I agree with that. The reason I supported the faint hope clause is that, as a lawyer myself, I know that a cookie-cutter approach to justice does not work. Often one case with a unique set of circumstances comes up where someone could demonstrate that he or she has earned the right to come back into society. We want there to be that carrot-on-a-stick approach. We want people to have that incentive. Corrections officers have told me it is a good tool for maintaining co-operation and good behaviour in jail when people think that if they behave properly they may have a chance of getting some sort of benefit from it.

These are some of the tough considerations that go into these difficult issues, and I appreciate that they are different perspectives on this matter.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Vancouver Kingsway will have seven minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments when the House next considers this matter.

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When this bill was last being debated, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway had seven minutes left to conclude his remarks. I will give him the floor now.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we were in questions and comments.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech provided by my colleague yesterday.

One of the things that came across my mind as he was articulating was the whole issue which both opposition parties have been raising, which is regarding the costs. There is no doubt a great deal of effort by both the provincial governments and local municipal governments to try to come to grips with the issue of fighting crime.

The idea of trying to invest more resources in those things that are going to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place, such as community policing and after school programs for high-risk offenders, is where priorities should be.

I wonder if the member could provide any information he has in regard to the costs that have been provided for the implementation of this particular bill and the possible impact of those costs on being able to provide other forms of programs that would have more of an impact on preventing crimes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is lot of wisdom in that question. It touches upon a number of issues that reflect the deficiencies in the bill before us.

There is nothing in this bill that deals with prevention. There is nothing in this bill that addresses the need for increased resources to help prevent crimes from happening in the first place.

As I said in my speech yesterday, it is a renowned accepted fact on all sides of this House that 80% of the people in federal institutions suffer from an addiction. I do not think one has to be a criminologist to realize that if we really want to assist people so that they do not commit an offence once they leave prison, it would be wise to put resources into addressing their addiction.

There is not one iota in this omnibus bill, that takes in 10 separate acts, that addresses that matter. It is highly predictable that we will not make a dent in terms of helping those people to not reoffend once they come back to our communities. I have seen statistics that show that a very high percentage of people released from federal prison are returned to prison for breach of conditions. One of the conditions is invariably that they stay away from alcohol and drugs.

Well, if 80% of them are addicts or alcoholics and they are not getting acceptable treatment in prison, it only stands to reason that when they return to the communities, they will reoffend. They get into that revolving door of prison, which is very expensive for taxpayers, ineffective, and leads to recidivism, which everybody on all sides of the House would like to reduce.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill continues a long-standing pattern of disrespect by the government to our judiciary by taking away judicial discretion around sentencing in particular. It is imposing very rigid guidelines, and not just guidelines, but legal mandates as to how people would be sentenced, giving no discretion to our judiciary to handle the cases on a case-by-case basis.

Ironically, with regard to the part of the bill that deals with sexual offences against children in particular, we have the very real prospect that those types of criminals will go to jail for shorter periods of time because the government has set mandatory minimums at a very low level in some cases.

I wonder if my colleague could just comment on the history of the government's attitude toward the judiciary and what kind of respect it pays the judiciary.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this allows me to expand on something I said in my speech last night. The public safety committee benefited from the testimony and experience of a representative from the United States who represents a group called Right on Crime. The person who testified at committee was the first appointee of Ronald Reagan to the drug enforcement agency and also was a key architect of the tough-on-crime policy over the last 20 years.

He told the committee that they made clear errors and the errors they made were imposing mandatory minimums and things like “three strikes and you're out” policies that did nothing but stuff their jails full of prisoners, burden the taxpayers with billions of dollars of unnecessary expenses, and did really nothing to reduce the crime rates in their communities. He testified that states like California and Texas are reversing those trends because they find that they are challenging state treasuries and risking bankruptcy for no real measurable community safety.

Those are key measures that attack judicial discretion. Any mature, intelligent, efficient, effective judicial system will give our judges, who are highly trained and highly skilled, the tools they need in order to render appropriate sentences in each case. For justice to be done, it must be tailored to the individual case. That is what justice is about, and the bill is harmful in that respect.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will probably recall in the last Parliament the government telling us that the actual cost of Bill C-25 was going to be $90 million and later it was updated to $2 billion, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that the actual cost would be $9.5 billion over five years.

Could the hon. member tell me why the government will not come clean on the actual costs of justice bills?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the costs of the government's approach to crime have been escalating and are huge. The last Parliament was full of that kind of discussion about how much the bills would cost, and there were estimates and underestimates. As all Canadians and all parliamentarians know, the cost of the government's crime agenda will be in the billions. That is without any doubt whatsoever. No one on the government side will stand and deny that the cost implication will be in the billions.

Also, I hear the Minister of Finance repeatedly attack the Liberals about downloading costs to the provinces in the nineties. That is exactly what the current bills will do as well. They will download costs to the provinces because many of the people who go to jail will be in provincial institutions.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to speak to Bill C-10.

The legislation before us today fulfills one of our government's strongest commitments made to Canadians, both in the Speech from the Throne and our 2011 election platform, a commitment that we would take action to make our streets and communities safe and to stand up for victims.

I am very proud of our government's strong record on making families safer. Not only is this what we were elected to do, but it is what we have made a point of doing from the first day we took office back in 2006.

Canadians have spoken loudly and clearly about their expectations from day one as well. They have told us that law enforcement agencies must have the resources they need to make our communities safe; they want the rights of victims, law-abiding Canadians, to be considered first; they want serious offenders to be held accountable by serving sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes; and they want to see action that will help to prevent crimes before they happen.

Our government listens to Canadians, which is why we have delivered in each of these areas.

Our government is making communities safer by giving our police the tools they need to strengthen the protection of victims and law-abiding Canadians. For example, we have hired over 1,000 additional RCMP personnel as part of our effort to combat crime.

We also said that we would provide funding to the provinces and territories to allow them to hire additional police officers. We delivered on that commitment with a one-time $400 million police officer recruitment fund. I am very pleased to note that Statistics Canada reported last December that the number of police officers across Canada is now at its highest point since 1981. From 2009 there was an increase of almost 2,000 police officers on our streets.

On the legislative side, our government has passed a number of laws to crack down on crime, especially violent crimes. For instance, we have taken steps to champion the rights of victims in the justice system by ensuring offenders serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes. Before we passed the Truth in Sentencing Act, serious criminals were receiving two-for-one or sometimes three-for-one credit for time served while in pre-sentence custody. Of course, this was clogging up our provincial remand centres in places like Manitoba, where 70% of the prisoners were in fact remand. Once we passed the two-for-one and three-for-one, that of course moved the people out of the provincial system and into the federal penitentiaries.

Our government has passed the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act to ensure first-degree murderers serve their life sentences of 25 years without the possibility of early parole through the so-called “faint hope clause”. Our government also passed reasonable measures to ensure that convicted con artists, fraudsters, and drug traffickers cannot be released onto our streets after serving just one-sixth of their prison sentences. This was unacceptable to Canadians, and our government has taken action. I want to specifically point out the assistance that was provided by the Bloc Québécois in assisting us in passing that in a minority Parliament.

The measures I have listed thus far are but a few examples of our efforts to keep communities safer, give police the tools to fight crime, and assert the rights and interests of victims of crime. However, are we finished? Not by a long shot.

As stated in the Speech from the Throne, “Our government will be here for all Canadians—for individuals, for families and for all regions of the country—as together we move Canada forward”. We will continue to be “here for law-abiding Canadians” since “the Government of Canada has no more fundamental duty than to protect the personal safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security”.

Victims have a right to be safe from the people who have done them harm, and our children have a right to be safe from sex offenders, which is why I am very proud that our government passed legislation to strengthen the national sex offender registry and the national DNA databank so that all sex offenders are registered with the police. Of course, when the Liberals passed that legislation in 2002, they deliberately put administrative blocks in the way, additional hearings that would have to take place after conviction, with the result that over 40% of those who were supposed to be on the DNA registry and the sex offender registry were not there, simply because of the administrative burdens.

This is typical of Liberal legislation. The Liberals try to appease the voice of victims by bringing forward legislation while through the use of administrative hurdles ensuring that the legislation cannot accomplish what it was set out to do. Therefore, it discourages Crown attorneys, courts and police officers from actually proceeding with those additional hearings.

What we have done is made those registries automatic upon conviction, which is only proper. Anyone who has been convicted of a serious offence should be on the registry.

Tackling crime on all fronts remains a key priority for the government, as it is for all Canadians. This is why I am proud to support the legislation before us today as it builds upon our government's already impressive track record of cracking down on crime and standing up for victims. Indeed, one important component of Bill C-10 involves standing up for victims, and specifically victims of terrorism.

The bill proposes a fair and balanced approach in allowing victims of terrorism to seek redress. First and foremost, the proposed legislation would allow any victim of terrorism to sue the perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters. The bill would allow these victims to seek redress for a terrorist act that occurred on or after January 1, 1985.

I also want to emphasize that Bill C-10 would allow victims to sue supporters of terrorism. This is crucial, because we all know that terrorist organizations rely on financial support to operate. By targeting such supporters, the legislation would become yet another important tool in our fight against terrorism.

Since the target of legitimate lawsuits could include certain states known to support terrorism, the proposed government legislation contains provisions to amend the State Immunity Act. Specifically, it would authorize the government to create a list of states that could be sued for their role in supporting perpetrators of terrorism.

Bill C-10 strikes the right balance. It addresses the needs of victims for redress against perpetrators and supporters of terrorism while preserving the important international relations that Canada enjoys.

From its first day in office, this government has been working to ensure that law-abiding Canadian families feel safe and secure in their streets and communities. With Bill C-10 it is taking the next logical step in the fight against terrorism. We are giving victims not only a voice but a legal means to seek justice against those who cause them harm.

In addition to proposing measures to stand up for the victims of crime, Bill C-10 would also introduce reasonable and balanced provisions to help ensure that offenders are fully held accountable for their crimes.

In 2010, our government passed important legislation to provide the Parole Board of Canada the discretion to refuse a pardon in some cases.

Bill C-10 would further strengthen reforms to the current system of pardons in this country in a number of ways.

First, it proposes to replace the term “pardon” with the more appropriate designation of “record suspension”. This would better reflect what is actually taking place.

We need to be clear about what this mechanism would and would not do. We believe the term “record suspension” better reflects the purpose of the legislation, that being to close off general access to a criminal record in appropriate cases as opposed to expressing forgiveness for the offence. After all, it is up to the victims to decide whether or not to forgive the criminals who have abused them, not the government.

This change in terminology is an important one in terms of reinforcing the role of this legislation and eliminating pardons for serious crimes.

Second, the government is clear in Bill C-10 that eligibility for a record suspension would be more restrictive. Bill C-10 would ensure that no one convicted of committing a sexual offence against a child would be eligible for a record suspension.

There are some crimes that should never have the opportunity to be sealed. We believe that sexual offences against children is one of them. Unlike members of the New Democratic Party, we do not believe that those who sexually abuse children should be able to hide their criminal records.

On top of this, individuals convicted of more than three indictable offences would not be eligible to apply for a record suspension if they have received a federal sentence for each of those offences. We believe this is a fair balance between those who have committed a few youthful indiscretions and repeat offenders with serious criminal histories.

In addition, the waiting period to apply for a record suspension for summary offences will be increased from three to five years and from five to ten years for indictable offences. However, the reforms we propose will better align the pardon system with the public's expectation for a fair system, yet one that distinguishes those who have committed serious crimes and whose records should not be sealed.

As well, Bill C-10 would help to enhance offender responsibility and accountability while strengthening the management of offenders during their incarceration and parole. It would also give victims access to more information about the offenders who have harmed them and modernize disciplinary sanctions for offenders serving their sentences.

Bill C-10 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to emphasize that the primary purpose of corrections and conditional release is the protection of society. As the House is aware, in 1971 solicitor general Jean-Pierre Goyer stated that rehabilitation would be the first concern of the state, rather than public safety. We have seen the justice system turned on its head by that pronouncement and subsequent legislation. Since 2006, our government has been working to turn the justice system right side up by ensuring that the interests of victims and the public are paramount to those of convicted criminals.

Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, the primary purpose we are expounding is in line with key recommendations from the independent review panel that our government established in 2007 to review Correctional Service Canada's operational priorities, strategies and business plan. It is also in line with our commitment to put the interests and safety of law-abiding Canadians first in the justice system.

The amendments before us today would require offenders to conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates respect for other people and their property. As well, they will require all offenders to obey all penitentiary rules and conditions governing their release while also actively participating in the setting and achieving of objectives in their correctional plans.

Since a corrections plan plays a key part in offenders' rehabilitation, Bill C-10 proposes amendments to ensure that a correctional plan is completed for each offender, who sets out objectives for behaviour, program participation and the meeting of their court-ordered obligations, such as restitution for victims. As well, Bill C-10 would modernize the system of discipline in federal penitentiaries by addressing disrespectful, intimidating and assaultive behaviours by inmates, including the throwing of bodily substances.

Bill C-10 also proposes to strengthen the management of offenders in their reintegration into society by allowing police officers to arrest without a warrant offenders who appear to be in violation of their parole. Our government is delivering on these changes asked for by police and other criminal justice partners.

Victims have also long requested access to more information on offenders and to have a greater say in the justice system. Bill C-10 would deliver on this in a number of ways. The bill would allow victims to obtain information on the reasons for a temporary absence, offender transfer, offender program participation and any offender convictions for serious disciplinary offences.

Also, a victim's right to attend and make statements at a Parole Board of Canada hearing would be enshrined in law. As well, in most cases offenders would be prevented from withdrawing their parole applications 14 days or less before a hearing date, which routinely happens and often causes further suffering to victims.

These proposed amendments are balanced and fair. They respect victims and hold offenders accountable.

Finally, Bill C-10 proposes important amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act in order to expressly include public safety as a purpose of that act. This would provide a more flexible decision-making framework and would ensure that the protection of society is paramount when the minister is considering an offender's request to be transferred.

I find it amazing that opposition members continually talk about how terrible Canada's prisons are. However, Canadian prisoners convicted abroad continually want to come home, and foreigners who are incarcerated in Canadian prisons do not want to leave. That should give the opposition an indication of the relative benefits of being in a Canadian prison.

Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, will further strengthen our government's already impressive track record of protecting families, standing up for victims and holding offenders to account for their actions. These reforms respond to the needs of Canadian families, victims, law enforcement agencies and many Canadians.

I therefore urge all hon. members to work with the government to ensure that these proposed reforms receive the speedy passage they deserve.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite spoke about protecting our children from sex offenders, and I agree with him. We must take action to protect our children. We agree on that. However, there is substantial evidence showing that minimum sentences are ineffective as deterrents. Texas, for example, is in the process of backtracking because its minimum sentences are ineffective and costly.

I would like my colleague from Provencher to tell me how he can claim that Bill C-10 will truly protect our children.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the issue of mandatory minimum prison sentences.

We know that an offender in prison is not out committing offences. It is called incapacitation to commit offences. It is a very important aspect of criminal justice.

The American studies indicate that for every year dangerous offenders are out on the streets they commit at least 12 serious offences. Having mandatory minimum prison sentences for dangerous offenders ensures they will not be out victimizing another 12 people.

My colleague fails to understand that while some of the American states do not have mandatory minimum prison sentences they do have sentencing guidelines that are actually used by judges who adjust them up or down accordingly under very strict conditions. Therefore, they in fact do have mandatory minimums.

Another point made to me by the homeland security secretary was that the reason Canadians want to come back to Canada is that they are released on parole after serving one-sixth or one-third of their sentences, whereas when serving sentences in an American federal institution, they receive 15% off for good behaviour. Therefore, time served in the United States is actually real time as opposed to the sentences being imposed here.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the minister's comments about the relative merits and the attractiveness of Canadian federal prisons.

I am not sure if the minister is aware, but there are many provincial institutions that are absolutely stretched to the max. I was interested to hear that part of the plan to deal with this is to give offenders longer sentences so that they can serve them in federal institutions.

Is that the sum total of the government's plan to deal with overcrowding in provincial institutions or would it fairly compensate the provinces for the impact this would have on the provincial budgets by locking people up longer and putting more people away?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Every single province supports this legislation. These legislative provisions, including the Truth in Sentencing Act passed last year, were asked for and passed by provincial governments of every political stripe. Therefore, I suggest to those individuals who now stand up and pretend to be speaking on behalf of the provinces to ask their premiers what they said to us in terms of bringing this forward.

In respect of two or three for one credits, lawyers were telling their clients to stay in remand to receive those credits so that once sentenced they would basically be free and out on the streets. The provincial authorities realized this was clogging up their system. For example, 70% of all prisoners in Manitoba were in remand.

This legislation gives no incentive for offenders to remain in provincial institutions. Rather, they would go to trial quickly or plead guilty and receive sentencing so that appropriate programming could be delivered to these sentences.

I would advise the hon. member to ask his premier why that province supports this legislation.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments today and his efforts to put more police on the streets.

I constantly hear from people in my riding their concerns about crime. There is a notion that crime is going down. I think it is going down because people are not reporting crime. They do not see the use in doing that.

Statistics Canada reports increases in pornography, firearms, drug offences, criminal harassment and sexual assault. Could the minister talk about the efforts in the bill to specifically address those types of crimes?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I note with some interest that members of the NDP laugh when we talk about the issue of crime. They think crime is funny. They may live in safe, secure, gated communities where they do not have to worry about that kind of thing but most people are concerned about crime.

For example, in 2009, in Winnipeg, the violent stuff, sexual assaults, robbery and murder, jumped by 11%. That same category of crime in 2008 went up by 14%. That is 25% in those two years. It is no wonder that an NDP government came to us and asked if we could do something about the legislation.

Those individuals who sit in the luxury of their seats here and perhaps in the luxury of Ottawa may be insulated from crime, or maybe not. Maybe they are insulated from the reality that their constituents are facing. Let them laugh, but it is their premiers who have been asking for this type of legislation. They should go back to their premiers and ask why they wanted this legislation and why we are bringing it forward.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the comments we heard from the minister regarding the transfer of prisoners.

Members may recall that the Americans sent us a diplomatic note on this issue, and the problem was inconsistency. The problem was that we were not doing our job here. This legislation will not help that. The Americans are telling us to take care of our own and we are saying no.

The minister said that individuals would fulfill their sentence there, but there will be no supervision when they come back to Canada. People here are saying that this would make public safety worse, not better.

I would like to hear the minister's comments on that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, only a socialist would say that bringing a dangerous prisoner back to Canada and putting that individual back on the street would be great for public safety.

We are concerned about that relationship with the United States. I had a long conversation with the homeland security secretary and she was not aware of the kind of prisoners the Americans were holding there. Prisoners spend 85% of their time doing federal time and, when they get federal time, as some prisoners might know, it is a long period of time, and they spend most of it down there. The reason they want to come back to Canada is that they can get out on parole after one-sixth or one-third of time spent and then they are back out on the street where they commit more offences and victimize more Canadians.

Appropriate criteria is set out in the bill. I would point out that the Federal Court recently came out with a whole series of decisions saying that the minister has a broad degree of discretion in making these decisions. However, we want to put some more guidelines in place. This legislation would give the exact guidelines that the member is looking for.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that we do not understand crime. I was a victim of assault, so I understand the impact of crime.

The government takes expert advice and hires expensive consultants for its financial information. Why does it continue to refuse to listen to experts who have refuted the effectiveness of mandatory sentences and continues to ignore the 20 year trend of decline in the crime rate?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last year, there were 2.1 million reported crimes. Statistics Canada indicates that the rate of reported crimes is going down. Reported crimes dropped to about 31% from about 34%.

The point is that many people have simply given up trying to deal with the justice system. What we are doing, as opposed to what the opposition is trying to do, is restoring faith in the criminal justice system. Every individual should be entitled to walk down the street ,not just during the day but 24 hours a day. It is our right as Canadians. We have a right to be safe from criminals.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what is a very complex, complicated bill that is actually being treated without the proper oversight from the government.

We have heard from other members of the House the problem with the bill when it comes to the costs, which is something that is resonating from Canadians. As we hear, the financial crisis is getting worse. In fact, I believe the Minister of Finance right now is speaking to it just outside this place. We have a government that said that the priority would be the economy and yet, at the first opportunity to deal with the economy, what do we see? We see an omnibus bill, which is an ominous bill, that would pass down costs to provinces.

Just yesterday, the Minister of Finance stood and, with great vitriol, said that the government would never do what the previous Liberal government had done, which was to push costs down to the provinces. Well, that is what this bill would do. Billions and billions of dollars in costs would be pushed down to the provinces, be it members' home provinces, or mine, right across the country.

What we do not see is the evidence as to why we need this legislation. What we have is the politics, which is what we have heard time and time again from the government. In fact, since 2006, it has been the brand of the government to get tough on crime, often waiting until the next election and the next election to bring in its legislation because it is also helpful to the Conservatives to manipulate this issue.

There is a lot in the bill. I will touch on a couple of things that are important. I already touched on one in my question to the minister with regard to foreign affairs and the transfer of prisoners. I was interested in the minister's response when I asked him how he was dealing with the fact that we had a diplomatic note sent to us from the United States last year telling us that we needed to take care of the problem of Canadian citizens who are arrested in the United States. The United States told us that we were not taking care of them and that we needed to bring them back to our own country. What do we do? We outsource the problem to the United States in this case.

The reciprocal is interesting. The United States has a convention and a policy that it does not let that happen. We created a diplomatic spat over an issue around whether we will take care of Canadian citizens who are arrested abroad. I could tell many other stories about the problems of Canadian citizens stranded abroad but I will save that for another day.

The point is that, in this legislation, the minister stood just minutes ago and said that we should not worry about it because he would be given, as a minister, a lot of room to interpret and, therefore, be able to deal with the issue. The problem right now is the way in which the minister and the government are interpreting it. Canadians who are arrested in the United States are often left there, and there are inconsistencies. We have percentages from 14% of applications that are actually received and dealt with by the Americans, to upwards of 62% over one year. In other words, there is a total inconsistency in the application for the transfer of prisoners.

Why does that matter? The claim of the government is that this is about public safety. When prisoners finish their time in the United States, they then come back to Canada. We can talk about the situation of prisons there in a minute. However, if the government is concerned about public safety, there is no supervision of those prisoners after. The minister says that we should not worry because that will be taken care of, that at a time when the government is cutting services to do the actual supervision that is required.

Here is the problem. We have the Americans coming to us with a diplomatic note, which, in Foreign Affairs, is substantive. They do not write diplomatic notes every day. It is when there is a problem that cannot be resolved between countries. A diplomatic notes raises the red flag to say that we are not doing enough. The response from the government is to basically ignore it and say that the American prisons are much tougher and we would rather they stay there.

The Conservatives have been in power since 2006 and it is saying that they would rather the prisoners stay in the United States because it is a better situation and we want them to stay there and, when they come back, they can just go out on the street without supervision. Talk about cognitive distance. We have it in front of us with this one example of transfer of prisoners.

By the way, it is not just the NDP. I know that does not always sell with my friend across the way as a salient argument. We are talking about diplomats from the United States. We are talking about people who deal with the criminal justice system, the advocates and lawyers, who are saying that this is a real problem that we need to deal with, never mind the people who are trying to deal with crime prevention. The bill fails just on that one piece. It actually undermines our credibility internationally with our best friend and closest neighbour.

I will turn to the issue of taking a stronger stance against perpetrators of terror, which is also in the bill. On the surface, I think we could all agree, it is important that there should be ways of dealing with anyone who is involved in or funding terrorism. It is about preventing terrorism but we have concerns with what the bill would do. We believe this is a valid issue that should be dealt with, no question, but there are some components in the bill that are worthy of putting out.

The bill would create a cause of action that would allow victims of terrorism to sue individuals, organizations and terrorist entities in Canadian courts for loss or damage suffered as a result of terrorist acts as defined in the Criminal Code. Second, it amends the State Immunity Act to remove state immunity for states that are on a list of countries, established by cabinet, that have supported or currently support terrorism. The bill would allow victims to sue foreign states that are on the list.

That sounds fine, and I would say there are some good things in that, but there are significant steps that we need to look at. There are a couple of concerns I want to underline because they are very serious. If we are going to do this, we need to do it right.

The question is whether amending the State Immunity Act would cause retaliation against Canadians. What are the risks? I have not heard from government why it is limiting the cause of action to a certain list of states. This is where we have to focus in. If we just list certain states, then we are saying that it is open for others and we would be defining terrorism in a very limited way. That is where I think the bill needs some work.

Also, there is the question of the merit in extending the cause of action created by the bill to victims in other forms of state violations, such as human rights and torture. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen us fold that in. I believe my colleague from the Liberal Party had legislation to amend the State Immunity Act.

Right now a person can go after someone for economic cause and sue someone in another country, but if they have been tortured, they can not. We have had many cases in this country, the Mr. Arar case being one, where they cannot use our courts to seek justice. It is a human rights issue and it is an issue we need to take on. I have no idea why the government did not include it.

I was happy to support my colleague, the former justice minister in the Liberal government, who brought legislation forward to do that. It is sensible to amend the State Immunity Act for those Canadians who have had the unfortunate experience of being tortured by other governments and sometimes with the complicity and knowledge of our own government. It is absolutely critical that we do that. It is not in the bill and it should be. That is a failing facet of the bill.

It is very interesting to hear the rationale for the omnibus bill. It is along the lines that the government believes it would deal with a perceived problem and sometimes a factual problem. The government's perceived problem is that crime is higher and is getting worse.

Crime is in the eye of the beholder, of those who have suffered as victims, as my colleague said. However, the programs we have in place for reconstructive justice and reconciliation, sadly and bizarrely, are not being funded to the degree they should be.

If we are serious about crime and serious about victims, then we have to be serious about funding those programs. Many of us have talked to victims and some of us are victims. The one thing victims want is justice, but there is no justice in using a hammer to whack a peanut. What we are talking about here is making sure there is justice for victims and making sure there is reconciliation.

I attended a conference in California on HIV and the law, and what is happening in the United States. The spectacle right now is that judges are forcing the State of California to release prisoners. Why? Because the “three strikes and you are out” policy and putting people in jail for drug crimes has failed.

There is a consensus, with the exception of our friends across the way, that the approach used in the war on drugs was an abysmal failure. Why? Ask people like Newt Gingrich,. My goodness, I never thought I would use him for validation, but it turns out he is now. God bless him, Newt Gingrich now says not to do what they did because it is costly and ineffective.

California has privatized its prisons. It has more prisoners than it can handle. Judges are forcing the state to release prisoners. California has absolutely no programs in the prisons to deal with treating addictions, which we all know is a major problem in our prisons and the U.S. prisons. What are we going to do? It turns out we are going to adopt its failed policy.

I would plead with Canadians to hold their members of Parliament to account on this because it is going to cost us more. There is the economic argument regarding downloading all the costs to provinces which right now have difficulty withstanding the costs associated with education, health, et cetera. There is the question of justice. Does this work? The evidence is pretty clear in other jurisdictions that it does not.

Then there is the question of politics. I have sensed a change in this country around why governments and politicians are using issues as important as justice and criminal justice for political gain. We only need to look at the government's talking points. Government members are not citing evidence from peer-reviewed studies; they are saying they have received a mandate so it is a blank cheque and they can do what they want.

It is very important that we look at this issue carefully. If the prisons are full of people who need help, they need to be given supports. Victims need justice, but we will not find it in the bill to the extent that it should be.

We do see little parcels of politics, such as, if the government wants to give the notion that things are really bad, it says that it is going to crack down. It is going to make sure that judges are not allowed to look at the circumstances, and instead it will direct them. The government will make sure that more prisons are built because that is its idea of justice. The government will make sure in the transfer of prisoners to keep them in the United States because the U.S. is tougher on crime; or on something as important as the State Immunity Act, it will not fold in the whole issue when it comes to victims of torture and other human rights abuses.

I wonder whether Canadians see in this legislation any change in politics that they were hoping to see, such as looking at the problem from an evidence-based point of view. If the evidence is such that crime has changed, and I acknowledge that, the indications are it is lower. Let us look at how to prevent crime and get smart on crime. This tough on crime idea is to put people in jail for longer and bring in mandatory minimum sentences. To be smart on crime, which is the way to go, is to look at preventing crime.

In many of the downtown core ridings in many of the cities across the country, the programs to help youth at risk are themselves at risk. I am thinking of recreation programs, arts programs, access for kids from lower income families to things to which middle-class families and families of better means can afford to send their kids. These programs have been cut.

Part of prevention is to make sure there is equity of access for kids. As a teacher who taught in a downtown school, I know what happens when kids do not have access to recreation, the arts, et cetera. They are given fewer choices and less opportunity. If we invested more of our dollars into prevention and opportunity for our kids, we would not have to worry about what will happen later in their lives. We would be able to prevent crime.

It goes without saying that when we look at prevention and reconciliation in the case of victims, we would be able to deal with crime in a strategic way, not a political way. Over the last couple of years, the framework that has been set in this country is that we will deal with crime in an overtly political way, which is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for victims. It is unfortunate for those who for many different reasons find themselves before the criminal justice system.

I want to finish my comments by underlining something that is a crisis in the United States, but we must not be arrogant because we have a similar problem and challenge. There is a disproportionate number of African Americans in the U.S. prison system. That is not news. It is a disturbing trend that has been going on for many years. We must not be arrogant about it in our country, because we have a similar challenge, and that is the disproportionate number of first nations people in our prisons.

Like many members in this place, I was very proud when we acknowledged the issue of what happened in the residential schools. That acknowledgement was a proud moment for Canada, but what did those words mean? If there is a disproportionate number of first nations, aboriginal and Inuit people in our prisons and we have not acknowledged why they are there, we are simply treating them in the same manner as is happening in the United States, as people who broke the law and let us just send them to jail. We have not only failed in terms of dealing with the situation on the ground, but we also have turned our backs to the spirit of what that reconciliation was supposed to be about in the House of Commons a couple of years ago.

On the issue of crime and justice, we need more justice. We need more prevention. We need to make sure that we honour our treaties with our allies in the United States. When it comes to looking at the State Immunity Act and making sure that we acknowledge that it needs to be amended, we have to take in the issue of torture, we have to take in the issue of human rights. If we do not do that, then we will have failed in that opportunity as well.

I hope Canadians will get in touch with their members of Parliament regarding what the government is doing on this issue. The costs are financial. This is about dealing with an issue which all Canadians are seized with, but doing it in an intelligent manner, based on evidence and making sure we take what I believe is an overtly political agenda out of an extremely important issue. We need to deal with it in a sensible manner for all of our citizens and all our constituents.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a good speech and a good analysis of the bill.

He touched upon the cost of the bill. We have had some discussion about that. There is also the cost of not doing crime prevention.

Crime prevention is critical to lowering the rates and making sure people get back on the right track for those who had committed small crimes. I used to run a youth program, and we had a 90% success rate when there was intervention. They had a job. They had hope and opportunity. They went back to school.

I want to ask the member a specific question in terms of crime prevention. Windsor has the largest border crossing in Canada and North America, and our customs facility is being moved to Fort Erie, nearly 400 kilometres away. Customs officers will have to phone someone 400 kilometres away to see whether they should move on suspicion of drugs, guns and smuggling, which are the tools for organized crime, tools that inflict a lot of serious problems on people.

That move was motivated by the possibility of cutting a couple of million dollars. There will be a cut of a couple of million dollars and that greater intrusion.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that if we are to be smart on crime, we have to invest in the right places, but the government cut in an area where there is a huge need for more resources.

If we are going to be smart on crime, we have to ensure there is the requisite supervision of our borders.

The member is absolutely right. A huge issue is guns coming over the border and we must prevent that. The NDP has called for more resources for the border to be smart on crime. The best way to deal with lowering crime rates is to prevent crime. One way is to ensure there are more resources on the border. The notion that officials at the border have to call someone 400 kilometres away to take action speaks to the lack of logic in the government's action.

Why is the government doing something that would further inflict problems--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the member, but he will have eight minutes to conclude his period of questions and comments at some later time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to add my voice to those of my colleagues in support of this crucial piece of legislation that we are debating.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act is comprehensive legislation that will go a long way toward meeting the government's commitment to Canadians that we will protect families, stand up for victims and hold offenders accountable. I am very proud to say that the government has received a strong mandate to deliver on that commitment.

Since first elected in 2006, the government has been taking action to keep families safe. We have been working to stand up for law-abiding Canadians and victims while holding criminals accountable as well as to protect the most vulnerable in society, especially children, from those who would want to do them harm. That is why I am so proud to speak to Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

The legislation before us continues the important work that we have started. It proposes important reforms to the Criminal Code, the State Immunity Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As well, it proposes to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Bill C-10 addresses a significant number of law and order issues that affect our society. It is wide-ranging and touches on public safety, justice, as well as citizenship and immigration. It includes measures to make the safety and security of Canadians the primary concern when considering whether or not an offender should be transferred back into Canada. It includes measures so that victims of terrorism are able to file an action and seek justice against individuals who carry out terrorist attacks. It includes actions to strengthen the laws around pardons to ensure that repeat offenders of serious crimes and those who commit sexual offences against children are ineligible to apply for a pardon.

It includes provisions to increase the accountability and responsibility of offenders to ensure that they contribute to their own rehabilitation as well as measures that would enshrine in law a victim's rights to make statements at a parole hearing. It also includes reforms that in most cases would prevent offenders from withdrawing their parole applications 14 days or less before a hearing date thus saving victims from unnecessary travel and disruption.

Victims of crime have asked for these changes and the government is delivering them.

I want to point out that we tried to pass bills that would achieve these goals in the last Parliament yet time and again opposition members held them up with their soft-on-crime agenda. Thankfully, Canadians in the riding of Ajax--Pickering and across the country rejected the soft-on-crime mindset of the opposition and elected a majority of Conservative MPs.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act also includes measures that would get tough on child sexual offenders, crack down on illegal drug trafficking and improve the overall efficiency of our judicial system. For example, it proposes to help protect our kids from sexual predators by increasing penalties for sexual offences against children.

It targets organized drug crime by creating tougher sentences for the production and possession of illicit drugs for the purpose of trafficking, which speaks to the grave concern of all parents whose children are directly targeted by drug traffickers. It is a very important piece of the legislation in terms of protecting children from involvement in drug activities. Therefore, I am especially pleased to see that we are getting tough on drug traffickers. I would strongly urge all opposition members, especially those with children, nieces, nephews and/or young people in their lives who should never be involved with drugs, to support this piece of legislation.

The bill aims to protect the public by ensuring that violent and repeat young offenders are held accountable for their actions. Youth sentences would become more proportionate to the severity of the crime. Protection of society would be given due consideration when applying the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I believe parents across the country see this as an important piece of the legislation. It is best for parents to hold their children accountable by ensuring that the consequences match the action, whether minor or severe.

Thankfully, the bill would end the use of conditional sentences or house arrest for serious, violent and property crimes ensuring dangerous criminals would no longer be serving sentences from the comfort of their living rooms.

It also proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to help protect foreign workers who could be at risk of becoming victims of human trafficking or exploitation, such as low-skilled and unskilled labourers. Combined, these measures provide new tools in our effort to build stronger and safer communities.

Last spring our government made a pledge to Canadians to rapidly move forward and introduce comprehensive law-and-order legislation that would strengthen our laws and courts while putting victims' rights at the forefront.

On May 2, Canadians gave us a strong mandate to continue working to build our economy and to focus on keeping our communities safe. We have listened to them and acted on our pledge by introducing this legislation.

In particular, I will spend some time discussing a measure that falls under the purview of public safety, that being the elimination of pardons for serious crimes. Canadians firmly believe that these measures are long overdue, as do I.

These amendments are a natural next step to further strengthening measures contained within the Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act that our government passed last year, which received royal assent in June 2010. That act ensures that anyone convicted of a serious personal injury offence, such as manslaughter, will not be eligible to apply for a pardon before 10 years rather than five. This 10-year ineligibility period also applies to those who have committed a sexual offence against a minor and have been prosecuted by indictment.

For those convicted of a sexual offence against a minor and prosecuted by summary conviction, the ineligibility period for a pardon is now five years, whereas it previously was three. That act also provides the Parole Board of Canada with the discretion to determine whether the granting of a pardon would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. To make this determination, the Parole Board is now able to give consideration to the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the information related to the applicant's criminal history.

Let me speak to what this legislation in Bill C-10 would do. First and foremost, it proposes to change the term “pardon” to “record suspension” as the word “pardon” implies that the government has forgiven the individual. We firmly believe that it is not the role of the government to forgive someone for his or her crime. That can only come from the victim or the victim's family, certainly not from the government.

Indeed, we are aware that it adds insult to injury when a victim discovers his or her offender has received a pardon. That is another reason why we have proposed changing the term to “record suspension”. In addition to being a more accurate and less offensive term to victims, we believe it better reflects how the legal system works. When an individual is granted a pardon, his or her record is not permanently deleted. Rather, it is sealed or, in other words, suspended.

We believe the term “pardon” is misleading and that replacing it with the term “record suspension” in this legislation would clarify that.

Another proposed amendment put forth in this legislation would require the Parole Board of Canada to submit an annual report to Parliament. This report would include statistics on the number of applicants applying for record suspension as well as the number deemed successful.

More importantly, we have proposed amendments regarding who can and cannot apply for a record suspension. We have seen agreement across the board on this issue from victims, victims' rights and community support groups, as well as other Canadians. Individuals convicted of sexual offences against children should never be allowed to apply for a record suspension. We are confident these reforms would be better for victims, would provide better protection for children, and would be better for our Canadian society as a whole.

The government is also proposing that limits be set on how many times offenders can be convicted of serious crimes before becoming ineligible for record suspension. The amendments propose that individuals who have been convicted of more than three indictable offences wherein they have received a sentence of two years or more for each offence be no longer eligible for record suspension.

I can assure the House that we have gone to great lengths to thoughtfully consider how this amendment would be interpreted and applied in the real world for real people.

It is defined in this way. A person who is convicted of more than three offences and receives a penitentiary length sentence of two years or more for each of these three or more offences would not be eligible to apply for a record suspension.

What does this mean in practice? It means that if an individual is convicted more than three times of a serious crime and sentenced to more than two years in jail for crimes such as a major drug crime or home invasion, that individual would not be eligible to apply for a record suspension.

Suffice it to say that an individual who is convicted of indictable offences on more than three occasions and has received a federal sentence for each has certainly demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that establishes a serious risk that he or she will commit grievous harm to members of our society. The government's view is that the risk and consequences of reoffending are so high that this person's record should never be sealed. We believe that this reflects the views of Canadians as well.

Our government has included these measures in Bill C-10 because we want to ensure that the consequences of truly serious criminal activity cannot be sealed with a pardon. The need to protect public safety must be our primary consideration at all times.

We recognize that not everyone agrees with the number of more than three. We believe that setting the limit at more than three offences, or put another way, four or more offences, is tough yet reasonable.

We have all heard of a young adult making a bad decision one night. That person could end up being convicted of multiple indictable offences. If that were to happen, that individual would have a record for life.

This provision accounts for that possibility. Disqualification would only occur where individuals have been sentenced to two or more years in custody on more than three separate occasions and not one bad night or week in which a number of indictable offences occurred. Therefore, a person making one bad choice would be eligible to seek a record suspension whereas a serious repeat offender would not.That is a very important distinction for the members of the opposition to comprehend and take into consideration.

While passing the Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act in 2010 brought about positive changes, it was only a first step in strengthening Canada's pardon regime. We must now continue with the final steps to complete these important reforms.

These changes would ensure the Parole Board of Canada has the tools it requires to properly consider, order and deny where appropriate, record suspensions for ex-offenders.

These measures would ensure that offenders who have committed sexual offences against children will never be allowed to have their records suspended.

Most importantly, these changes would increase the confidence of Canadians in the corrections and pardon systems.

Our government made a commitment to continue to protect the safety and security of law-abiding Canadians. That is why they gave us that strong mandate on May 2. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes and neighbourhoods. We are working hard to ensure that they do.

This legislation is too important to be delayed any longer. We must make this a matter of high importance for the sake of victims and their loved ones. Our government has pledged to finish what it has started by moving forward with this bill.

I urge all hon. members on both sides of the House to support and pass this legislation. Let us work together to continue protecting Canadians and the law-abiding citizens that we represent.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I learned that with the Conservative government's omnibus crime bill, mandatory minimum punishments for child rapists would be less severe than for marijuana growers, I was disgusted. It makes no sense that the Conservatives would rather punish marijuana growers than child rapists.

I would like the Conservative member to defend the Conservatives' priorities that child rapists would be less severely punished than marijuana growers.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member may possibly have misunderstood some of the terms of this legislation. For example, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice articulated very clearly the penalties for trafficking marijuana. We are not talking about growing marijuana plants, we are talking about trafficking marijuana, growing it for the sole purpose of trafficking. And there would be additional penalities if offenders were trying to traffic to young people and depending where these offenders would be trafficking.

Certainly, we agree sex offenders, as we said, should not be receiving any kind of record suspension. They certainly need to do the time and there needs to be minimum sentences for them.

As I said in my speech, as a parent, the issue of drugs is such a serious one with young people and marijuana is a gateway drug. There is no question about it. So we have to get tough on those who are trying to traffic and trying to get our young people into drug activity.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any denying the Statistics Canada information that shows that crime rates in this country are falling. Also, I do not think there is any denying that the tough on crime legislation in many American states has failed.

Looking at those two, I would suggest, indisputable facts and realizing that we really cannot manage what we cannot measure, my question for the member opposite is this. Once the Conservatives jam through this piece of legislation, how are they going to be able to measure its effectiveness, given that crime rates are falling and will, in all likelihood, continue to fall? Will their plan be to take credit for the crime rates that are falling anyway as a result of these measures, which have been shown to fail in other jurisdictions?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge gap in the way the opposition looks at crime and how to address crime, and the way that the Conservative government and, I believe, the majority of Canadians look at crime. There seems to be an attitude on the other side of mediocrity, “Let's just kind of do enough so that we're maybe seeing some crime rates reduced”.

That is not the way we look at it. We look at a broken justice system where victims have been victimized time and time again with current legislation. We look at a system where prisoners and criminals have been coddled, many times spoiled, and sometimes even almost rewarded for their criminal activity. We promised Canadians that we would change it. I am so proud that we are doing things differently from the Liberals.

So, on the other side, if they want to look at statistics and decide it is just going to be good enough and “Let's just be mediocre”, I disagree. Let us aim for excellence. We need to ensure our young people are safe. We need to ensure any kind of sexual crime against children is stopped. We need to ensure that pardons for people who have committed serious crimes do not happen.

So, we are going to keep working hard, we are going to aim high, and we are not going to let mediocrity guide us.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing mediocre about wanting to help people before they become criminals, instead of developing a repressive society.

I have a very specific question for my hon. colleague on the other side. We have a hodgepodge of legislation here that talks about child sexual predators, pardons for serious crimes and drug dealers. These are all very socially complex elements. Each of them requires discussion and reflection regarding the legal, social, ethical, philosophical and even religious aspects.

How can the government justify putting all of that in one big package and preventing Canadians from having a healthy debate on each of these important issues? That is unacceptable. How does my colleague explain that?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, we need to acknowledge there is a completely different philosophy on how crime is looked at on the opposition side versus the government side. Here, I think, is the stark contrast. There seems to be an aversion to ensuring that sexual predators and drug dealers are in jail. Instead, we hear time and time again that it is complex and that there are so many factors.

Let me give an example. It seems, though, that the opposition has no problem wanting to put law-abiding gun owners in jail, or farmers who want to sell their wheat in western Canada, or maybe people who do not fill out their census form to the fullest extent that the opposition wants.

There seems to be just this opposite, almost illogical, view of, “Let's protect and coddle and watch the criminal, and make sure that all of their complex issues are addressed”. When a criminal, a violent offender, is in jail I can guarantee that he or she will not be committing that same violent act again. That is something I know. That is something Canadians know. They have asked us to carry forward and we are going to do it.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague not only for her presentation today but for the amount of work that she has done on a topic that she just touched on a minute ago in terms of the long gun registry.

My question to the member would focus a little bit around the response that she gave to the member opposite, I think it was the member for Charlottetown, regarding the difference in terms of presenting these types of bills. What is the focus on of this bill, is it actually on the criminals or families and victims?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a very important point. So many aspects of this bill are looking at ways in which we can fix and correct some of the mistakes and injustices that have been done to victims through the current legislation.

I would not assume to say that there was any government that purposely did that. I think that sometimes governments can, by making one bad decision after another, come to the place where victims, unfortunately, are not the top priority.

That is something that we want to fix. Sometimes these things are very difficult for the opposition and for different political parties to come to an agreement on.

What is important is that we listen to the people in our ridings, and we listen to the common sense of people on the streets, no matter what their political stripe, in terms of if people commit a crime there should be a penalty and Canadians should be protected, and victims should be protected.

No matter what party we are from, we all believe that victims should be protected and their rights should be top of mind. That is something that this legislation has done. It has done it very thoughtfully. We have tried as much as possible to take some circumstances into consideration, for example, where criminals may have other factors in their lives that have contributed to the downfall and the bad decisions they have made, but never at the cost of protecting communities and Canadians, and never at the cost of victims.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The bills that have been introduced only deal with crime seen in the news, that is petty crime. The small-time criminals on street corners are not the ones bringing in containers of drugs. They do not have the means to bring in planeloads of illegal substances. They do not launder money around the world. They have not transformed Quebec's construction industry into a corrupt industry. They do not attack the democracy of our provincial, federal and especially municipal governments.

Hard-core criminals are responsible for these crimes. They are the ones who make drugs available on the street. They are the ones who make weapons available on the street. The bills introduced by the Conservatives do not address organized crime. This government has abandoned its mandate to defend Canadians and is quite simply doing some marketing and targeting small-time criminals.

Yes, they are targeting street prostitution. Yes, they are targeting low-level drug pushers. No, they are not protecting Canada from organized crime.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that there is support for getting tough on organized crime, terrorism, large crime, and people who are dealing and committing crimes that are having a serious effect on our country.

It seems like there is this whole attitude of, “Well, let us not worry about the so-called small criminal”. I do not know about people in this House, but I think Canadians consider someone who is trying to sell drugs to our children a criminal. It has a serious effect and serious consequence.

Instead of looking at things from a view of not worrying about that, letting them get away with it because there might be some complex factors that affect their lives, we have been very clear with Canadians, and Canadians are supporting us with this mandate, that we are going to move ahead.

The more that we can talk about this, discuss it, and talk about ways to help prevent crime, the more productive it is. However, it is not going to be at the cost of protecting innocent, law-abiding Canadians.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke North.

There is no doubt that every member in the House is committed to the safety of their constituents, their communities and our nation. The framers of our Constitution knew from the start that peace and order is essential for good government.

That said, evidence-based laws are key to peace and order. Sadly, for all its focus on crime and punishment, the government lacks the evidence to support its legislation. With pieces of the legislation having reached committee stage before, members of the House are fully aware that evidence given at committee completely contradicts the Conservative preoccupation with heavy minimum sentences.

I have talked to the chief of police in Guelph, to prosecutors, to correctional officers, and to criminologists. We have read countless evidence-based reports and statistics, and the jury is in. Based on all the evidence, these experts have come to the same conclusion: in order to be tough on crime, we must first be smart on crime. Locking up everyone is not a smart solution. It makes us dumber on crime.

There are a good number of things that prisons are not. They are not a place where skills are developed. They are not addiction treatment centres. They do not combat the scourge of mental illness and they provide little or no treatment options. A jail cell does not even provide support to victims, except to give them the satisfaction of retribution.

Smart on crime means that instead of spending $108,000 a year on each and every additional criminal the government insists on incarcerating, that money could go to drug treatment programs in my riding like Stonehenge.

Stonehenge was established 40 years ago. Through the dedication of its staff, managers and donors, this program helps to restore hope and dignity to those afflicted by addiction. It restores lives and livelihoods so that those suffering from substance addiction can once again feel a sense of relevance and dignity, and be productive and successful members of our society. Clients at Stonehenge are from the general public, or are people in conflict with the law diverted to Stonehenge in Guelph for drug treatment. Imagine for a moment how many people could be treated using the $108,000 annual sum spent on incarcerating a single person suffering from an addiction, a terrible disease.

Smart on crime means developing and funding programs that reduce poverty, create jobs and tackle mental health issues. Jails, under the government, have turned into public housing for individuals with addictions or mental health issues.

Smart on crime means not increasing the rate of recidivism. Even before this bill was tabled, there were prisons in Canada at 200% capacity. Overcrowding has shown to lead to more crime. There is no way anyone on the other side could argue that increasing the number of Canadians incarcerated would be a deterrent or cut down on the crime rate.

What of the costs? The government refused to disclose the cost in the last Parliament and was found in contempt of this great institution. Despite the hundreds of pages the Minister of Justice cited yesterday that were provided to Parliament, he purposely evaded every single question put to him about the cost of this legislation. Applying 2009 forecasts the total cost to the federal and provincial governments by 2016 would be over $18 billion. Meanwhile, the government has not consulted with the provinces on the additional financial burden they would now shoulder.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is already considered a failed policy in the United States, a nation with an incarceration rate 700% higher than ours per capita. It is illogical for the government to go down this path to satisfy ideological urges. Even in the United States lawmakers are moving away from the “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality that created mega prisons that became crime factories. Experts in the United States came late to the realization that they were spending more on incarcerating citizens than enrolling them in post-secondary education.

As a young lawyer, it fell to me on a couple of occasions to defend one client or another who had, on a lark, or suffering from mental illness or depression, committed a non-violent offence. Remorseful and entirely aware of the impact of their actions and how wrong they were, the judge granted a conditional discharge.

Without the stigma of a criminal record or, in some cases, possible incarceration, these clients were then able to gain admission to university, keep or get a good job, travel across the border and ultimately become the successful contributing members of society they otherwise might not have been.

We must trust our legal professionals, our judges, prosecutors, police and corrections officers, to exercise their judgment on a daily basis. They deal with the law up close and personal. Who are we to presume to know better than they when someone deserves treatments options or diversion from incarceration, a second chance, an opportunity to make something better of themselves, to kick a drug habit, to deal with mental illness, to work in the community and develop skills that will lead to stable employment and a fulfilling life?

Criminal justice is about so much more than just throwing people in jail. It is about recognizing people's circumstances and building programs to help them cope, adjust and manage those things that may otherwise lead to criminal activity.

For all the Conservatives' talk about victims and the terrible costs borne by the victims of crime, the bill is absent of any provision to help them. There is nothing in the bill that deals with the numbers members opposite continue to throw around. Victims cannot be compensated through retribution. An eye for an eye does not make up for a wrong done.

Crime is at its lowest rate in nearly 40 years and yet the government is willing to turn around nearly two generations of decreasing crime rates out of fear and fiction instead of facts, ideology instead of evidence.

My colleague, the hon. member for Charlottetown, put it very succinctly yesterday when he said that the bill was really an act, that it was cosmetic window dressing, rhetoric that was sound in theory but contained little action to address the real problem at its source, investing unnecessary billions of dollars on building unnecessary prisons while crime is receding, instead of investing on crime prevention, social housing, employment assistance, health care and child care, which will create more crime than justice.

Throughout my career as a lawyer and now into my career as a legislator and a representative of my community, I have reviewed the law as a tool to advance the issue of social justice whenever possible.

While engaged on the committee against family violence and women in crisis or the Wellington-Guelph Housing Authority on great projects like Onward Willow Better Beginnings, Better Futures, or changing Guelph's police response to violence between spouses and changing court sentencing for offenders by ensuring their enrolment in anger management programs, not incarceration, I gained a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding justice issues.

My community of Guelph is a compassionate one. We are top five in Canada for education, number one per capita for volunteers and have an incredibly professional police force. The engagement and care for at-risk members of our community is responsible for Guelph being the safest city in Canada, as identified by Statistics Canada.

Public safety and crime can be a divisive political issue but it does not need to be so long as we listen to the facts and heed our expert evidence. We have an opportunity to be smart on crime and not pass this omnibus bill in its present form.

We do not need to completely ignore painfully learned and carefully documented and researched lessons by treating crime as a black and white issue. There is no strong or weak on crime. That is ideological language used to divide and to provoke misinformation based on fear, anger and misplaced need for revenge.

If more and longer sentences were the answer to increasing public safety, the United States would be the safest country in the world, and it is far from that. Instead, even the most conservative U.S. lawmakers are now turning away from their old approach, while we run ahead on into it.

I implore the government not to continue on this reckless path.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree with what the member said in his speech this afternoon.

He talked about compassion and so on. Recently there was a case in British Columbia where a former sex offender was walking the streets and he took a child from his home for days and days. The parents and the families in that community were suffering because they thought the young child was being abused by a sex offender who was a predator on the street.

The bill before us talks about sex offenders and pedophiles. Where is the compassion? What does the member say on that particular issue? Why are the Liberals not supporting the bill to keep those types of people off the street?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member.

I wish the question had been placed this way: Are there any provisions of the legislation that I agree with? I would have said, yes, there are provisions in this legislation that I agree with. Sexual predators is one of the sections that I happen to agree with. Perhaps a trafficker trafficking to children at a school might be one of those sections that I agree with. Luring children is a section that I agree with.

What I disagree with is the ideological commitment to absolute minimum sentences in all circumstances, where the government takes away the discretion of a judge, a lawyer, a crown attorney, a probation officer who has prepared a pre-sentence report and they say, perhaps, that in a minor incident of possession of marijuana plants there is a better solution than to throw the fellow in jail.

The solution is going to a treatment program like that offered at Stonehenge because offenders can be rehabilitated there rather than criminalized by being put in jail.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has touched on an important problem and I would like to hear more from him on this subject.

I am referring to the tendency to establish foolish and specific laws. I have been reading quite a bit about this. This tendency has a significant impact on the legal system and the very discretion of judges who, faced with a crime, must consider why it was committed, whether it was a stupid mistake or whether the offender was compelled to commit it. They must be aware of the context before arriving at a decision. How will it end if we simply apply foolish solutions such as “one plus one equals two” without ever giving judges the freedom they require to analyze cases? I would like to hear more from my colleague on this aspect of the problem.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely it. My hon. friend has hit the nail on the head.

By passing this legislation, it will, in many respects, remove the discretion of judges in the courts to look at circumstances on a case-by-case basis. It is a sad society when all people are painted with the same brush; given no opportunity to explain the circumstances from which they come; given no opportunity for rehabilitation, which is not found in our jails; and given no opportunity to pursue a meaningful life because of the criminalization they will face by being put in jail. They are given no opportunity to attend a mental health treatment program when perhaps it was because of a temporary depression that led to the particular offence. Those offenders have no opportunity to receive treatment for it or, as I said, drug treatment or any other incidents that may be appropriate under the circumstances.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to speak to Bill C-10, a 110-page omnibus bill rolling together nine past proposals, as crime prevention and reduction is of major concern to my constituents.

Before I begin, however, I want to praise Etobicoke North's superintendent, Ron Taverner, and the officers of 23 Division for their excellent policing and for their outreach to our community, attending numerous community events, building bridges, participating in anti-drug marches, partnering with faith groups and restoring streets through community cleanups.

I also want to recognize the work of organizations, such as the Rexdale legal clinic and the Youth Without Shelter, that work tirelessly to support those requiring legal services and those requiring a home and a new beginning.

I will now share the story of an extraordinary young man in our community. He has just received three scholarships and is in his first month of college. He is in fact the first one in his family to go to college. He works and has just started an organization to inspire youth to achieve their greatest goals. What few know is that he lives in a youth shelter. He is a remarkable young man who is being celebrated because of his tremendous achievements. In fact, he gave his first public address last week and humbled all those in attendance.

This young man has fought hard for a life following abuse, abandonment and drug use. He is making it today with the necessary supports. He is succeeding and, for the first time in his life, he is part of a family at the shelter and is looking forward to a future.

The point is that we must address the root causes of crime, provide police with the tools they need to do their job effectively, provide necessary deterrents to crime and provide the supports necessary to reduce recidivism, because we all want safe streets and safe communities.

The fundamental question of this debate must therefore be whether this bill would make Canada safer. Would it protect victims who often feel abandoned by the justice system? The reality is that the bill has been highly criticized by criminal lawyers, prisoner advocates and critics as costly, ideological, irresponsible, misguided, and overreaching largely because of falling crime rates and predicted massive costs to taxpayers for prison expansion.

Critics claim that the Conservative government's tough on crime agenda will be fought out in Canadian courts for years to come.

National crime rates are continuing their 20 year decline, reaching levels not seen since 1973. Statistics Canada shows the overall volume of criminal incidents fell by 5% between 2009 and 2010, and the relative severity of the crimes showed a similar decrease. Homicides, attempted murders, serious assaults and robberies were all down last year. Young people were accused of committing fewer offences. Even property crime was reported less frequently, with reductions in both break-ins and car thefts. True leadership would, therefore, provide accurate statistics and reassure Canadians rather than invoke fear to convince them that the bill is for the greater good.

Kim Pate, executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society, said:

We’re being encouraged to believe we need this for public safety. It’s a farce. If in fact it was true, then the U.S. would be the safest place in the world, the States would not be going bankrupt and they would not be retreating from this agenda. .

Others claim that the bill would allow the government to keep a spotlight on what it considers popular law and order measures at a time when economic news is bleak.

The government appears to be focusing on unreported crime as a rationale for its tough-on-crime approach. Unfortunately, it is unclear how tough sentencing for unreported crime will make communities safer. If under-reporting is the issue, perhaps measures should be put in place to address it. However, evidence of crime being unreported is marginal; in fact, there is evidence that reporting of domestic violence has increased, as has reporting from schools, because of police protocols.

Correctional Service Canada estimates the system's operating cost will rise from $1.6 billion in 2006, when the Conservatives took power, to $3 billion this fiscal year.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page is still trying to obtain comprehensive data on the government's anti-crime agenda. The justice minister has been asked repeatedly about the costs of the bill but has declined to specify the projected costs of the measures or even to reveal the federal government's own projections of increased prison populations.

Criminal defence lawyer John Rosen predicts that there will be many constitutional and legal challenges, especially regarding mandatory minimum penalties. He explained that these penalties violate an accused person's right to fundamental justice. He believes the measures will be judged an inappropriate infringement on the case-by-case analysis that has been mandated by the Supreme Court in sentencing cases. He further explained that the Conservatives are trying to Americanize our system.

The Globe and Mail states that Canada is one of the few jurisdictions worldwide that is headed in the direction of cracking down on crime. The article also states that the tough-on-crime approach in the face of contrary evidence is “bemusing international observers”.

Criminologists, judges and policymakers in Australia, Britain and the United States, whose systems for the most part mirror Canada's, have recognized that a jail-intensive approach is counterproductive in reducing crime.

Texas, which had 15 youth incarceration institutions four years ago, is down to six. The executive director of the Youth Commission in Texas said, “There's been a real shift to make sure that we really look at the youth, the seriousness of the offence and the youth's risk to reoffend, and only incarcerate those that are the highest risk in terms of public safety”.

Further criticisms of the bill are that scarce resources will be diverted from treating offenders with mental health problems or addictions and that more youth will serve longer jail times, despite evidence showing longer sentences increase the likelihood for youth to reoffend.

The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the John Howard Society of Canada said the bill would lead to overcrowded prisons, jeopardize inmates with addictions or mental health problems, divert funding from treatment programs and dissuade sexual assault victims from pursuing charges against assailants who are often related to them.

Defence lawyer Rosen has said that most professionals who work in the justice system, whether corrections officials, defence lawyers, judges, prosecutors or social workers, agree that the goal is not only to suppress crime but to prevent the recurrence of it. The government is gradually strangling all of the social programs that address those issues and address the root causes of crime, while spending money to prosecute.

Had my extraordinary young man been subject to this legislation, he would be living a very different life today. He would not have had a chance to get an education. He would not have had a social worker. He would not have had his family at the shelter. He would not be contributing to society.

I have one last question. What will it take to get the government's attention and to re-evaluate?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the argument from the other side of the House that if we do not support this bill we are automatically in favour of criminals. That simplistic argument detracts from the real debate. Right now, the protection of the public is not being called into question. That is not at all what we are talking about here. We simply want to know what debate we can have on how to protect the public and improve the quality of life for Canadians. That is what we are actually talking about here.

I would ask my colleague, who made a very interesting speech, whether she is concerned about the fact that the government wants to increase punishment, but that the bill does not mention prevention, education or reintegration of prisoners.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, rehabilitation is fundamental. I would like the House to know that the Canadian Paediatric Society has also expressed disapproval for the bill.

The society reports that changing the youth crime law to allow stiffer sentences for children as young as 14 will have significant negative consequences. The society says the current Youth Criminal Justice Act supports rehabilitation and reintegration instead of putting the emphasis on incarceration, and it recommends that the federal government work with the provincial and territorial governments on youth crime prevention strategies that would include early detection and treatment of behavioural and mental health issues that might lead to criminal activity.

I will take the example of Texas. In just two years, the focus has been on more education and therapeutic programs and on transitioning back to their home communities so that there is a greater chance for successful re-entry. The result is that youth incarceration rates have been halved in a number of years.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question on her comments.

I understand from her comments that the Canadian Paediatric Society has approved our bill, the bill that is front of the House as we speak. I am very concerned that she is worried about that, because these are the front-line doctors. These are the people who see children hurt. These are the people who see the ravages of abuse. They see the ravages of sexual abuse on young children.

I am thrilled that the Canadian Paediatric Society is supportive of this bill, because their members are the first line and are able to see that.

Could my hon. colleague please explain why she is concerned with their support? They are the front-line people who see the hurt done to young people.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments.

I will be very clear. Everyone in this House and everyone in Canada wants our most vulnerable, our children, protected.

I will be very clear that the Canadian Paediatric Society has expressed disapproval for the bill and wants the emphasis to be on rehabilitation and reintegration. I think it is really important for that point to be brought out.

I also think it is important to bring evidence here again. I want to bring out that the recent statistics and other surveys simply do not show that we are in a crime wave. Attempted murders are at their lowest levels in 30 years. There has been a 15% drop in auto theft. That is continuing a downward trend that started in the mid-1990s, and last year there were 15,000 fewer youth crimes, a drop of 7%.

Alan Young, a law professor at York University, said that the Conservative vision for criminal justice ran its course 30 years ago. He said they had been there, done it, tried it and failed.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at the second reading debate on Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.

Part 2 of the bill proposes sentencing amendments to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Clause 34 of the bill, within part 2, proposes to restrict the availability of conditional sentences in the same manner as was advanced in former Bill C-16, which had received second reading and had been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights but had not yet been studied when it died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament.

Conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases, but not when it comes to serious property crimes and violent offences. Conditional sentences became a sentencing option with the proclamation in September 1996 of Bill C-41, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1995. They were created in recognition that many less serious offenders who would otherwise be sentenced to custody could remain among other members of society as long as they adhered to strict and appropriate conditions.

When first introduced, conditional sentences were available if the sentence imposed was less than two years of imprisonment, the offence for which the offender was sentenced was not punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty and the court was satisfied that allowing the offender to serve the sentence of imprisonment in the community would not endanger the safety of that community.

Shortly thereafter, a requirement was added to require the court to be satisfied that sentencing the offender to a conditional sentence of imprisonment would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Where a conditional sentence is imposed, the effect is that the offender serves his or her sentence in the community with conditions, and sometimes with a condition of house arrest. This new sentencing option generated considerable debate following its creation because it was available at sentencing for any offences not punishable by a minimum sentence, including serious and violent offences, provided that the accused met all the above-mentioned prerequisites. Parliament intended that conditional sentences would be available to non-dangerous offenders who would have been, before the creation of conditional sentences, sentenced to a term of incarceration of less than two years for offences with no minimum term of imprisonment.

In 2000 this debate on certain controversial cases led the Supreme Court of Canada to examine the conditional sentence regime in R. v. Proulx. The court explained that a sentencing court must first find that a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years is appropriate before examining the other prerequisites to the availability of conditional sentences.

In other words, a conditional sentence is not on an equal footing with the rest of the sentencing options available at sentencing, because the court must be of the opinion that other non-carceral sentencing options, such as a probation order or a fine, would not adequately address the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. It is only in situations in which the court is of the opinion that the term of imprisonment should not be more than two years that a conditional sentence order may be considered, if the court is also satisfied that allowing the offender to serve the sentence in a community would not endanger public safety.

Over the years there has been a loss of public confidence in the appropriateness of conditional sentence orders because of the wide array of offences that received conditional sentences of imprisonment, including offences punishable by the highest maximum in the Criminal Code.

Our government responded to these concerns by tabling Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) on May 4, 2006.

Bill C-9, in its original form, proposed to eliminate conditional sentences for offences prosecuted on indictment and punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more. It was, and still is, the opinion of this government that offences prosecuted on indictment and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, 14 years, or life are serious offences that should never, ever, result in a conditional sentence order.

However, the scope of Bill C-9 was amended in committee to only capture offences that are punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted on indictment, that are terrorism offences, organized crime offences, and serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code.

The use of the term “serious personal injury offence” to restrict the availability of conditional sentences has not accomplished the objective of ensuring that conditional sentences are not available for serious crimes. In fact, this approach allows certain serious offences, punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment or more, such as robbery, to be eligible for a conditional sentence or house arrest.

As defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code, a serious personal injury offence has two components. First, it specifically includes the three general sexual assault offences in sections 271, 272 and 273 of the code. This is pretty straightforward. The second component of the serious personal injury offence does not provide the same certainty because it includes indictable offences involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person, or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person, and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years or more. This calls for interpretation of whether an offence endangered the life or safety of another person or was likely to do so. For some offences this will be clear, but for others it will not be clear.

This government wants to clearly indicate the offences for which a conditional sentence is never an option. This is what the relevant amendments contained in the bill before us address. Rather than leaving it to individual courts to determine whether a particular offence qualifies as a serious personal injury offence, it clearly identifies all offences which should never be eligible for a conditional sentence. It removes all of that uncertainty.

Until the coming into force of Bill C-9 on December 1, 2007, sentencing courts only interpreted “serious personal injury offence” for the purpose of determining whether the threshold for a dangerous or long-term offender application had been met. That is from part XXIV of the Criminal Code. This is because the term had been enacted and defined for the dangerous and long-term offender provisions only.

Since Bill C-9 came into force, courts have had to interpret the definition of “serious personal injury offences” in the context of conditional sentences, a context which is quite different from that for dangerous and long-term offenders. For instance, in the 2009 decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Ponticorvo, the court held that serious personal injury in the conditional sentence context included the use, or attempted use, of any violence and was not restricted to only the use of serious violence. In so doing, the court applied a different interpretation than it had to the same term in the dangerous offender context in R. v. Neve in 1999.

In 2010 in R. v. Lebar, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed this approach and concluded that for the purposes of the availability of conditional sentences, Parliament created “a divide between crimes where violence is or is not used, not between crimes of serious violence and less serious violence”. That is in paragraph 69 of the decision.

These cases illustrate there is considerable uncertainty about how the existing conditional sentence regime will be interpreted. This bill will provide the needed clarity and certainty to say which offences are not eligible for a conditional sentence. This will in turn prevent the need to wait for these issues to be finally resolved by the appellate courts, including perhaps the Supreme Court of Canada.

Another concern we have is that the definition of “serious personal injury offences” on its face does not cover most serious property crimes which could still be eligible for a conditional sentence. For instance, fraud, which is an offence punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years, is a very serious crime that can have a devastating impact on the lives of its victims, yet, according to the definition of “serious personal injury offence”, it is still technically eligible for a conditional sentence.

I should note, however, that a recent amendment to the Criminal Code which is not yet in force provides for a mandatory sentence of two years when the value of the fraud exceeds $1 million. In those cases a conditional sentence would not be available.

In addition, the current prerequisites to the availability of a conditional sentence do not exclude drug offences, such as the production, importation and trafficking of heroin, unless they are committed as part of a criminal organization and provided that they are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more and prosecuted on indictment.

However, as hon. members well know, this bill also includes the amendments that were proposed in former Bill S-10, which also died on the order paper at the dissolution of the last Parliament. It is proposed to create mandatory minimum penalties for certain drug offences which would make them ineligible for a conditional sentence.

It is my view that the current conditional sentencing regime fails to categorically make conditional sentences ineligible for many very serious crimes. Permitting the use of conditional sentences for some offences punishable by the highest maximum available in the code sends a message that certain offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life are less serious than others punishable by the same maximum. This is not the message this Parliament should be sending to Canadians.

Greater clarity and consistency is needed to limit the availability of conditional sentences and to protect Canadians from serious and violent offenders. In order to address these concerns, the proposed amendments contained in this bill would retain all the existing prerequisites for conditional sentences but would make it crystal clear which offences are ineligible. Specifically, the reforms would eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences in section 742.1 and would make all offences punishable by 14 years or life ineligible for a conditional sentence.

This would, for instance, make the offences of fraud, robbery and many other crimes clearly ineligible for a conditional sentence. It would also make offences prosecuted on indictment and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years ineligible for a conditional sentence if they: result in bodily harm; involve the import or export, trafficking and production of drugs; or involve the use of a weapon. It is the opinion of the government that where these circumstances are present, there is a need to emphasize the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence and therefore eliminate the possibility of a conditional sentence.

In order to ensure that all serious crimes are caught, this bill also proposes a list of 11 specific offences prosecuted on indictment and punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years that would be ineligible for a conditional sentence. These offences are: prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction of persons under the age of 14 years, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and arson for fraudulent purposes.

Some hon. members might notice there are three differences from the list that was contained in Bill C-16.

First, the offence of luring a child was taken out of the list of offences punishable by 10 years' imprisonment on indictment because clause 22 of the bill proposes a mandatory minimum penalty of one year on indictment and 90 days on summary conviction. Therefore, this offence would be ineligible for a conditional sentence.

The second change was the addition of a new motor vehicle theft offence described at section 333.1 of the Criminal Code. This addition would ensure consistency with the restriction on the availability of conditional sentences for theft over $5,000.

Last, former Bill C-16 eliminated the possibility of house arrest for the abduction of a person under the age of 14 by a parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of that person. The intention, however, was to target the abduction of a person under the age of 14 by a stranger. This has been rectified in the bill by replacing the reference to section 283 by a reference to section 281 in the list of offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and prosecuted on indictment that are ineligible for a conditional sentence.

This government is committed to ensuring that conditional sentences are used the way they were originally intended to be used, and that is for less serious offences. I am confident the more appropriate use of conditional sentence orders will strengthen public confidence in the sanction and administration of justice.

I am the chair of the Conservative Party's law enforcement officers caucus, which is made up of 11 people from both the House of Commons and the Senate who have previous experience in police investigations, in corrections and in other law enforcement agencies. We stand together to support this bill, because we have seen first hand how detrimental these conditional sentences and many of the other aspects of the bill have been to our communities. We have seen the victims of these offences suffer terribly. We have been at the front line to say that we are sorry the system failed them.

We will not stand by and allow the system to continue to fail them. We are the police officers, the corrections officers and the law enforcement officers in this House. They do not exist in any other party. We stand together to support this bill.

I would ask, in fact on behalf of victims I would beg, members of the opposition to please support this bill to make sure that our streets and communities are safe. This is imperative to continue to live in the most incredible country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer questions from members across the way, and I would implore them to think about the victims as they ask their questions.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the system failing. Ashley Smith was a young girl who entered the correctional system at 15. By October 31, 2006, Ms. Smith was transferred to Nova Institution for Women in Nova Scotia, a federal institution. Through 2007, Ms. Smith was transferred a total of 17 times between eight institutions during 11 months in federal custody. The beginning of Ms. Smith's journey in the criminal system was for throwing crabapples at a mailman.

The government talks about law and order, but how will it prevent the next Ashley Smith case within its correctional service if it does not fund programs for rehabilitation and mental health?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the case of Ashley Smith is very tragic. As a former member of the public safety committee in the last Parliament, I was very fortunate to travel across this country and to other countries to observe the programs that are available in our corrections system for those who suffer with mental illness and to compare them to systems that exist in other countries.

Time after time we spoke with people involved in the corrections system, those who were caretakers, those who were involved in the actual delivery of the health care that was being provided, and some of the people who were incarcerated and were benefiting from the program.

I can assure the member there are programs. We invest millions of dollars in those programs because we, too, believe that we have to address some of these problems, such as the mental health situations of the incarcerated, and the addictions of the incarcerated. That is an important priority for the government. That is why we have a national anti-drug strategy that focuses not only on enforcement, but on treatment and education.

We will continue to put that money toward those efforts because we know it makes our communities safer.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as someone involved in law enforcement, the hon. member undoubtedly knows that the vast majority of conditional sentences are granted in cases that are less serious. Conditional sentences in more serious cases or for more serious offences are extremely rare.

Given the focus of the remarks on conditional sentences, if we were to tighten up on conditional sentences, we would be putting more people on the lower end of the severity scale in jail. These people would end up in provincial institutions, not in federal institutions.

In many institutions across the country the provincial incarceration facilities are absolutely stretched to the max; they are at capacity. If we take away discretion from judges, if we do not trust them to apply this law properly and we tell them they are required to put these people in jail, I would like the hon. member opposite to lay out for the House the compensation package her government has in mind to cover the costs that would be downloaded to the provinces for putting the people in jail who would otherwise be serving their sentences in the community.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there were several questions and comments in that.

Let me first address his statement with regard to conditional sentences and there being people who would be incarcerated for lower-class sentences. I want to ask the member this. Of the list that we are trying to include as serious offences, what does he think a lower-class offence is? Was it the sexual assault that was benefiting from a conditional sentence? Was it perhaps the kidnapping that was benefiting from a conditional sentence? Was it the trafficking in persons? Was it the motor vehicle theft? Was it the prison breach?

These are offences for which I, as a police officer, spent much of my time chasing the offender while out on house arrest. These are serious offences that must be dealt with and there must deterrence and denunciation. These must never have the ability of an offender to receive a conditional sentence.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her clarifications regarding criminal law. I know that she has a great deal of experience in this area.

I would like her to provide some examples. We know that opponents of this bill, in Quebec especially, will always pit rehabilitation against deterrence, but these are not exclusive of one another—they are complementary. Once again, I would like my colleague to share some examples from her experience, regarding what she sees in this bill, and of the benefits that this will have for the public in terms of protecting Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for this excellent question.

As the minister indicated, I do have a great deal of experience in this area. The bill aims to protect the safety of our society and our communities through such measures as the elimination of conditional sentences, because we know that they only cause further suffering to the victims. However, this is not only about victims. When those who commit crimes are incarcerated, they have access to programs that could benefit them and help them become law-abiding citizens. It is important to remember that. Access to such programs is crucial to offenders. Our government is investing its efforts and financial resources in order to support and promote these programs and to give incarcerated offenders a chance to do their best to change their lives, to get out when their sentence ends and to become law-abiding, contributing members of society.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her admirable defence.

I would like to ask the same question as the person who preceded me on this side of the House, since the hon. member did not answer the question. I know this government prides itself on being a responsible government. I would like to know the additional costs associated with this bill. I also want to know what percentage of the cost of the bill will be downloaded to the provinces.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

As he can see, in the House we sometimes ask three, four or five questions at once and, unfortunately, the person speaking does not always have time to respond to all those questions.

Let us talk about costs. In my opinion, the most significant costs are the costs to victims. Generally speaking, it is the victims who pay. It is said that it is the victims, not the offenders, who pay between 83% and 86% of the costs associated with crime.

The hon. member referred to the cost to the provinces. He was not here when this bill was first introduced in the third session, but crown attorneys and attorneys general from all provinces supported the changes we are proposing. The hon. member is saying that the prisons are full, but that is not true. There is room. We will make more room because victims should not be paying the costs of crime. We will make sure that they are not.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, Bill C-10 perfectly illustrates the government's indifference: indifference to the facts, indifference to the evidence and indifference to a government's obligation to govern effectively.

The facts are clear. So far, a number of members have reported them and members will continue to do so throughout the debate. According to Statistics Canada and many other organizations, crime in Canada has been steadily decreasing over the past 20 years. We are not currently in the midst of a crime crisis. Yes, crimes are being committed. Yes, we must address the issue of crime. However, we do not need to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly, like Bill C-10. In light of this fact, we see that the government is basing its actions on fiction. Clearly, Statistics Canada includes only reported crimes; yet, the number of unreported crimes has allegedly skyrocketed. However, by definition, unreported crimes are not counted or countable. This is a work of pure fiction created by a government that refuses to see the facts, refuses to acknowledge them and refuses to take them into account. The government is using fiction to justify its bill.

The evidence is also clear. This is nothing but a tough on crime bill. However, minimum sentences and tougher sentences for crime are absolutely not deterrents. I challenge anyone across the way to present a credible study that shows that crime in Canada will be significantly reduced or dealt with because of deterrents. That is not the case.

I think this government is also profoundly indifferent to good governance. The previous question was addressed to the parliamentary secretary, but she did not answer it for obvious reasons: this government has no idea of the exorbitant costs ahead for the federal and provincial governments of the measures it wants to put in effect. That is quite clear. I will come back to the issue of cost because it is central to the NDP's opposition to this bill.

Something else that illustrates this government's indifference to good governance is the Canadian Bar Association's opposition to these measures. We keep hearing about the fact that law enforcement is in favour of these measures, but if we look at the administration of justice side of things, which will have to deal with the consequences of increased measures on the enforcement side, we see a rather fierce resistance.

I would like the government to take into consideration not just what the Canadian Police Association is saying, but also what the Canadian Bar Association thinks of all this. Both are important.

I will read what the Canadian Bar Association said barely two days ago:

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has concerns with several aspects of the government’s proposed omnibus crime bill, including mandatory minimum sentences and overreliance on incarceration, constraints on judges’ discretion to ensure a fair result in each case, and the bill’s impact on specific, already disadvantaged groups.

The government must stop talking about law enforcement and start taking other considerations into account, including the administration of justice, which will be adversely affected if this bill is passed.

I was happy to hear the Minister of Public Safety speak this morning. He clarified something very important that we knew on this side of the House but that had always been avoided by the government. I am talking about the fact that this bill has essentially been inspired by the United States. I think that if we look at Hansard, it is clear that this bill was inspired by the United States. Not only was it inspired by the United States, but it was inspired by an American approach that failed in the United States, because it did not provide any deterrent. The crime rate is higher in that country.

In the United States, this approach also failed to provide security and to ensure public order. Yet the government would have us believe that this bill would do just that. Earlier this morning, my colleague from Ottawa Centre made reference to the advice of Newt Gingrich, whom no one could confuse with a progressive and who had this warning for jurisdictions in Canada and Europe that wanted to follow the American example: it did not work.

We can also see the impact this approach had on a state like Texas, where skyrocketing costs greatly contributed to the economic and tax crisis experienced by the state government. This led to the abolition of measures such as minimum sentences, which did not work and which are extremely expensive in comparison to the impact they can have.

I am also happy that the Minister of Public Safety's comments demonstrated that he was fully under the illusion that the provinces are demanding such a bill en masse and that they are prepared to take on the soaring costs that will result. There are anecdotal examples of provinces that would like more serious legislation, but that is not the case in Quebec, for one. I will quote a motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in 2001 that, I believe, would be adopted again today. It states:

THAT the National Assembly ask the Government of Canada to establish within the criminal justice system for young persons a special plan for Québec, namely the Young Offenders Act, to fully take into account its specific intervention model.

The young offender issue means a lot to me, because for two years in a previous life, I worked in a youth centre that deals with young offenders, a centre called Ressources Alternatives Rive-Sud. I worked there for nearly two years and had to deal with young people who had committed crimes ranging from shoplifting to assault. My responsibility was to meet with groups of these youth in order to make them aware of the consequences and the social cost of their actions.

This approach worked, and I will explain why. I gave dozens of sessions to hundreds of youth over the course of nearly two years. I saw only five cases of recidivism, cases in which the young offender came back to the centre. This clearly shows that the approach taken when dealing with young offenders in Quebec is working. This approach is not based on incarceration and cracking down on crime, but rather on rehabilitation and restorative justice for the victims.

By combining provisions for young offenders with eight other bills, this bill is like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. This bill addresses some serious problems that we might all agree on, but they should have been dealt with individually. The government's irresponsible decision, and that is what it was, was to lump them all together, which means we cannot address the serious, real problems because the bill covers things that are not necessarily problems at all and that undermine solutions that have been successful in the past.

I mentioned the question of the cost. It has been difficult to get an answer from the government on that. According to estimates by Conservative Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, it could cost up to $2.7 billion over five years. That is a huge amount of money, which the government has not taken into account or confirmed. It has mentioned, however, that this $2.7 billion is but a drop in the bucket compared to the victims' costs, which it calculated at about $99 billion.

There is nothing at all in Bill C-10 to ensure that the cost of crime and the cost to victims will be less than $99 billion. There is nothing in this bill to really help victims. This bill puts forward an approach with a much stronger focus on imprisonment and deterrence, but deterrence does not work.

If the cost to victims is truly $99 billion, as stated by Senator Boisvenu, I challenge the members of the government to show us how passing this bill will decrease this amount.

Once again, I would like to focus on the issue of good governance, which the government has not adequately addressed.

As members will recall, when Bill C-25 was introduced, we repeatedly asked the Minister of Public Safety about the economic impact of this bill, which dealt, among other things, with the two-year credit for each year of pre-sentencing custody.

After being asked the question repeatedly, the minister finally said that the bill would cost approximately $90 million. Then, after more questions were asked and more evidence was presented, he had to adjust that figure, and he said that, in the end, it would cost approximately $2 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer disagreed with that figure as well and demonstrated that the bill would not cost the Canadian treasury $90 million or even $2 billion but rather $5 billion.

This type of approach, where the government tries to shove an omnibus bill down Canadians' throats without regard for the cost, without even calculating the costs and without telling all Canadians what those costs are, is completely irresponsible.

I mentioned minimum sentences. This will be a very expensive measure. We know what happened in Texas, where they have decided to abandon this approach. More and more jurisdictions are dropping this approach because it does not have a deterrent effect. It is not an effective deterrent. At present, the Conservative government does not seem interested in controlling the cost of the prison system. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, the cost of the prison system has increased by 86% and, in 2013, it is expected to double compared to the first year. We are talking about $3 billion more.

What further costs will this bill entail? We have no idea.

The government is trying to use rhetoric as well to bring forth its argument or to try to discredit arguments. Rhetoric is fine, but it has to be accurate at some point.

The government is talking about being tough on crime. It is hard to be tough on crime when it does not concern itself with the facts and evidence and replaces them with fiction. That does not demonstrate good governance. That is not being tough on crime; that is being stupid on crime.

I would like to remind this government that, in the May 2, 2011 election, more than 60% of Canadians rejected this approach. The Conservatives should not be talking about a strong mandate and trying to shove this down Quebeckers' and Canadians' throats, because more than 60% of Canadians rejected it after the Conservatives made it central to their election platform.

The NDP will respect the message sent by Canadians and oppose this American-style bill, a bill that will not lower the crime rate, that will not reduce the number of crimes committed.

As an aside, I would like to mention the impact that such a coercive and repressive approach has had in the United States. In absolute terms, the United States now has the largest prison population. More than 2.3 million Americans, or almost 1% of the population, are currently locked away in U.S. prisons. That is more than in China, more than in Russia.

Is that really the model we want to adopt? Do we really want to build prisons, as the Americans have done, without any impact on the crime rate, since the crime rate in the United States is much higher than it is in Canada? When we are looking to take measures to deal with crime, we have to adopt measures that are smart and follow concrete examples of good management in other countries, not from countries whose approaches have been proved a failure.

Indeed, we have to fight crime. Indeed, victims need to be supported by Parliament, but offering them a bill like this is completely off target—I know: I have been a victim of crime, including burglaries.

The NDP approach has always been a balanced approach between rehabilitation, restorative justice and addressing the problems in the legal system and the parole system, which would help reinforce what deserves to be reinforced. Again, this bill is all over the map. Instead of addressing this issue more precisely and effectively, the government is taking a scattershot approach and trying to pass something, which in some ways will succeed, but in several other very significant ways will completely change Canada's philosophy of justice.

The government talks about law and order, but it is clear that when it comes to law enforcement, the Conservative government has already made up its mind, as it completely ignores the other side of the law, which will be accepted and administered by judges, lawyers and members of the Canadian Bar Association. I quoted the Canadian Bar Association earlier. Its voice deserves to receive more attention than it has so far.

Other people, other lawyers, others in the justice system have spoken out as well. I would like to mention what Daniel MacRury, crown attorney for Nova Scotia, had to say. Among other things, he said that sometimes judges have no alternative but to incarcerate people who are mentally ill and could be placed in the health care system instead. This is one of the major consequences that is completely ignored by the government in its bill.

Other organizations have already spoken out against this bill. The Canadian Paediatric Society represents more than 3,000 pediatricians—child specialists—throughout the country. They are very concerned about the impact that this bill will have on children. Not only is the society very concerned, but it is proposing that a national youth crime prevention strategy be adopted instead. Such a strategy does not exist at present. We do not have a strategy to prevent youth crime. The Conservatives do not want it and prefer to play hardball in order to please one particular voter base, among others, that they have attracted.

I can also say that the Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates opposes this bill. We are debating a bill that is supposed to help victims and take the best interests of children and youth into account. But it obviously does not do so.

Even the media is starting to get on board with the opposition bill. It actually sees what the bill is about.

I will quote the Nanaimo Daily News today, which has some interesting comments and insights into what is going on right now. It states, “Determined to pander to his political supporters, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tabled an omnibus crime bill Tuesday that is both unnecessary—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I would just like to remind the member and all other members that you cannot refer to other members in the chamber by their given name, whether you are doing it directly or indirectly in a media quote.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I was reading from the article but I understand the point. I will restart. The article states:

Determined to pander to his political supporters, [the] Prime Minster tabled an omnibus crime bill Tuesday that is both unnecessary and foolish....The bill is foolish because it comes with a huge price. Prior to the last election, the Harper government said it wanted to spend $2 billion to expand—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I know we are just freshly back in September, but I would remind the hon. member to avoid using names.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I am getting used to it, Mr. Speaker. I will continue:

The bill is foolish because it comes with a huge price. Prior to the last election, the...government said it wanted to spend $2 billion to expand and build new federal penitentiaries...[the] crime bill seeks to crack down on young offenders, drug dealers, sexual predators and Canadians in foreign prisons is under fire from critics, who rightly argue it's a waste of time and money since crime rates are declining in the country.

There are aspects of the proposed legislation that make sense....

However, it goes too far and fails to recognize Statistics Canada data from the past few years that indicate crime is actually going down in this country. It also ignores American studies that say locking people up for longer doesn't help reform them....

The bill focuses on incarceration rather than crime prevention. What is more cost-efficient, jail time after the fact at $50,000 a year per inmate, or crime prevention and restorative justice programs that cost peanuts in comparison?

The Nanaimo Daily News gets it and I would like the government to get it as well. We cannot, as the NDP, vote in favour of something that is so broad and imprecise and would actually impede the way that justice has been working in our country, rather than trying to address those specific issues that are being brought by anecdote.

I am really proud to follow what 60% of Canadians have told us they want us to do, which is to oppose the bill and this mentality.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's ombudsman for prisons says that there is a shortfall of mental health services for offenders. There are gaps in capacity, quality and standards. Criminalizing and warehousing the mentally ill does nothing to improve public safety and burdens the justice system.

What impact does my hon. colleague think the bill will have on the number of mentally ill entering the prison system, the prison environment, rehabilitation programs and violence and lockdowns?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very relevant question.

The Canadian Paediatric Society report, for one, is very clear on this subject. Prevention is absolutely crucial when it comes to dealing with crime and youth crime, and crime which has an impact on youth.

As it stands, this bill make absolutely no mention of prevention, rehabilitation or restorative justice for victims. It just hammers away at one particular aspect—coercion or incarceration. This bill is completely unbalanced. My hon. colleague has every reason to raise this particular point because it demonstrates one of the major weaknesses of Bill C-10, which we should be opposing.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. It is yet more proof that Quebec elected young Quebeckers who will help the House of Commons during this Parliament.

I would like to ask my colleague and neighbour a question. Today, we have repeatedly questioned the government about the cost of this bill. All day, the Conservatives have skirted the issue. They have yet to answer the question. Does my colleague know why the Conservatives do not want to answer our question about the cost of this bill?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have an initial indication of what this could cost—there is talk of $2.7 billion over five years. And that is likely a very conservative estimate if we look at other estimates we have been given, such as the one for another crime bill, which went from $90 million to $5 billion. If that trend continues, we will be looking at far more than $2.7 billion over five years.

And yes, the government is refusing to answer this question. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that he does not have the information he requires to be able to make a useful and valid evaluation. I would like to use this question to send a message to the government and say that if it wishes to govern in a transparent way that respects the principles of good governance, they should give us these numbers and costs, not only for the federal government, but also for the provincial governments. And these amounts should also be evaluated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for a very good, clear and articulate description of the problems that I think all members on the opposition benches have with Bill C-10.

I would have liked to have been able to pose this to a government member but I have not had an opportunity in this round. I am baffled by the fact that virtually every criminologist and expert who has looked at the issue of minimum mandatory sentences has concluded that they do not work. In fact, a recent article in the Criminology & Public Policy begins with this sentence:

Mandatory minimums are a classic instance of criminology and public policy marching in different directions.

Every member of this House wants to end crime and every member wants to protect victims.

I would like to ask the member if he has been able to find any expert evidence that would support the government's approach.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question.

There is absolutely no proof of this, be it from criminologists, sociologists, academics or anyone else who is concerned with this topic. There is not a single study, Canadian or American, that demonstrates the validity of the approach this government is currently favouring. No studies demonstrate that tougher minimum sentences create a deterrent. It has been seen in the United States in particular, but also is true for Canada. We have no concrete idea of how much this approach will cost, but we know it will be a lot. And there will be absolutely no impact on reducing crime and the associated costs for victims. That is why this bill is unacceptable.

If the government had been responsible, it would have split this bill. That would have allowed the opposition to support certain positive elements in a consensus, as happened with the mega-trials bill in June. But that is impossible in this case.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in and out of the House, so I have not heard the entire speech. However, I think what concerns many on the opposition benches is whether this would shift us closer to some of the failed experiences in the United States where we have seen republicans who have tried to take a similar approach on justice matters and where we have seen states that have really bankrupted themselves because of the costs of incarceration and the costs of dealing with justice issues such as the ones in this bill.

Does the member see this bill as a dangerous move toward that type of justice system?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I do see this as a step in that direction. I do not think we need to look any further than the statements made this morning by the Minister of Public Safety, who was making comparisons and defending some of the provisions in the bill based on what has been done in the United States. It is clear that this bill was inspired by the American approach. If we look at the facts and at what happened in the United States after several of these measures were adopted, for instance, minimum sentences, it is clear that it has been a completely unmanageable burden for several states, including Texas, which is paying the price today. Once again, it has had very little, if any, impact on crime rates.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague included in his remarks something that is important to us as the official opposition that, in addition to opposing, we also be proposing. One of the items the member referred to in terms of proposals as an alternative to what the government has put forward is the issue of restorative justice. This is a cornerstone of an alternate direction to deal with matters such as we have before us now.

I wonder if the member would be good enough to explain to members in the House and anyone who is watching at home the important meaning of restorative justice as an alternative approach to the sledgehammer we have seen from the government.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member asked me this question, since this is an issue in which I was very involved during the years I spent at youth centres.

In order to help victims overcome the effects of a crime, it is important to show them that there is justice in their case. However, they also need to be able to confront the person who committed the crime, as the hon. member suggested. We are not necessarily talking about extremely serious crimes, but such may be the case. I have seen certain cases where people who were the victims of a break and enter or an assault were able, under supervision of course, to speak with the offender in order to understand why the offender committed the crime and to be more at peace with what happened. To see the justice system deal with the situation in this manner is much more meaningful for victims and helps them to cope better than if they were not involved in the process and the offender were punished using only coercive justice.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here today to speak in support of Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. Our Prime Minister, our justice minister and, indeed, our government has led on this important issue and I think we have done a great job on this.

At first the title of the legislation may appear broad, and indeed it is, but for a good reason. The measures contained within this legislation cover a range of provisions that will protect families, stand up for victims and hold offenders more accountable. The safe streets and communities act is part of the government's commitment to deliver on that mandate and meet it effectively and in the best interests of Canadian families.

I will just review some of the proposed amendments in the legislation that would make our communities safer. The first one is by extending greater protection to the most vulnerable members of society, as well as victims of terrorism.

Another one is further enhancing the ability of our justice system to hold criminals accountable for their actions. What a concept, actually holding criminals accountable for their actions.

A third item is helping to improve the safety and security of all Canadians. I am not sure why the opposition would be so opposed to something like that.

The safe streets and communities act would better protect children and youth from sexual predators, increase penalties for organized drug crime, end house arrest for serious crimes, protect the public from violent young offenders, eliminate pardons for serious crimes, enshrine in law a number of additional key factors in deciding whether an offender would be granted a transfer back to Canada, increase offender accountability and support victims of crime, support victims of terrorism, and protect vulnerable foreign nationals against abuse and exploitation. I am not sure why the opposition would actually be opposed to any of those measures as we are trying to work in the best interests of Canadian families.

As we have heard from my hon. colleagues, the provisions in the legislation are comprehensive. There are several measures that fall under Public Safety Canada. These include: giving victims of terrorism the ability to seek justice against individuals that carry out a terrorist attack; eliminating pardons for those who commit multiple serious crimes or sexual offences against children; and putting in place a system wherein offenders have more responsibility for their own rehabilitation.

It also includes changes to the International Transfer of Offenders Act, which I will return to in just a moment.

It proposes changes to laws that fall under the responsibility of the Department of Justice, including helping to protect children from sexual predators by increasing penalties for sexual offences against children, as well as creating two new offences that take aim at conduct that could facilitate the sexual abuse of a child, such as luring. I know my hon. colleague, the member for Niagara Falls, has done a great job and has been a great champion on these things.

The bill also targets issues such as organized drug crime and, in the use of conditional sentence or house arrest for serious crimes, making amendments to ensure that violent and repeat young offenders are held accountable for their actions. It would also protect foreign workers who are vulnerable to falling into exploitation and trafficking.

These are all bills that Canadians have seen before, some going back as far as 2007.

Our government kept working in a minority government to get these bills passed and now we are taking strong, decisive action in the form of the safe streets and communities act.

I am very hopeful that we will see the support of all the hon. members in the House as we work to keep Canadian families safer.

In the recent Speech from the Throne, we pledged:

Our Government will defend the rights of law-abiding citizens, and it will promote Canadian values and interests at home and abroad.

Canadians know that our government is a government of action, and when we say that we will do something, we do it. We made a pledge that we would reintroduce a comprehensive law and order legislation within a hundred siting days of the new Parliament and, with this bill, we are following through on that pledge.

The Speech from the Throne also stated:

The Government of Canada has no more fundamental duty than to protect the personal safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security.

This statement is at the heart of our efforts to strengthen our law and our court systems. It is the spirit and intent that is woven into this important legislation that we have passed since 2006 that gives our law enforcement better tools and resources, that address violent and gun crimes, that protects our children and other vulnerable citizens and that ensures that offenders serve sentences that match the severity of the crimes being committed.

The statement also guides our government's decision to invest in crime prevention programs for youth in disadvantaged communities. I know that has been a concern of the opposition, and it has been mentioned that money should be spent on programs. Well, here it is. That is why the next phase of Canada's economic action plan includes the investment of $7.5 million annually to renew the youth gang prevention fund.

This statement was top of mind when we developed the comprehensive legislation before us today. While this legislation covers several provisions, I will take my time today to talk about a specific element of Bill C-10, the section that will amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Before we go further, let us take a brief look at the history of this legislation.

As hon. members well know, Canada has been a party to international treaties related to transfer of offenders since 1978. By numbers, we have signed 14 bilateral treaties and 3 multilateral conventions with more than 60 countries to allow for the transfer of offenders.

There are many technical factors to take into consideration in transferring an offender. For example, the offender has to be serving a sentence for being involved in an activity that would also be punishable as a crime in Canada. As well, in most cases the offender must have at least six months remaining in his or her sentence, and there must be a consent of all three parties: Canada, the nation where the offender was sentenced, and the offender.

The initial legislation was modernized in 2004, and now, in the interest of public safety, the time has come to amend it again so that we can ensure Canadians feel secure in the decisions the government makes to bring offenders back to Canada.

I am happy to have the opportunity today to talk about what this amendment will and will not do and to set the record straight on a number of fronts. The legislation before us today proposes important amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act in order to help ensure that the commitment to protecting the safety and security of Canadians, which I know all of us share, is taken into account when considering the offender's request for transfer.

I would like to underline the two important components of the legislation before us and discuss them in further detail shortly.

Let me first briefly discuss what Bill C-10 will do.

Hon. members will know that under the present rules, the Minister of Public Safety is required to take several factors into account when considering an offender's request for a transfer. These factors include consideration of whether the offender's return to Canada would constitute a threat to the security of Canada; whether the offender left or remained outside Canada with the intention of abandoning Canada as a place of permanent residence; whether the foreign entity or its prison system presents a serious threat to the offender's security or human rights; and whether, in the opinion of the minister, the offender will, after the transfer, commit a terrorism offence or criminal organization offence within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code.

The proposed Bill C-10 keeps those factors in place. The minister will still be able to consider these factors, as well as several others that are itemized in the existing act.

What Bill C-10 does do, however, is expressly stipulate that one of the key purposes of the International Transfer of Offenders Act is to protect the safety of Canadians. It means that the greater good of Canadians, and not first the good of the offender, is given its rightful place.

The bottom line is that Canadians want a justice system that works, and they also want a corrections system that effectively balances the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens. That is what the proposed amendments that our government has introduced will do.

The legislation our government has introduced recognizes that public safety should be a stated purpose in the determination of all offender transfer requests. Under the proposed amendments, the act's purpose would now read:

The purpose of this Act is to enhance public safety and to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling offenders to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens or nationals.

This means that public safety is placed at the forefront of the decision-making process, which is exactly where it belongs. The proposed amendments will also help to protect the safety of family members and children. It will do that by stipulating in legislation that the minister may consider whether a transfer will endanger the safety of a family member or of a child. This would apply in the case of an offender who has been convicted of an offence against a family member or who has been convicted of a sexual offence involving a child.

As well, Bill C-10 would include additional factors that may be considered in assessing requests for the transfer back to Canada, such as whether an offender has participated in a rehabilitation program.

There are omissions in the current legislation as it now stands. That is why Bill C-10 is an important bill. Bill C-10 would protect the safety and security of Canadians by clearly recognizing in the legislation itself that public safety considerations are at the centre of all offender transfer requests.

Under the proposed amendments, Bill C-10 would also give the Minister of Public Safety more flexibility in the decision-making process itself. I have heard reference made to the fact that Bill C-10 provides the minister with too much discretionary authority to consider any factor he or she would like. I would like to remind all hon. members, however, that while it is non-explicit in the existing act, the courts have stated that the minister may also consider and refer to factors other than those listed in the existing section 10 as long as they are linked to the purpose of the act.

I have also heard reference made to the fact that the minister would no longer be compelled in the legislation to consider a list of factors, but “may consider” any or all itemized factors if appropriate. Some have suggested the change from “shall consider” to “may consider” in Bill C-10 puts too much discretion at the hands of the minister. This is not the case. In fact, all decisions would still need to be reasonable and rendered in accordance with the purpose of the act.

As hon. members may well know, the courts have called for more transparency in decision-making. Bill C-10 answers this call by enabling a clear articulation of the pertinent considerations in each case. The proposed amendments clearly articulate the factors that may be taken into account when considering a request for transfer, based on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.

In addition, to ensure that public safety is a principal consideration in offender transfer requests, Bill C-10 would also provide for the consideration of other factors, many of which are in line with other reforms currently under way within the corrections system. These other factors would include whether, in the minister's opinion, the offender is likely to continue to engage in criminal activity after the transfer; the offender's health; and whether the offender had refused to participate in a rehabilitation or reintegration program.

In addition, Bill C-10 notes that the minister may consider whether the offender has accepted responsibility for the offence for which he or she has been convicted, including acknowledging any harm that has been done to victims and to the community; the manner in which the offender would be supervised after the transfer while serving the remainder of his or her sentence in Canada; and whether the offender has co-operated with, or has undertaken to co-operate with, law enforcement.

To sum up, the basic principles of the International Transfer of Offenders Act would remain intact, but the amendments we are proposing today would enhance the act by ensuring that public safety is stated in law as an integral part of the decision-making process for the transfer of offenders. It would put in writing that the minister may consider factors such as the safety of family members and our most vulnerable, our children, before granting a transfer of another offender back to Canada. It would also bring greater transparency and responsiveness to the decision-making process.

These are sensible changes. Tthey are balanced and they are fair. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to vote in favour of the legislation before us today and to work with the government to ensure its speedy passage.

Once again, to summarize what this legislation is about, the proposed amendments are about greater protection to the most vulnerable members of our society as well as victims of terrorism.

It is also important that we look at holding criminals accountable for their actions and trying to improve the safety and security of all Canadians. I do not what hon. members or, quite frankly, Canadians would not support that.

The safe streets and communities act is about protecting children and youth from sexual predators, increasing penalties for organized drug crimes, ending house arrest for serious crimes, protecting the public from violent young offenders, eliminating pardons for serious crimes, enshrining in law a number of additional key factors in deciding whether an offender would be granted a transfer back to Canada, increasing offender accountability, supporting victims of crime, supporting victims of terrorism and protecting vulnerable foreign nationals against abuse and exploitation.

I heard questions in previous rounds about minimum sentencing, why that seemed to be a problem and that experts talked about that. I do not know why we would oppose minimum sentencing, certainly as it relates to the exploitation of children. I believe minimum mandatory sentencing would be important to keep those violent criminals behind bars.

Once again, I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-10.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it completely astounding that the Conservatives keep using the idea of the fight against terrorism to justify all of these regressive bills that they are trying to pass.

Does the member opposite not see the inconsistency in proposing to imprison more offenders only to offer them help once they are in prison? That is what this omnibus bill does. Why not make a one-time investment in prevention programs, which would give people the tools they need before they commit a crime? That would help them feel better about themselves and provide them with more appropriate and positive coping strategies to help them avoid ending up in prison.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has struck a good balance. As I have mentioned before, we have money set aside for anti-gang programming to deal with people.

One of the things we introduced in the budget previous to the last one was $20 million for a program called pathways to education, an incredible program offered across the country. The good thing about pathways to education is that it addresses those very issues about which the member asked.

This program started in Toronto, in Regent Park, and one of the things that was realized was there were some early determinants that could be dealt with, like people who dropped out of high school and did not get an opportunity to go on to university. When our government realized the results of the pathways to education program, we committed $20 million, and this program continues to be offered across the country.

One of the great things the program does is offer incentives for universities to offer short term incentives and mentoring. A whole bunch of factors go into helping divert kids into a great opportunity to get an education and have a great career.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the majority of the member's speech on the bill was on the subject of international transfer. However, my question is one of a domestic nature, given that the hon. member mentioned, at least a couple of times, that this was about protecting our most vulnerable.

The hon. member would be well aware that while only 3% of the Canadian population identify themselves as aboriginal, the aboriginal population in our criminal institutions is closer to 20%.

What measures are in this bill or otherwise to deal with those vulnerable members of our society with respect to their involvement in criminal law?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 is about justice. I certainly do not disagree with what the member raises. Some of those programs have been offered through Indian Affairs. Still more can be done and we will continue to work on these issues.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of times from the opposite bench about programs that will keep people from crime.

I come from a riding, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, as part of the greater city of Hamilton, where there has been some significant investments for a national crime prevention centre from HRSDC to keep people from committing crime and for gang prevention. These investments have been made in Hamilton Centre, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and Hamilton Mountain. In fact, all those ridings are held by opposition members. There were millions of dollars spent.

Does the member believe all we should do is just spend money on those kinds of programs, or should we make sure that we protect victims and actually incarcerate very serious criminals, and ensure they are behind bars so they are not committing crimes and victimizing more people?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is trying to take a balanced approach. We certainly understand that some of these things can be dealt with through prevention. That is why we have some programs in place. The member mentions a program that covers a large number of seats held by the opposition, but surrounds both the member's and my riding. We understand that is important and that is why we believe we should do that.

Quite frankly, a number of the programs I talked about, such as pathways to education, are held in opposition ridings. We recognize these as being great programs. We are trying to establish and realize that for too long the rights of victims have taken a back seat to the rights of criminals. Right now it is a balancing act to try to rehabilitate people, but we also understand that if serious crimes are being committed, perpetrators will be responsible for their actions and they will do serious time as a result of serious crimes.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says “offender”; we say “adolescent”. If we had imprisoned every thug in the past, our society might be without some great people today, and these people would have a criminal record.

As for the Youth Criminal Justice Act, this government has received suggestions for amendments to the act from the provinces. But it has refused to consider them. Why is the government not listening to the suggestions from prosecutors and people in the provinces?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at protecting society from violent and repeat young offenders, we are not talking about minor offences. We are talking about appropriate sentences based on murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, very serious crimes. We recognize the fact that young people may make mistakes. We are not talking about petty theft, but about repeat, violent offenders.

Once again, we are trying to balance the issues of responsibility for the victim along with the responsibility for those who are committing the offences. That is why we have looked at only those who are violent and repeat offenders when it comes to young offenders.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a point that he could not imagine why people would be against mandatory minimums. I would suggest to him that a great deal of the evidence suggests that putting some people in prison for a period of time under mandatory minimums returns them to society having gone to crime school as opposed to having given them the rehabilitation they needed. I ask for his comments on that.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about mandatory minimum sentences for those involved in child exploitation as one example. It is important to know that if our children are being exploited, then these dangerous offenders should be kept off the street. They should not be caught and released. If they are going to be dealing with our most vulnerable, our children, they need to be dealt with accordingly and they should be kept off the streets.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would first of all like to mention that we reached the five hour point in the debate and from this point forward when the House returns to this matter, we will move on to 10 minute speeches.

It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, September 19, 2011.

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

Bill C-10--Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30 minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

Given the amount of interest, I will ask members to keep their questions or comments to about a minute. I will ask the minister to keep his replies to about a minute.

Also, as this is an opportunity for members to question the government, preference will be given to members of the opposition parties, but we will ensure that, if interested, some government members will have the opportunity as well.

I recognize the hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the start of this first full session of the 41st Parliament, the government has not stopped harping about how its real priorities are the economy and employment. It is now the second week, and we have seen none of that. Instead, we have yet another example of its contempt for our parliamentary institutions, since it is prepared to use the guillotine to stop debate at second reading.

My first question for the government is the following: will it use other techniques to restrict debate when the parliamentary committee is examining the bill? Will we finally be able to take time to hear from experts and witnesses on the cost, particularly transfers to the provinces?

This is an exceptional situation where, at the beginning of a Parliament, in only the second week, the government is already using the guillotine to stop parliamentary debate.

At other stages of the bill, will the government be using closure, time allocation or other methods to restrain debate, notably in committee?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat confused by one of the statements by the hon. member. He said that we will finally get a chance to hear witnesses.

All components of the bill have been tabled before Parliament and, as of right now, we have heard 295 witnesses, 58 committee days have taken up by this and 123 hours of the justice committee. I hope that is one of the things we can all agree on. We always look for things to agree on but the bill has been thoroughly looked at, debated and has been before the public.

I hope the hon. member will rise and say that it certainly has been and that we want to get this. He says that he wants to get back to talking about the economy, which is great. However, let us get this justice bill moving and then we can get back to talking about the economy. I agree with that as well.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we were expecting to hear. We knew that the government's intention was to restrict proper analysis in parliamentary committee, and the minister has just confirmed that for us.

Not only is the government using the guillotine in second reading, we will be getting the same treatment in committee and then the same treatment at report stage. It will try to ram this through.

We do not know how much this would cost the provinces. This would be a massive transfer of expenses to the provinces. The Conservatives have used very restrictive rules for employment insurance, and as people's employment insurance has run out, they go on the welfare rolls, which is the responsibility of the provinces.

Here is another massive transfer. Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, told us today about another decrease in transfers to the provinces, something the Conservatives swore they would never do so they would not be like the Liberals. Not only are they worse than the Liberals in terms of transfers to the provinces, they do not respect the basic parliamentary right to debate bills and to know the real costs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who should have to bring the hon. member up to date on this, but the transfers to the provinces have increased. I checked it out with the Minister of Finance. It is over $2.4 billion more than the last fiscal analysis the year before. I know that should make him happy. Maybe he did not know that before but I want him to know that is the case.

The bill has been thoroughly analyzed. It has been before the committee. We responded to those questions. There have been hundreds of witnesses.

Everybody needs to get to work. We are trying to crack down on violent crime in this country. We should all join together. We should all be against crime. We need to take steps and this is a step in the right direction.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absurd. Of course we are all against violent crime. I have not met anybody in the House who is in favour of violent crime. That is not what the debate is all about and the minister knows that. He is an intelligent person and knows perfectly well that is not what the discussion is about.

The debate is about whether these measures will actually have the effect that the government says they will have. Does he not appreciate and understand the impact that these measures put all together would have on the administration of justice?

The bill would not only have a dramatic effect on the size of our prisons and the prison population but it would also have a significant impact with respect to the administration of the courts. It would have a huge impact on how crown attorneys do their job. It would have an enormous effect on whether plea bargaining could ever take place. It would jam up the courts and cost the provinces and the country billions of dollars. It would not add to the security of Canadians with respect to criminal activity. That has to do with a crime prevention agenda to deal with the root causes of crime.

The minister is simply carrying us down a road that has been tried in the American states and has been abandoned by most of the American states that have tried it. It has been criticized by people from all sides of the political spectrum, from the right, left and centre, and from anybody looking at this in a rational way.

Why is the government persisting in taking this country down a path in which wherever it has been tried has been eventually rejected by the people and governments of those places because they have found that it simply does not work?

The government is dumb on crime and it would have a terrible effect--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Since quite a few people stood, I would ask that interventions be kept to one minute.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, only the Liberals would take that position. Actually, I should not say that as they would be cheered on by the NDP in most of these cases. What they are saying is that by leaving these violent criminals out on the street that somehow we are all better off.

The bill is very specific. The hon. member was not correct when he talked to the press outside after the bill was introduced by saying that we would be going after people who are possessing marijuana plants or something like that. The bill is not about that. It would go after the people who are in the business of trafficking, the people who sell drugs around schools, the organized crime that brings drugs into the country. We are saying that those individuals should be taken off the street.

There are a lot of ordinary law-abiding Canadians and victims right across this country who are applauding this.The hon. member and his party, and all those who are cheering him on, are completely offside with Canadian interests on this issue.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I remember in committee when the minister could not answer whether he had any evidence that mandatory minimums on drug crimes worked. He could not offer any evidence. Not only that, the Conservatives cannot even offer a true accounting of the cost of the bill and yet they are prepared to ram it through and stifle debate in the House of Commons.

Now that the minister has had an election and some time to think, does he actually have any evidence about the true cost of these bills that are contained in the omnibus bill? Does he have any evidence that the bill would actually act as a deterrent in terms of drug crimes? He could not offer any before and I suspect that he has none now.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this new concern from the opposition members about cost. In one sense, it is refreshing. However, they have it wrong if this is the area in which they want to save money.

With respect to the cost of these, I would refer the member to the hundreds of pages that the Minister of Public Safety and I tabled before the committee. I can tell her that it will provide her and her colleagues with many happy hours of reading looking at the costs of crime.

As I have said before, the vast majority of the cost of crime is borne by the victims. That would have been missed because I do not think we have ever heard that coming from the opposition. It is the victims who pay the cost. They are the ones we side with. They are the ones we stand up for.

I wish that after all the analysis, all the time that these bills have been before Parliament, they would stand up to say, yes, they stand with victims and law-abiding Canadians as well.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the minister talk about all the debate and discussion that has taken place on this bill. Obviously, what has not taken place is the Conservatives have not listened to Canadians when they have talked about the impact Bill C-10 would have on Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The Canadian Bar Association has said there is a real problem with Bill C-10. It has concerns about the mandatory minimum sentences and overreliance on incarceration, constraints on judges’ discretion to ensure a fair result in each case, and the bill’s impact on specific, already disadvantaged groups.

Yet the minister stands and says that we have had enough debate and enough discussion.

The government is closing debate on the bill at a time when Canadians know full well what is needed. They know what the risks to their safety are. They know that more is needed in terms of prevention.

The minister should start listening to the experts, like those at the Canadian Bar Association.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a lot of experts in this area, and oftentimes they are the victims of crimes. We do listen to them.

The hon. member mentioned that we are not listening. I will tell her to whom we are listening. In the last election we made it very clear that this will continue to be a priority for us, that we will reintroduce these bills, and that we will take a stand against violent criminals and those who would sexually exploit children. We were very clear on that.

I have to tell the House how pleased, proud and grateful, quite frankly, I am to the people of this country. They have come forward and given us a stronger mandate in each of the last four elections.

The hon. member might want to start listening to that, because every time the Liberals keep championing their soft on crime approach, they keep going down. They might want to listen to ordinary law-abiding Canadians and victims in this country. It might help them.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the minister that it is 39% of the population. If that is the government's idea of a strong mandate to shove things down our throats, then I think that is a little rich.

I am against the fact that I am being denied my democratic right to express myself with all the time that is normally allotted. This is not the 40th Parliament; it is the 41st Parliament. The 295 witnesses and 88 committee days show how important this bill is. It is not an individual bill; we are talking about an omnibus bill. When a criminal court—and the Minister of Justice claims to be well versed in criminal law—declares or orders a new trial, it is back to square one. A new Parliament is not unlike a new trial. All the information from the previous trial does not carry over; the process starts all over again. Democracy has spoken, as it has the right to do.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have had each of these bills before Parliament. As I pointed out, there have been 223 speeches, many hours of debate, and there will be a couple more days of debate. There will be investigation and discussion and witnesses before committee. There is third reading stage as well.

If the hon. member and her colleagues did not get an opportunity to express their thoughts a dozen or so times when these bills were before Parliament, I would suggest they participate in the debate in the next couple of days.

We have been listening to the NDP. The NDP suggested that we bring these bills together to better debate them, and that is exactly what we have done. They were separate in the previous Parliament. I remember when we put them together, members objected to their being together, so we separated them. Now we have separated them, and they want them back together. That is what we have done. We have responded to what that individual's party wanted in December of last year. We have put the bills all together. Here is an opportunity for the member to make her opinion known, and that is all I would suggest to her.

The member should look at who the bill targets. It targets violent criminals, those who would sexually molest children, people who are in the child pornography business. There are other good parts of it.

When the member has a chance to go over those hundreds of pages of transcript, the testimony of those hundreds of witnesses, she will agree that these are important steps in the right direction.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to correct the hon. minister, only 39% of Canadians voted for the Conservatives, which means that 61% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservative government.

This chamber is supposed to be the place where democracy plays itself out. This is where we have the chance to fully debate these issues.

There are major issues with the omnibus bill. If the minister has confidence in his legislation, why is he closing down the debate in Parliament, which is where debate is supposed to happen, and denying many of us the opportunity to voice our concerns and our constituents' concerns?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, I am very aware and very appreciative of the mandate Canadians have given us.

I remember there were not too many observers in the media or pollsters who predicted we would get a majority government, but we could feel it. When I was talking with people and visiting ridings outside of my wonderful riding of Niagara Falls, I was getting such positive feedback from people that I was confident all the way along that Canadians would give us that mandate.

I have to say to the hon. member that in going across this country and talking about the justice agenda of the Conservative government, it has been well received. I can only say how pleased and grateful I am that in each of the last four elections where we have made this a priority, our number of seats has been going up. I am very grateful to the people of this country for that.

The hon. member knows that the bill has been extensively debated and perused. We have taken one of the suggestions from the NDP of putting the bills together in a comprehensive bill. We are responding in that sense.

The hon. member should have a look at who this bill targets. Ultimately the opposition members should support us. If they still do not agree, they should talk to their constituents about how they feel about the components of this bill. I think the member will find that they support us as well.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, in 2008 there was a Department of Justice study which said that the cost of crime in Canada in that one year alone was near $100 billion, most of which was borne by victims.

I would ask the Minister of Justice to share his views on the cost of crime in Canada and how this comprehensive legislation is going to deal with that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my parliamentary secretary for all her work and the support she gives us in this area.

The Department of Justice pointed out that the cost of crime in this country was about $99 billion. What is particularly arresting is the fact that 83% of that is borne by victims in this country. They are the ones who ultimately pay the price.

I do not get too many questions about victims in the House of Commons. It is not just the financial cost; it is the emotional cost. I remember when we introduced the bill to get rid of the faint hope clause, a reporter asked me if it was going to stop people from committing first degree murder. I said that what it would do is reduce victimization in this country, because those individuals who worried about the criminal getting out on the faint hope clause would not have to worry about that anymore.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have one point on the position the NDP has taken, particularly through my office, on omnibus crime bills.

This is not the kind of omnibus crime bill we have talked about at all. If the government is going to do an omnibus crime bill, if it is going to have meaningful reform to our Criminal Code, it has to be done on a thematic basis. The government has to look at one whole area of the code and decide on the amendments that need to be made. Then they need to be compiled.

What the government has done is brought together a mish-mash of various legislation. There are sections of the immigration act that are being amended. There are amendments to the corrections act, the Criminal Code and the drug enforcement legislation. That is not the way to draft omnibus legislation if the government is really serious about good public policy.

I want to go back to the point the minister keeps raising about victims and about the fact that he has all this great support in the country. The reality is that not once during the election campaign did the Conservatives talk about the cost. Not once did they say to the victims or the taxpayers that it is going to cost x billions of dollars.

In fact, the government hid those figures from us. It was only as a result of a contempt motion that part of that was released. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he only received about 40% of the material he needed to be able to do an accurate assessment so that the Canadian people and the House would know how much this was going to cost.

When will the minister be coming before the House to give us realistic figures as opposed to shutting down debate?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in response to a previous question, we tabled hundreds of pages with respect to the costs of crime. However, if we are all very frank and honest, for those who oppose cracking down on violent criminals, spending a dollar on it is too much for those who are opposed to what we are trying to do.

We are on track. I completely disagree that we did not raise this. I know I personally raised this matter. I see the hon. member from Brantford, who will confirm that during the election I talked about the cost to victims all the time. I said that they bear most of the costs. Financially and emotionally the costs are borne by the victims in this country.

My parliamentary secretary just asked a question with respect to the costs. I would point out that 83% of the costs, according to the Department of Justice in 2008, was borne by the victims. I have never hidden that statistic. I am glad to repeat it over and over because we know who pays the cost of crime in this country.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister has said that the government has a mandate with regard to the Safe Streets and Communities Act. All governments have a mandate for safe streets and communities. All governments are given a mandate to protect the security of their citizens. We had a mandate for that as well. The question is how one implements that mandate and the nature of the legislation that is put forward.

This legislation that has been put forward comes at a time when, even before the legislation was tabled, there is overcrowding in Canadian prisons, to the point that in British Columbia as an example, there is some 200% overcrowding in the prisons. In the United States overcrowding led to a constitutional challenge with respect to cruel and unusual punishment. The courts ordered the release of inmates.

The legislation has not been costed so it will cost mega-billions for the building of megaprisons. Regrettably, at the end of the day we will get more crime and less justice with spiralling costs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the mandate, yes we did receive a majority government but we were very clear during the election that we would reintroduce the bills that we found, in some cases, impossible to get past the opposition. This will be the fourth attempt to pass the drug component of this bill. The Liberals actually let us pass it in the House of Commons because they knew their colleagues in the Senate would hold it up forever. Then when we had a majority in the Senate, the Liberals changed their minds and opposed it in the House of Commons.

We were very clear with Canadians when we said that if we were re-elected we would reintroduce these bills. We put them together in a comprehensive package. They all deal with the subject of better protecting victims in this country. These are steps in the right direction. I am very appreciative and pleased that the Canadian public has given us this mandate.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is business as usual for the Minister of Justice, the master of demagoguery. The Conservative government and the Minister of Justice seem to feel that if we are not on their side, endorsing their measures—which are deeply controversial, especially in Quebec—we are siding with criminals. It is always the same story. We always hear the same thing from the minister, who knows full well that he does not have consensus within the justice system, again, particularly in Quebec.

This omnibus bill is deeply controversial. We are not saying that this bill does not contain some good measures. We know, as does the minister, that certain measures, particularly those concerning sexual offences against children and parole reform, are useful.

I think that everyone in the House agrees, and the minister knows that he could have tabled these measures separately from his omnibus bill and it would not have been an issue. They likely would have passed unanimously in the House of Commons.

As usual—and we see this with their budgets as well—the Conservatives are tabling bad measures alongside the good ones in this bill, which means that we have to come to a decision without debate. And they know that that does not work.

Did the minister consider splitting the bill so that certain measures would be passed more easily?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the years I have found that when we put a number of bills together we get complaints from the opposition that it is an “omnibus” bill. If we split them up I have had suggestions from them that we should have put them all together. Now we have them all together and opposition members are suggesting we should split them again.

Let us be honest about this. If members are opposed to getting tough on drug dealers they should say so. The bill is clear. We are going after people who bring drugs into the country. We are saying to the people who would bring drugs into Canada, which law enforcement agencies tell me is part of organized crime, that they would go to jail. If members are against that and think that is a terrible thing, that is fine. That is their opinion. However, they should not dress it up by saying that the bill should be tough on this and combined with something else or that it should be divided. Let us cut out the nonsense here.

We have put these bills together. They all make sense. They are not all of the bills that had not passed in the previous Parliament. We put nine of them together. They all stand alone in the sense that they have been looked at thoroughly by Parliament. They have been thoroughly debated and discussed in this country. I am absolutely convinced that Canadians support us on this and so should the hon. member.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, based on the terminology used by the minister, we can clearly see that this is not an attempt to improve safety on our streets, but a purely partisan and political act. That is what this is.

If the minister's goal is to protect victims, why has he not moved forward in areas where there is unanimous consent of all parties in the House such as random roadside testing? Simply bringing forward what has already been approved by all the parties would save hundreds of lives a year. There is no way to put a cost on that.

There is also unanimous consent for moving forward on DNA testing. That would allow us to solve thousands of crimes per year. Yet the words chosen by the minister as he gesticulates toward his Reform Party base and says that this is about safer streets and these guys must be in favour of protecting dangerous criminals, we realize that we are faced not with an effort to improve laws in this country but an effort by the government to position itself politically.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have experienced this spin with all the bills that we have introduced right across the board. The opposition members either immediately oppose it or they say it needs a lot of study. Most times the term “needs a lot of study” means that we will never get to vote on the issues and never get them implemented. I always hear opposition members say that we are cracking down on drug dealers and violent criminals, that if we would only get to some other area then the NDP would be right behind us and the Liberals would be cheering us on.

We all know that is a bunch of nonsense. No matter what the government introduces to crack down on crime in this country and go after those who exploit and take advantage of other people, in the end the opposition members will do one of two things, either oppose it or say that it needs a lot of study.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to be honest and admit that this bill will create more victims. The evidence is clear from the provisions in the bill that by putting more people in prison for longer periods means there will be more crime inside prisons and more crime outside prisons which would create more victims. As well, this will target the most vulnerable in our society, those with mental health challenges, youth at risk, low income families and aboriginals. The bill shifts funds to prison cells and away from the supports required for the members of those groups to live successful lives.

What research has the minister done to determine what the increase in AIDS rates would be due to this increase in prison population? The leading AIDS researcher in Canada and internationally says that the bill would undo most of the good work that has been done to prevent AIDS.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is from British Columbia. I have heard loud and clear from law enforcement agencies, municipal politicians and others in that part of the country how terrible and difficult some of the challenges are regarding drug crimes.

I have been told that the people who bring drugs into British Columbia are part of organized crime. If the bill is somehow creating victims out of people who bring drugs into this country, or creating victims out of these poor vulnerable gangsters who are selling drugs around schools, I want those people to know that they are vulnerable, because they are the ones we are going after. We are going after the people who bring drugs into this country and I make no apology for that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #32

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the debate on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise here today with a bit of a heavy heart, for the vote that was just held suggests that the work ahead of me as a new member of this 41st Parliament is perhaps less important than that of other members in past parliaments.

Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, deals with many sections and many pieces of legislation. I was told this morning that 295 witnesses appeared at 88 committee meetings in previous parliaments. Those individual bills failed to pass during previous parliaments, at least not in the form in which they were introduced by the governments in office at the time.

The government is introducing an omnibus bill that includes all these provisions. Bill C-10 is 102 pages long and includes 208 provisions that amend nine existing laws. This is not a small bill. The explanatory notes alone are 39 pages long. Not everyone in the House has experience in criminal law as it pertains to terrorism or is well versed in the laws relating to young offenders and immigration. That is a lot of things.

The leap of faith that the government is asking us to take is to find that what was done before is sufficient. In the future, when we are not happy, the axe will fall and the government will pass the bill because it committed to introduce the bill and pass it within the first 100 days of its mandate. When we disagree with the Conservatives on any part of the content or form of what they present to us, they tell us that we are in favour of criminals, child rapists and terrorists. I have a problem with this way of categorizing the serious work that all members of the House do every day.

I have a background in law. I worked in criminal law for five years when I began my practice and I was able to see the extraordinary work that the crown attorneys, judges and judiciary do; their work is not always easy. There are also defence lawyers who are obligated, under the Constitution, to represent people who are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There are some rather disturbing isolated cases that seem to have slipped through the cracks in the system. We are all aware that such is the case. I have also had a call-in radio show. Anyone who has listened to this type of show knows how things can sometimes get out of hand when people get started, particularly when such isolated cases are mentioned.

Our judicial system examines thousands and thousands of criminal cases each year. I find it a little rich that the Conservatives are introducing this 102-page bill that contains 208 provisions to amend nine existing laws on the basis of a few cases they have chosen here and there that deviate a bit from the norm.

I participated in a debate with Senator Boisvenu. I have the utmost respect and admiration for the work that he did for years after the crime that led to the loss of his two daughters. However, we must really avoid changing laws simply to respond to a need here or there.

The sad thing is that we on this side of the House are inclined to be in favour of some parts of the bill without even having to do much further study. We are in favour of the provisions having to do with sexual offences against children and parole. The entire system needs to be reformed, and that is often where we run into problems. But this bill lumps everything together.

As a member of the Barreau du Québec I can tell you that we, as lawyers, receive hours of mandatory professional training because the top priority is to protect the public. Every move a lawyer makes is scrutinized. When a lawyer goes the slightest bit off track, he or she is shown the door and is asked to report to the agency that monitors the legal profession.

The Canadian Bar Association has some valid and serious objections to this bill, not because it wants to protect criminals, but because it wants to protect what we should all be trying to protect together, and that is the penal system and the courts. We have to ensure that there is more than just the appearance of justice and that justice is actually served.

My basic concern with this bill, having practised law, is that within the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association, two entities for which I have the utmost respect, we are going to see judges become quite apprehensive about hearing minimum sentence cases, because the bill eliminates the wonderful concept that every law student learns on their first day: every case is unique. Under the Conservatives, the concept that every case is unique no longer exists. From now on, if a person commits X crime, they receive X sentence, leaving no room to understand why the crime was committed or to see what would best serve society. Will we create hardened criminals?

Maybe the solution for the Conservatives is to keep everyone locked up for the rest of their lives regardless of the crime. That would be ridiculous. I do not want to put words in their mouths, but sometimes that is the impression the Conservatives give, because under some of the laws affected by the omnibus bill, we will no longer be able to apply this fundamental principle in law. What does that mean? It means there will be legal challenges.

I spoke to a number of my colleagues across the country as I knew that opportunities to hear from witnesses would be curtailed. I consulted several experts in the field who told me that some lawyers believe that constitutional challenges will be launched. Is it contrary to the charter in terms of unusual punishment? Is it this? Is it that? I doubt very much that we will achieve the intended results. Once again, I find it unfortunate that they are playing politics—I was going to say petty politics, but that would be unparliamentary—rather than really trying to fulfill the mandate we have been given, that is to legislate.

When I arrived here for the 41st Parliament, I believed that our job was to ensure that each bill passed is for the good of all Canadians, that each bill is useful, that each bill becomes a good law, and that each bill achieves the intended results.

I have the impression that sometimes it is a question of making headlines. Unfortunately, that does not meet the needs of victims or of the system, and it does not result in the changes the legal community is seeking.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member is aware of a report that just came out from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that points out that almost three-quarters of its case files involve drug crimes.

One of the real problems we have had is that the government has changed its drug strategy by eliminating harm reduction and focusing instead on enforcement. This is now causing the prison population to explode. We can see this from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada report.

I wonder what comments the member would have in terms of the impact on our society of this massive explosion of the prison population without the necessary services or rehabilitation or reintegration into society. This population explosion is basically for minimal drug crimes in many cases, and the bill would now exacerbate it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is one of the problems with the judicial system that has come to my attention in recent years in discussions with my colleagues and police forces. Police officers were quite pleased that they would no longer have to spend an eternity on files that may seem enormous. For example, when we are talking about cultivating seven marijuana plants it is certainly less serious than when we, or the minister, talk about cultivating 200 or 250 marijuana plants. The police were happy to focus on serious crimes, crimes of violence against persons, crimes of violence against women, against aboriginal women, in short, all kinds of violence against individuals.

The government is talking about being tough on crime and cracking down on drug crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences make me think of a case I was involved in where a young person was caught with a fairly large amount of drugs. In the end, we managed to save this young man from the criminal system and to make a good citizen of him. How? By not giving him a minimum sentence.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention the excellent work done by my colleague from Gatineau. Once again, her speech highlighted the absurdity of the Conservatives' omnibus bill and the underlying cynicism of this fundamentally ideological and political operation, in which the government is trying to mash together a multitude of completely disparate and diverse measures. The government is creating something that will not sit well with the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers. It is trying to shove this down our throats to score political points with its very conservative and ideological base, and it will try to say that the opposition, regardless of the party, is soft on crime and is on the side of the criminals. That is a very questionable political move.

I have a question for my hon. colleague. Is she concerned about the fact that this bill will transfer huge responsibilities and costs to the Canadian provinces, when many of them—particularly Ontario and Quebec—already have problems with overpopulation in prisons? The government wants to adopt measures to send a bunch of petty criminals to crime school in already overpopulated prisons.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the short answer to the question is that I am very worried. And I am not the only one. Many of the provinces are worried because they feel that they will have to deal with the fallout from the Conservative government's smoke and mirrors.

It is very interesting and illuminating to hear the Minister of Justice's responses to the direct questions asked of him, such as how much this will cost. We are not asking about the cost to victims. We already know that. When it came to the victims I represented, I often said that no sentence would satisfy them and that no amount of money would be compensation enough for the damages caused or would represent the true value of what they had lost or suffered.

That is not what we are talking about, yet the minister is constantly shifting to that argument, making it sound as though those of us on this side of the House do not care. That is not true. However, the cost of all this will have a direct impact because the provinces do not have the money and will not be able to assume the costs. So what happens when a law like this comes into effect?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act. This bill takes nine previously introduced pieces of legislation and combines them in one comprehensive crime bill.

The proposed changes in the safe streets and communities act are part of our government's ongoing action to make Canada a safer place for law-abiding Canadian families. I have listened, with a great deal of interest, to comments from several hon. members during the debate on the legislation. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak of the many benefits that the changes proposed by our government will bring.

It has been five years since our government first took office. In that time, we have worked to bring forward legislation that would hold criminals accountable, put the safety of Canadian families first and deliver the kind of justice that victims of crime expect. It has now been over five years and through many consultations and conversations with people across our country, including with constituents in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, it could not be clearer that Canadians are concerned about the safety of their communities. They have long been calling for our government to focus on ensuring that their communities, playgrounds, streets and homes remain safe.

They have asked us to provide our law enforcement agencies with the necessary tools and modern laws that they need to make our communities safe. We have delivered.

They have asked us to increase offender accountability and to hold offenders accountable by being made to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of those crimes. We have delivered

Canadians have asked us to be proactive by taking preventive measures to reduce crime before it happens. Again, we have delivered.

I want to touch on just a few of the examples on which our government has delivered for Canadians in these areas.

As an example, we are proud to have increased our country's law-enforcement ability by providing $400 million toward a police officer recruitment fund. In just two years, this fund has enabled us to increase the number of police officers in Canada by more than 1,800. This goes a long way to helping us increase law-enforcement presence in communities both large and small.

We have also passed many pieces of legislation that address the concerns we have heard from victims and Canadians across the country.

For the past five years, we have been fully engaged in promoting healthy, safe communities for Canadians. We have introduced many measures to tackle crime, particularly violent crime and gun crimes. For example, our government took action to crack down on drive-by shootings as well as other shootings that demonstrate reckless disregard for the life or safety of others.

For example, our government has taken action to crack down on drive-by shootings and other intentional shootings that demonstrate a reckless disregard for the life or safety of others. We have taken action to eliminate the shameful practice of granting two-for-one credit, and sometimes three-for-one credit, for time served before sentencing. With this important change, we are now ensuring truth in sentencing.

We have also extended the time period that a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence, including manslaughter, must wait before applying for a pardon.

We have also passed legislation to strengthen the national sex offender registry and the national DNA data bank, marking another tremendous step forward for the protection of vulnerable people from sex offenders. Importantly, the legislation allows the police to use the national sex offender registry proactively to prevent crime.

We have also passed legislation to restore the faith of Canadians in the corrections and conditional release system by ensuring that offenders can no longer be released at one-sixth of their sentences. The Abolition of Early Parole Act abolished the practice of accelerated parole review, which allowed those convicted of first time non-violent white collar offences to obtain day parole after serving one-sixth of their sentences and full parole after serving only one-third.

In addition, the government has also taken action to prevent crimes before they happen. In the last year, our government funded some 160 community-based crime prevention programs through its national crime prevention strategy. These programs had an impact on the lives of nearly 10,000 at-risk youth. Crucially, we have also ensured that the youth gang prevention fund continues to help at-risk youth by including an investment of $7.5 million annually as part of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

These are only a few of the measures we have taken to help make our streets and communities safer for law-abiding Canadian families.

However, there is more to do. That is why I am proud to be here today to talk about the safe streets and communities act.

Last May we told Canadians that if re-elected we would move quickly to introduce the past law and order legislation that would crack down on crime, gangs and terrorism. We said that we would do this within 100 sitting days of the new session of Parliament. Our government has pledged to finish what we started and move forward with this legislation to better protect Canadian families. We believe the legislation is a fair and reasonable response to ensure the safety of our communities.

Three departments are responsible for the elements found in the legislation, legislation that impacts Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Public Safety Canada is responsible for four provisions under the safe streets and communities act. The first measure amends the International Transfer of Offenders Act. We propose to include public safety as an express purpose of the act. We also propose updating the decision making criteria used by the Minister of Public Safety when making the decision to transfer Canadian offenders back to Canada to complete their sentences.

The second Public Safety Canada measure will move to enact the justice for victims of terrorism act and to amend the State Immunity Act to deter terrorism. What this means is that victims of terrorism will be able to launch a law suit in Canadian courts against the individual or organization that carried out the attack.

The third element falling within Public Safety Canada is a proposal to strengthen the legislation governing pardons. First, very important, the legislation would change the name from “pardon” to “record suspension”. We have heard from victims and victims rights groups that the word “pardon” indicates that somehow the government has forgiven the person for their crime. Forgiveness is not the government's to give. No one can forgive an offender for a crime except the victim, or the victim's family. This proposal will also change the legislation so that repeat serious offenders and those who commit sexual offences against children are no longer eligible to apply for a record suspension.

Finally, we propose to strengthen the management of offenders during their incarceration and conditional release and highlight the importance of correctional plans in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

There are several components within Bill C-10 that fall under the responsibility of the Department of Justice. It will increase the penalties imposed for sexual offences against minors.

As a father of young children, I welcome these changes to protect the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society. Bill C-10 would bring forward changes that create tougher sentences for individuals found guilty of the production and possession of illicit drugs for the purposes of trafficking. It would strengthen the laws that deal with young offenders, making sure they are held accountable for their actions and that their sentences fit the crimes that they have committed. It would also bring to an end the use of conditional sentences or house arrest for violent and property crimes.

In addition, there is legislation that falls under the responsibility of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Bill C-10 would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect foreign workers who could become victims of human trafficking or exploitation. This is a very real problem in my city of Toronto. Finally, we will be able to pass legislation to deal with it.

None of this legislation is a surprise. Just as Canadians have been clear in supporting our efforts to improve safety and security in our communities, so too have we been clear that this legislation would be a priority in the early days of this new Parliament.

For these reasons, I urge all hon. members of the House to work with the government to ensure the swift passage of Bill C-10.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees with what Senator Boisvenu said. He was with the minister when Bill C-10 was announced, and he stated that the underlying reason for omnibus Bill C-10 is the fact that, in general, sentences imposed by the Canadian judiciary are too lenient, and that is what the Conservative government wants to address.

Does the member agree with this statement, that this basically boils down to the fact that Canadian judges impose sentences that are too lenient?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's question.

The legislation is responding to the needs of Canadians, especially victims. Victims groups and individual victims have been saying for a long time that their needs are not being reflected in the current laws and also the sentencing guidelines. That is why we introduced this legislation.

Police officers are very supportive of Bill C-10. Canadian Police Association President Tom Stamatakis said:

As a police officer, and as a parent myself, I can't possibly overemphasize the need for the longer sentences this bill provides, to keep these serious offenders off our streets, but perhaps just as important, the creation of the two new offences, particularly prohibition from using any means of telecommunications, including the Internet, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child, is exactly the sort of modernization of the Criminal Code that our members need to deal with today's technologically savvy criminal.

There is a lack of modernization in our current legislation. We are trying to bring this up to 2011, into the 21st century. It is high time. We have been talking about this legislation for several years. These are not surprises and we urge the--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the honourable member told us that he is the father of young children. So am I.

We lived for a little while in Oakland, California and at nights we could hear gunshots in the distance. California is a jurisdiction that has tried with its “three strikes you're out” law to put more people in jail for longer time periods. It found it ended up spending more money on prisons than on education. This is a jurisdiction which was not made safer for little kids by putting more people in jail.

This is an example of a case where Conservatives putting more people in jail for longer time periods has not made the streets and communities safer, and has imposed a tax burden on future generations. What is the member's answer to that? Can he answer the question that my daughter would want to ask if she were here today?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can respond to the question from the hon. member who is a father like I am, and I can say that his daughter would not be the victim of an offender who is locked up in prison. She would be protected from him.

Many times in the debate I hear members opposite draw false analogies with the situation in the United States and use the term “three strikes and you're out”. This is not “three strikes and you're out” for minor offences. The offences we are trying to deal with are major, violent, aggressive offences against the security and safety of Canadians. This is a completely different situation.

In terms of the question about the prison population, the federal prison population is about 14,000 and there are various models that have been put forward. It is impossible to determine exactly what the outcome will be, but we do not anticipate that this is going to be the bursting at the seams prison situation that the opposition describes. At any rate, it is far safer for Canadians to have those violent and aggressive offenders locked up than on the streets.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I stand today in opposition to Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill. I do not stand in opposition to every part of the bill and indeed some parts of Bill C-10 worthwhile.

As a father myself, I have no objection to protecting children against pedophiles and sexual predators. I have no objection to protecting people against violent crimes, of course not, even though the Conservatives may have people believe otherwise. However, that is the rub with Bill C-10, which throws so many pieces of legislation, nine pieces of legislation, aboard the one bus, the one omnibus bill.

I may agree with coming down hard on pedophiles, but I do not agree with filling prisons with people who probably should not be there, like the people who get caught with some marijuana plants. What will throwing a student into jail do for him or her, or for society in general, besides costing us a fortune in new human cages? My answer is nothing. It will do absolutely nothing.

Bill C-10 is also known as the safe streets and communities act which, to quote The Telegram, the daily newspaper in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, sounds like a new and improved detergent, except Bill C-10 will not make our streets any cleaner. It will not wash away the crime. In fact, chances are, if we put a dirty sock through the omnibus cycle, the sock will come out just as dirty on the other end.

The Conservative detergent: so much of Bill C-10 is a waste of money. It will have no impact on the tougher elements of our society. If anything, Bill C-10 will soak up so much cash to keep what will eventually be our U.S.-style prisons going that there will not be any money left over for infrastructure, such as streets. Forget keeping our streets clean.

The Conservative government has yet to put a price tag on Bill C-10, but it is fair to say it will cost untold billions of dollars as our prisons bulge at the seams. According to a joint statement by the John Howard Society and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the increased costs associated with just one of the bills in Bill C-10 will be more than $5 billion. That is more than double current expenditures for the corrections systems alone.

Furthermore, the provinces and territories would have to contribute the largest portion of the increase. I am sure they will be delighted to step forward.

I do not know about other provinces, but Newfoundland and Labrador's prison system could not handle any more prisoners. Her Majesty's Penitentiary in St. John dates back to Victorian times. The original stone building first opened in 1859. The pen is an aging fortress that has been called an appalling throwback to 19th century justice, which sounds like Bill C-10.

How do people in my riding feel about Bill C-10? I had one particular gentleman write to say he is disgusted. Let me quote from that letter:

This is taking us in the wrong direction both socially and fiscally. I do not want to live in a country with a justice system based on a model developed in the dark ages. We do not need more prisons. We do not need to be taking discretion away from justices of the peace, and we do not need more blanket mandatory sentencing guidelines that will do more harm than good.

Most of all...I'm concerned about “The Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act”. Yes, I'm concerned about the ongoing substance abuse problems we have in this province and my concerns about the pending legislation doesn't mean I support a legal free for all when it comes to drugs, but increased mandatory sentences for growing a half dozen plants is insane...Who is helped by having a student, a future doctor or engineer, thrown in jail for a year and a half because they decided to make some hash for their own personal use? In what universe does that make sense?...Stop wasting money on cages and start spending it on hospital beds and textbooks.

That is the line that sticks, “Stop wasting money on cages and start spending it on hospital beds and textbooks”. That is a great quote.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2008-09 the average annual cost of keeping an inmate incarcerated was $110,000. Where I come from, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that would pay for roughly two degrees, or eight years of university.

To quote the daily newspaper from my riding once again:

We may buck the American trend — where increasing the number of prisoners has not brought a reduction in crime rates — but the smart money says we’ll simply pay more to keep more people in prison and do little to change crime rates, which are among the lowest we’ve had in decades. You can argue that tougher sentences will make Canada a harder place to do shifty business, but the jury’s out on whether it will end up making this country a better place to live.

The jury is still out.

Bill C-10 will not make Canada a better place to live. It will change Canada. It will change how we see ourselves as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as Canadians, and how we are seen on the world stage. Lock them up and throw away the key has not worked well in other tough love jurisdictions, the United States, for example.

For every 100,000 people, the United States holds 724 people in prison. In comparison, for every 100,000 people, Canada has 117 people in prison. That is a big difference.

The question that must be asked until there is an answer is, if there are longer stipulated jail sentences for crimes such as growing a few pot plants, who pays for the dramatic increases in the cost of incarceration of both federal and provincial prisons? Is that the next Conservative action plan or job plan that we have been waiting so long to hear about? Is it to build new cages across the country?

As for other sections of the omnibus crime bill, legislation that allows for victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators, including foreign countries, would do absolutely nothing to deter or prevent terrorism acts. To cut to the chase, suing a terrorist organization in a Canadian court would get us absolutely nowhere. No, that is not quite correct, it would get us in debt.

Returning to the section of Bill C-10 that would impose mandatory minimum sentences for the production, possession and trafficking in certain drugs like marijuana, experts have consistently said that mandatory minimum sentences do not work for reducing drug use, tackling organized crime, or for making our communities safer.

How about taking the money from building more cages and putting it into rehabilitation and retraining programs? That is a novel idea. That makes more sense. That is the Canadian way. Bill C-10 is not the Canadian way.

Nothing in the Conservative crime bill deals with prevention, but 80% of people in federal prison deal with at least one addiction. Dr. Julio Montaner, immediate past president of the International AIDS Society, said that the Conservative government's crime agenda would jeopardize the health of some marginalized people. He said:

[the bill] would make it more difficult for physicians to deliver public health services to people who are poor, First Nations, mentally ill, at risk of HIV, or drug-addicted.

He also said:

This law is all about incarcerating the people that this government views as the “other Canadians” for which they have no time for or no interest.

Speaking for myself, my party believes in leaving nobody behind, leaving no Canadian behind, marginalizing nobody.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for eloquently stating his party's position.

There are aspects in Bill C-10 that are very tempting, especially for people who grow pot. I have to say that in my area I have had my share of grow-house operations.

However, in looking at the cost, the Parliamentary Budget Officers says that we would spend about $13 billion to go this way. I wonder if my colleague from the NDP would like to share some of his concerns.

I would personally like to see a little of that money, if that would actually be the figure, $13 billion, to be spent on putting people in the right direction. Maybe we could spend more money on immigrants and give immigrant communities money that the Conservative government took away from in Toronto.

Does my hon. colleague feel that this spending of money is wise or are we going down a false path?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the figure of $13 billion. The point that we have been trying to get to is that there is no cost on this omnibus crime bill. We do not know the cost. From what I hear, and I have been listening, I do not think the Conservatives have put a figure on this yet. I do not think they have a true cost. That is one of the worries.

The other worry is with all these new prisoners going into the penal system across the country. I have read some estimates of between 3,000 and 5,000 more people will be entering our prison system. In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have, what I mentioned in my speech, Her Majesty's Penitentiary. It is a medium-sized prison. It takes in federal prisoners but it is bulging at the seams. We cannot take in any more.

There is no money for rehabilitation and no money for programs. That is the bigger concern.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that simple possession is not targeted in this legislation, although the reference continues to be to someone growing a few plants.

In the member's hypothetical student example, if that hypothetical student were proven to be trafficking illicit drugs to elementary school children or proven to be handing over his revenue from the sale of hard drugs, such as methamphetamine, to members of organized crime, would the member not agree that the person needs to be dealt with as a serious offender?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem we have with this omnibus crime bill and how the Conservatives are trying to sell it. The Conservatives are trying to sell it as being fair.

Would I have a problem with someone growing marijuana and selling it to school children or selling crystal to school children being dealt with as a serious offender? Of course not. I have no problem with that whatsoever. They should be in jail. That is just wrong. That is something that the New Democrats and Canadians in general are absolutely against.

The problem that we see here is the fact that someone who has grown some plants, who has made a mistake and done something against the law, could be put in jail with the key thrown away. Some people, who jail would do nothing for and who should not be in jail,would be put in jail. Our jails would be bulging at the seams. That is what we are against.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Conservatives are trying to leave an impression that somehow there is no enforcement or no legislation.

The debate here is about mandatory minimums and whether they work. Is the member aware that in the United States, where we have seen the history of mandatory minimums, many of those laws are now being repealed because they have been such a massive failure?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware. What the Conservatives are trying to do here with this omnibus crime bill has been tried in other jurisdictions, as the hon. member just pointed out, like in the United States, and it does not work. Therefore, why we are trying to do it here is beyond me. I do not have an answer.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities bill.

Canadians gave our Conservative government a strong mandate to keep our streets and communities safe. Part of that important mandate is protecting Canadians both at home and abroad from threats of terrorism, while giving those who do fall victim to a terrorist act the tools they need to have their voices heard.

Since coming to office in 2006, we have been clear: a Conservative government is a government that will put the protection of law-abiding Canadians first. We have taken strong action to fulfill our commitment to protect Canadians by taking a tough on crime approach and giving our law enforcement agencies the resources and tools they need to do their jobs. We have also moved forward in many areas to crack down on crime and to ensure that our streets and communities are safe and secure.

When talking to my constituents, I hear a common theme. They tell me that they want a justice system that actually delivers justice and a corrections system that actually corrects. I believe the legislation in front of us today is an important step forward in that regard.

We will continue to reverse the shameful trend which began under the Trudeau regime where former solicitor general, Jean-Pierre Goyer, stated that the protection of society was a secondary objective to protecting the rights of criminals. Our Conservative government completely rejects that premise and will continue to work to return common sense to the correctional system.

Recently, all of us have witnessed the terrible consequences that terrorism can have for individuals and communities across the globe. In our time, terrorism has left casualties from New York to New Delhi. We know that Canada is not immune to the threat of radical-led terrorism. We need to recall the hundreds of Canadians who died in the atrocity of the Air India attack and all those who lost their lives on 9/11.

We should not forget that Canada has been named as a target by organizations such as Al-Qaeda. We have also seen the successful prosecution of homegrown terrorists who were arrested before they had a chance to carry out their sadistic plot.

It is starkly clear that Canada has a large role to play in the global fight against terrorism, a role that we have played and will continue to play in the battle against those who use senseless violence against civilians.

That is why I will focus my remarks on Bill C-10 today on justice for the victims of terrorism.

These amendments would strengthen Canada's ability to expose and cut off the material support for terrorism. They would ensure that those who do fall victim to terrorism are able to seek justice and that those who commit or support terrorist acts are held accountable for their actions.

Terrorist groups rarely act alone. The scale and sophistication of terrorist operations demand a vast amount of financial and organizational support. That support often comes from within states led by radical anti-western governments. Many observers have often described the relationship between terrorist groups and certain governments as one of a state operating within a state. Shockingly, on occasion, private individuals living right here in Canada can be sources of support for those who wish to attack our country.

The fact is that money is the lifeblood of terrorism. One of the most effective ways to stop terrorists is to strike at their largest vulnerability, which is their wallets. Bill C-10 aims to do that by holding terrorists and those who support them fully financially accountable.

Bill C-10 would create a cause of action to allow victims of terrorism to sue terrorists and supporters of terrorism for any loss or damages that occurred as a result of terrorist acts committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985. The target of these suits will include individuals, organizations and certain states that the government has listed for their support to terrorism.

In the case of states, Bill C-10 proposes the creation of a government list of states that there are reasonable grounds to believe support terror. Those states would no longer be immune from civil action. This would allow Canadian courts to hold these supporters of terrorism accountable for their conduct.

On the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, a state would be added to a list of designated states if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the state supports or has supported a terrorist entity listed under the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code currently lists 44 entities as terrorist organizations. These organizations are subject to rigorous and regular review. States that financially support these organizations cannot be considered a friend of Canada.

We will take all the appropriate precautions to minimize any potential negative impact on Canadian trade or foreign relations or threats to Canadian personnel, interests and citizens abroad when listing and delisting states.

Bill C-10 would also establish a review mechanism to ensure the timely removal of states from a list if they clean up their act and no longer support terrorism. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, would review the list every two years to determine whether listed states should remain on the list. Ministers would also review information on non-listed states every two years to determine whether any other state should be added to that list.

Additionally, a listed state could apply to be removed from the list by submitting a written application. Once this application is received, the Minister of Foreign Affairs would, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety, decide whether there were reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor in Council that the state no longer be listed.

As important as the ability to sue states that support terror is that individuals and corporations that support these actions would also be held liable. Financiers of terror would be held accountable.

Bill C-10 would do more than just create a cause of action for victims of terrorism. It would also allow victims who have successfully sued a terrorist entity or supporter to request assistance from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance in identifying and locating in Canada the property of that entity.

Several years ago, the world witnessed the effectiveness of those measures when the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims were given the right to sue the Gadhafi Libya regime for the role it played in supporting this horrific act of terrorism. The former government of Libya subsequently admitted its part in the attack, provided compensation to the families and renounced the use of terrorism.

Creating this cause of action would hold terrorism and its supporters to account through the courts, giving victims the opportunity to seek justice. This is something victims have sought for some time and our Conservative government is proud to deliver.

I urge all members to give speedy passage to Bill C-10. I especially urge my colleagues in the NDP to support the bill and put the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of terrorists and their supporters. We must stand united in sending a message to those who commit terrorist acts and to those whose support them that they will be held accountable for their actions.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning a couple of words. He kept talking about terrorism and about protecting Canadians abroad. He also said something about a shameful trend. I will tell him about a shameful trend.

A Canadian by the name of Colin Rutherford has been held by the Taliban for several months now. It will be a year in November. I have asked the government time and time again for information. This individual is being held by terrorists and his family is suffering

I want the hon. gentleman to tell me if that is not a shameful trend when the government is shutting up and is saying absolutely nothing to the family that wants to get news and wants to know what it is doing. Not only that, the government is even refusing to give me information.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the mandate our government received in the last election is to protect the rights of Canadians, be it here in Canada or abroad. That is exactly what we are doing.

All of the measures that are in Bill C-10 have been before Parliament. They have been debated for the most part and now Canadians expect us to implement the measures and put them to work. That is exactly what the government will be doing.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague on his speech. I thought it was incredibly relevant to the threats and risks that countries like Canada and many of our allies and partners around the world are facing today. He laid out in very concrete terms why this legislation is important, with specific reference to countering terrorism.

Could he tell the House what the consequences might be of not enacting measures of this kind, and what danger of further impunity for terrorist groups to operate in Canada or elsewhere that might represent for the people of Canada?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his hard work on behalf of his constituents.

Obviously as Canadians we are all concerned about terrorist activities, be they within Canada or abroad. Canadians expect us to take action as their representatives. We are here to represent their best interests. If we choose not to take any action on this, God forbid, we do not want to see another tragedy like the Air India tragedy in 1984. We do not want to see another 9/11. By implementing this important piece of legislation, if we help prevent one more serious tragedy, it will be well worth it.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about stopping terrorists by striking their wallets. It seems that the same government that says it wants to stop terrorists by striking their wallets may have been paying off terrorists like al-Qaeda in North Africa in order to secure the release of Canadians. It seems that the terrorists may have reinvested that dividend into more terrorism.

Where is the consistency of the government that claims it wants to stop terrorists by striking their wallets?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has made it very clear that it does not negotiate with any terrorist organization whatsoever. We have a very strong record when it comes to combatting criminal activities, be they crimes committed here or terrorist activities abroad. That is exactly why our very brave men and women are serving our great country around the world. They are protecting us and the democracy and freedom that we so much enjoy here in Canada.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, erroneously entitled the “Safe Streets and Communities Act”. Bill C-10 is comprised of nine stand-alone justice bills that died, for good reason I might add, during the previous parliamentary session. These nine bills, justly negated then, are back to haunt Canada in the form of an omnibus mega-bill, or what some have referred to as an ominous bill, seeking to destroy the fair and equitable justice system Canadians from coast to coast to coast have come to rely on for their justice and protection.

I am especially disheartened to see that, at a time when almost two million Canadians are looking for jobs in a struggling economy, the Conservatives' priority is backwards crime legislation.

The Liberal Party knows Canadians want a safe and fair justice system. The facts tell us that Bill C-10 will not deliver that. The Conservatives chose to ignore the facts and instead are intent on pushing through C-10. What we witnessed here today was a miscarriage of justice with the closure motion, which passed because the government has a majority. It is scary when things like that happen because members of the government are speaking from both sides of their mouths.

In fact, the Minister of Public Safety said in speaking to another closure motion, “If the bill was the right thing to do, why did the Prime Minister do the wrong thing by invoking closure”?

At one time, another member of the government, who is now the citizenship and immigration minister, said, “I begin by condemning this government for allowing itself to trample on democracy and democratic deliberation by invoking closure and time allocation on Bill C-36”.

Another member of the government, now the Minister of National Defence, said, “Let me be clear. What is happening in this motion, in this use of closure, is an attempt to stifle the debate, to shut it down, to sideline it, to distract, to detract away from the opposition's job to be diligent in asking questions”.

I mention those comments to point out the miscarriage of justice here today with this closure motion and how the government is speaking from both sides of its mouth.

Despite the overwhelming evidence and substantive trial and failure of the very same legislation in the United States as we are seeing today in BillC-10, the Conservatives blindly steamroll ahead. If this type of legislation had any positive effect at all on the safety of citizens and the protection of victims, the United States would be the safest country in the world. Sadly, that is not the case. If C-10 type legislation truly worked, we would not see the Americans' experience with their failed system for over 25 years. For example, Newt Gingrich, who many consider to be the architect of the botched American prison system, declared that his tough-on-crime agenda failed and that the criminal justice system founded on the same blind policies included in C-10 is “broken”.

The Americans spent $68 million in 2010 on corrections, which is 300% more than was spent 25 years before, and their prison population is growing 13 times more rapidly than their population. Clearly, the American model of mandatory minimums did not work in the United States of America and predictably, it will not work in Canada.

We already know that. One need merely to consider the evidence to conclude that the failed justice policies of our American friends imported to Canada will only become failed justice policies of our own. Why is the government not prepared to learn from those mistakes instead of forging ahead prepared to make the same mistakes at enormous cost to the Canadian taxpayer?

Unfortunately for Canadians, the Conservatives have a penchant for ignoring evidence and logic. The fact is that crime in Canada is decreasing. According to Statistics Canada it is at its lowest level since 1973. Existing policies developed in consultation with the provinces by previous governments, many of them Liberal by the way, are working.

The lack of logic was on display only last year when former Conservative minister Stockwell Day reported that the Conservatives intended to build more prisons in order to address unreported crime. This is just one example of the Conservatives' appetite to blindly conclude that the solution to any problem is to build more prisons. That is the problem.

I read with interest recently a letter to the editor written by Dr. Jim Lang of the Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. According to Dr. Lang, the Minister of Justice tells us that his government will not let facts or statistics derail its ideological decision to spend our money to make us feel safer on our streets whether we think it is best for us or not. He said that the justice minister cites statistics, the election outcome for example, as justification for the same decision. What is interesting about the content of the letter is that Dr. Lang said that this does not make him feel safer at all, just confused and worried about what those guys will do next and on what pretext.

I agree wholeheartedly with his opinion given that while the government has a majority, it only has 39% of the popular vote, so 61% of voters did not vote for the Conservatives, yet they are going blindly ahead putting something in place that they think is the right thing to do without even considering the views of the majority of Canadians.

Another letter, written by William Trudell, the chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, pleaded with parliamentarians to carefully review this legislation to ensure that it is in the best interests of all Canadians and does not fracture our criminal justice system. The writer said that it does not take a tough on crime agenda to allow judicial discretion to ensure that those genuinely in need find themselves in hospitals and not jails.

Unfortunately, the Conservative crime agenda fails to understand the connection between issues of addiction and mental health and the issue of crime. It is a crime that those very vulnerable in our society will be impacted negatively by Bill C-10.

The government refuses to come clean about the true costs of its crime agenda, which begs the question as to why. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, said that the price tag for just a few of the measures of the crime agenda will cost over $13 billion. That is the price tag for just a few, not the entire nine bills that are included in this omnibus bill.

As the global economy contracts, Canada has to ensure that we get value for tax dollars. We have heard the government say that, yet Conservatives spend untold billions on a failed crime agenda that takes a blind and unrealistic approach to public safety and does not create safer communities and is not a wise or effective use of Canadians' hard-earned money. Many of these costs will be downloaded on the provinces which can ill-afford such a burden.

I represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as the member of Parliament for Random—Burin—St. George's. Our province does not need to be saddled with more inmates and stripped of any judicial discretion. The Liberal Party will not put Canadians at risk by helping to implement this dangerous bill. In order to safeguard the rights and safety of all Canadians, we must oppose Bill C-10.

While the government stands on a soapbox to promote the bill and claims that the bill will help victims, sadly, legislation such as Bill C-10 will only ensure a continued cycle of victimization. The evidence indicates that preventive policy and education, not tougher sentences and bloated prisons, are the path to safer streets and communities. After all, the government can talk all it wants about the rights of victims, but the truth is the right of every Canadian is to not be victimized at all.

The Liberal Party is committed to ensuring a justice approach that is evidence based, cost-effective and focused on crime prevention.

The Canadian Bar Association has said that the mandatory minimum sentences and overreliance on incarceration, constraints on judges' discretion to ensure a fair result in each case and the bill's impact on specific already disadvantaged groups are problems with the bill.

Why is it we do not listen to those who deal with the people who need the services on a daily basis to ensure that they are not victimized? Why is it we are refusing to listen to them? Why is it we are not hearing what is being said?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I had to rejoin the debate after hearing the speech from my hon. colleague opposite.

If the Liberal Party opposes mandatory minimums, then why did it bring in mandatory minimums in response to 9/11 in its Anti-terrorism Act?

The Liberals are not opposed to mandatory minimums. They are just opposed when Conservatives bring in mandatory minimums. The Liberals are all in favour of them and brought in mandatory minimums themselves. Why? Because the public believes in governments that respond to and get tough on crime.

The hon. member presents our crime agenda as though it is a this-or-that approach. We have and support successful programs that help those who are most in need and those who can be subject to restorative justice. We have those programs in my riding. I am proud to support them because they work.

However, with regard to career criminals they do not work. Therefore, we need a justice system that is about justice, not just about serving lawyers.

My hon. colleague also said the government is ignoring evidence. It is quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, it is Liberal attorneys general in Ontario, P.E.I. and British Columbia who are supporting our legislation because they recognize that this works. The member said the Liberal Party is against it. That is absolutely not true.

Finally, she said that we are acting blindly. It is quite the opposite. We know exactly what we are doing. We are responding to the mandate Canadians gave us. This is what Canadians elected us to do and we will get it done. It is because we are doing this that we were entrusted with a majority government and the Liberals have only 34 seats.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was a question in that dissertation. I acknowledge that the hon. minister has the right to say whatever he feels he must say. However, the situation is one where as a country we cannot afford to spend untold billions on a crime agenda nor should we victimize the most vulnerable in our society.

Today there are people in prisons who have mental issues, who are aboriginal, et cetera. As well, there are young people in prisons who have made mistakes. They want help and need help to deal with their mistakes. They should not be incarcerated in prisons with hardened criminals. At the end of the day, when they get out they might be worse off than they were when they went in.

That is not the proper thing to do, but that is what the government is focusing on. It is taking advantage of the most vulnerable with what it is proposing in Bill C-10.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's raised some good points in her statement.

She spoke about the numbers that have been thrown about, including the figure of $13 billion for the implementation of several of the acts in the bill.

What does she think the impact will be on the Newfoundland and Labrador prison system which is already inadequate and bulging at the seams?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I both know of the situation in the prison in St. John's, which also houses federal prisoners. At this point, it cannot possibly house any more. There are two or three inmates sharing a cell. That is unhealthy under any circumstances.

We need to do more in the way of prevention to ensure we do not have to build megaprisons to house criminals. The way to do that is by focusing on prevention by putting the billions of dollars in funding that would be wasted on this crime agenda toward working with people in terms of prevention programs.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative speakers on the bill have negatively characterized with disdain the fact that rehabilitation was introduced into one of the principles of sentencing about 40 years ago.

I would ask the hon. member to correlate that rehabilitation principle with the facts. Where have crime rates gone over the last 40 years?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, since the previous governments, mainly Liberal, introduced the whole idea of dealing more effectively with crime, statistics have pointed to the fact that crime is decreasing.

Clearly, we have made the right decision to go down that path. The government is trying to fix something that is not broken.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. It is a bill that is very important to residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and certainly across Canada.

The June 2011 Speech from the Throne recognized the government's fundamental duty to protect the personal safety of all Canadians. Toward this end we have committed to reintroduce law and order legislation to combat crime, including protecting children from sex offenders, eliminating house arrest and pardons for serious crimes, and protecting the most vulnerable in society, our children.

Bill C-10 supports this commitment. It is a comprehensive package of law reforms that had been proposed in nine bills before the previous Parliament, but which died with the dissolution of that Parliament for the general election.

Part 1, clauses 2 to 9, of Bill C-10 includes reforms to support victims of terrorism. These were proposed in former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Part 2, clauses 10 to 51, proposes sentencing reforms to address child sexual exploitation, serious drug offences, and to eliminate the use of conditional sentences for serious, violent and property crimes. It incorporates reforms that were proposed in former Bills C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act and C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act.

Part 3, clauses 52 to 166, includes post-sentencing reforms to increase offender accountability, eliminate pardons for serious crimes, and revise the criteria for determining international transfers of Canadian offenders. These reforms were proposed in former Bills C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act, C-23, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, C-59, the Abolition of Early Parole Act and C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Part 4, clauses 167 to 204, proposes reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better protect Canadians from violent young offenders. These had been proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

Part 5 of Bill C-10 proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking. These amendments had been proposed in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

Many of these proposed reforms were debated and studied in the previous Parliament. I welcome their reintroduction in this new Parliament.

I will focus my remaining time on Bill C-10's proposal to better protect children against sexual exploitation.

As with its predecessor Bill C-54, the objectives of Bill C-10's child sexual exploitation reforms are twofold. First, they seek to ensure that for sentencing purposes all child sexual offences are treated severely and consistently. Second, they seek to protect children by preventing the commission of these offences. Bill C-10 does this by imposing stiffer and stronger penalties.

Bill C-10 proposes numerous amendments to enhance the penalties or sentences of imprisonment that are currently imposed for sexual offences involving child victims. It imposes new or higher mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment as well as higher maximum penalties for certain offences.

Currently, the Criminal Code has an inconsistent approach regarding penalties for sexual offences involving a child victim. For instance, there are 12 child-specific sexual offences that impose a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment, yet there are other child-specific offences that do not impose a minimum penalty.

Similarly, the general sexual offences that apply to both adult and child victims alike do not impose any mandatory minimum penalty where the victim is a child.

As the grandfather of two granddaughters, one six years old and the other three years old, this means a lot to me. The bill serves to strengthen the laws that protect our children and the vulnerable. There should be no question about supporting this bill.

Mandatory minimum penalties are exception In the Criminal Code of Canada. Generally, they have been imposed because Parliament has determined that the nature of a particular offence is sufficiently serious to include a sentence of imprisonment. That sentence was devised to best reflect the facts and circumstances of the case and does not get lost between the mandatory minimum period of time to the prescribed maximum penalty. Where mandatory minimum sentences are imposed, a conditional sentence of imprisonment is never appropriate for the offence.

Given this understanding of mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment, the effect of imposing these in only some but not all sexual offences where the victim is a child suggests that some child sexual offences are more serious than others. It is ludicrous to suggest that some child victims have been less victimized than others. I cannot understand that thought process.

In my view, this contradicts a fundamental value of Canadian society, namely that all children are among our most vulnerable and that all are deserving of equal protection against all forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation. Therefore, I welcome the proposals of Bill C-10 to impose mandatory minimum sentences for seven sexual offences wherein the victim is a child and where currently mandatory minimum sentences are not imposed.

Bill C-10 also proposes to impose higher mandatory minimum sentences for nine offences that already carry a minimum sentence. These increases would ensure that the minimum sentence is not only in line with the offence in question but also is coherent with the minimum sentences imposed for other offences.

As well, Bill C-10 proposes to create two new offences to prevent the commission of a contact sexual offence against a child. Both of these offences would also impose mandatory minimum sentences.

I would also note that Bill C-10 proposes a few sentencing reforms that were not included in Bill C-54. These changes are entirely consistent with the overall sentencing objectives of former Bill C-54 and seek to better reflect the particularly heinous nature of these offences.

Finally, these changes would increase the maximum penalty and corresponding mandatory minimum sentences for four child sex offences. When proceeded on summary conviction, subsections 163.1(2), making child pornography, and 163.1(3), distribution, et cetera, of child pornography, propose to increase the maximum penalty from 18 months to 2 years less a day as well as increase the current minimum sentence from 90 days to 6 months.

In section 170, parent or guardian procuring sexual activity, the bill proposes to increase the minimum penalty from 6 months to 1 year and the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years where the victim is under the age of 16 years, and the minimum from 45 days to 6 months and the maximum from 2 years to 5 years respectively where the victim is 16 to 17 years old.

I hope that all hon. members will work with us to support the expeditious enactment of these much needed reforms.

In closing, as members of Parliament we all have a number of issues that come before us. In my seven years in this great place the one thing that I consistently hear from my constituents, especially those with children, young children and grandchildren, is the lack of rights for victims in this country. We worry more about the rights of criminals than victims, which is a sad case. The pendulum has swung too far one way. I am proud to be part of a government that would straighten that out.

I look forward to all hon. members in the House supporting Bill C-10.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound mentioned his two young granddaughters.

I am the father of two daughters. One is 11 years old and the other is 7 years old. I am particularly concerned about the possibility of a sexual assault occurring because of those people on the street who take advantage of our children. Would the member highlight the areas of the bill that he believes would send them a message?

Sending a message to those people who would prey on innocent children is key. It would be a deterrent for them to know there are stiff penalties in place which their snazzy defence attorneys are unable to bargain or whittle down in a courtroom because the law is tough on that.

Does the member agree? Could he speak more on that particular part of the bill?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to welcome my colleague officially into the House. I enjoy working with him.

I am glad to hear his comments about his young family. While my family has grown up, I did mention my two granddaughters. It is very obvious that the member gets it when it comes to protecting the rights of young and innocent children and that is what a lot of the bill would do.

He talks about the message that the bill sends, that if people want to mess with our young children, the vulnerable, the next generation, and in my case it is not just the next generation but it is my pride and joy, there will be a price to pay. For too long the sentences were almost laughable.

Another message that it sends very strongly to victims is that while we cannot right what was done to them, we certainly can make offenders do the time for the crime.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the comments my hon. colleague makes are interesting. However, flipping through the Quorum before us today, 97% of the articles in it question the viability of Bill C-10, condemning it, talking about how we will only add more victims of crime and increase costs. Money that should go into crime prevention will go to putting more people in jail.

The member should read Quorum. There is no support for Bill C-10 as far as the general public is concerned, yet the member continues to say he is representing more so than the rest of us in the House.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my colleague in the House and while we sit on opposite sides, I have a lot of respect for her.

I have not read Quorum yet, but I think the point she was trying to make to me was that it was unbelievable that there were still people out there who had written to our national papers, basically sticking up for criminals instead of victims. Like her, I find it very shocking.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, along the same vein, has my colleague seen an article by Newt Gingrich in The Washington Post. He cites that the Americans 30 years of tough on crime legislation has been a catastrophic failure. He cites recent empirical evidence for the state of Texas where in 2007 it decided that building more prisons rather than opting for prevention was a mistake and it has changed that now, saving $2 billion. That money has been put into drug courts, which deal with substance abuse as a medical instead of a criminal problem, and into several crime prevention measures instead of punitive measures to make its streets safer. Because of that, its crime rates have dropped by 10% in that short period of time. Is he aware of that?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that article. However, my priority here, and I think it is that of all of us in this great House, should be on doing what is right for Canada. The member talks about things we can do to deter criminals instead of locking them up.

I want to make mention of a first-ever program that the Minister of Justice put in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound about three years ago. Equine and partner training is for young people who got involved in drugs, not because they were bad kids but because they got mixed up with the wrong people. It is a great program and I mention it as one example of the kinds of things we will continue to do.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is possibly one thing we agree on, and that is the Conservatives have branded and wrapped themselves in a cloak of crime and punishment. As a result, they are blind to the evidence, the costs and the fact that we have the lowest crime rate since 1973.

The Conservatives are blind to building safe and healthy communities. They are blind to the horrendous experience of the U.S. in its war on drugs regime, which now is slowly repealed, including the repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre just pointed out, because of its catastrophic failure on people and society overall. The Conservatives are blind to the evidence in Canada and to the real impact these bills would have on the lives of people and communities overall.

Added to that, the Conservative members are blind to parliamentary democracy. With this bill and the steady stream of other bills that we have seen, they are only interested in manipulating people, creating fear and division and creating a them and us scenario. I believe, from the bottom of my heart, the omnibus bill before us today is offensive. It is politically motivated and would have enormous negative impacts.

I was involved in some of these bills previously, particularly the drug crime bill, which I will go into.

Listening to the debate, I find it astounding to hear how the Conservatives are completely divorced from the reality of what is going on. They cannot recognize that we have the lowest crime rate since 1973. They cannot comprehend or deal with the fact that federal and provincial prisons are skyrocketing and prisoners are double and even triple bunking, resulting, in part, from bills like the Truth in Sentencing Act, which was passed in the last Parliament.

I wish the Conservatives had the courage to bring forward a truth in prison costs bill because maybe then we would have a better handle on what is really going on here.

The fact is these nine bills have no relevancy together. They have been politically put together in one bill to ram them through the House in 100 days.

That defies the reality of the 2010-11 annual report that just came out from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. It shows us that almost three-quarters, or 72%, of all cases handled by federal prosecutors last year involved drug cases, about 58,000 cases. Of those cases, only about 2% were complex, meaning that the vast majority of them were actually straightforward in terms of the impact of some of these bills and the kind of law enforcement approach that the Conservative government has taken.

The Conservatives also hid the real costs of this bill and all the bills in the package from Canadians during the election. We know that the real costs will be billions of dollars both in terms of the provincial cost in prisons and the federal costs.

I have heard so many times that the Conservatives are trying to bring in the bill on mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes as a bill that will be tough on organized crime and big traffickers. We heard the Minister of Justice say that again today, as he has so many times.

The reality is that mandatory minimums do not deter organized crime. Instead, they almost exclusively affect small dealers, street level traffickers and non-violent offenders, while leaving the door wide open for organized crime to step in and fill the void created by the sweeps at the lower end. Even the Canadian Justice Department, in its report of 2002, concluded that mandatory minimum sentences were the least effective in relation to drug offences.

The Minister of Justice has never been able to offer a shred of evidence that mandatory minimums are a deterrence, that they work. He was grilled on this in committee the last time the bill went through the House. This is now the third time we have had the bill before us. The minister could not offer any evidence that mandatory minimums were effective or that they would deal with our complex drug issues. All the evidence is to the contrary. The evidence indicates that the bill would have many harmful effects, including increasing the prison population and changing Canada's drug strategy from a four pillar approach that includes enforcement, prevention, treatment and harm reduction.

We know the Conservatives changed that strategy in 2007. Again, they are totally focused on the proposition that somehow a new bill, a new offence, a stiffer penalty, a mandatory minimum would deal with some of these complex issues.

I have a letter that has three pages of organizations and individual experts who have all studied this legislation, particularly, as it applies to mandatory minimums. They all have come to the same conclusion. There is no evidence that the legislation is warranted and would actually assist our society overall.

I would point out, again, more evidence. The auditor general, when she audited drug enforcement a few years ago when we had a special committee on the non-medical use of drugs, produced a very significant report that called for an increased emphasis on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. What became clear was something like 73% of federal funds were being spent on enforcement, 14% on treatment, 7% on research, 2.6% on prevention and 2.6% on harm reduction.

Even the auditor general, from a very neutral, independent standpoint, came to the conclusion that the so-called drug strategy was not working, that it was not effective and that it could not be shown to be transparent or actually assisting in terms of drug issues in local communities.

The drug bill, in particular, which the Conservatives tried to get through the Senate and through the House, is taking Canada in a completely wrong direction. It is a direction that is very expensive, it will have no effect on drug use itself and it will only increase the prison population, creating a new set of overpopulation that with it will come health and safety concerns and problems that then will manifest themselves within the prison system. Anybody who does not understand that, as I said at the beginning, is simply fooling themselves and is blind to the reality and the evidence that is now before us.

The Conservative government changed the drug strategy in 2007. As result, we have now been down this path similar to the U.S. experience. The Americans have begun to understand that even the most right-wing conservatives, as quoted by my colleague, in the U.S. recognize the massive failure of the course of incarcerating people, of relying on an enforcement approach and mandatory minimums. Surely, Canada has lessons to learn from this.

I want to say this loud and clear, and I am very glad that all my colleagues are speaking out on the bill. We feel the bill is offensive in the way it puts together nine significant bills that should be dealt with individually. In particular, there is no evidence that the drug bill will work. On the contrary, all the evidence indicates that it will be harmful and costly. It is the wrong direction for our country to take.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to rise in this debate. I listened to the member for Vancouver East's presentation on this and some of her ideas. She spoke about drug crime and some of her concerns she had with the legislation.

We also have drug crime in Winnipeg. We have abuse of certain narcotics such as heroin, for instance.

Other than the fact that she does not think the legislation within this place is the right approach, would she recommend to the citizens of Winnipeg that we perhaps create an InSite facility in downtown Winnipeg and could she comment on that?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that, to me, it is up to the people of Winnipeg to determine what they see as the solutions to the very difficult questions they are facing in their community. In Vancouver East, when we were dealing with very difficult drug overdoses, it was the local community, including the police, the board of trade, businesses, and health professionals, that determined that a safe facility for people to go to was actually part of the solution.

No one has ever suggested that such a solution be imposed anywhere else. It is up to the residents of his community to determine what those solutions are. Things that are grown locally and that come from the local experiences are the things that work best.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for an excellent presentation and I wanted to ask her a particular question.

There are nine different areas dealt with in this legislation, but nowhere does the legislation have anything to say about people with mental illnesses in prisons. We know that up to 20% of youth in prisons today have a mental illness, up to 29% of women in prisons today have a mental illness and 50% of Canadian offenders report substance abuse as a cause for their offence. Existing information tells us that most people who go to prison, especially those with mental illness, show extreme depression and hopelessness before they go into prison.

Does the member have a comment on the fact that we are actually warehousing the mentally ill in prisons today? This trend is going to increase with this kind of legislation, yet there is nothing to be done to deal with this medical problem and to find an appropriate way of dealing with it in prisons.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her observations, which I believe are entirely correct.

I think there is an attitude from the government that if it makes people invisible by stuffing them into overcrowded facilities, somehow invisibility means that it has dealt with the problem. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Many alarming reports show us that the situation and conditions in terms of safety, health, and lack of rehabilitation in a prison system have a cumulative effect, so when these bills are passed and we just blindly increase the prison population without knowing the impacts, we are actually creating a worse problem than we had in the beginning.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question based on a real experience this past weekend, when I participated in a walk of citizens in my riding against drunk driving.

In one case I met with two families who had tragically lost their two sons just over a year ago when a drunk driver ran into them. It was a youth offender, and these people were advocating for stiffer penalties for such a crime, a crime that had caused the deaths of their 16- and 17-year-old children.

Second, I met with the mother of a son who had been brutally beaten to the point of now being severely mentally disabled. This lady came up to me and thanked me for this crime bill. Her son now has lifetime disabilities and will never work and never function, and she said it was time for the people who perpetrated this on him not to get off scot-free for doing that.

What is the member's reaction to those kinds of victims in this country?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all have great sympathy for people who have gone through that experience, but one of the problems that comes from the Conservatives with this debate is the implication that somehow there are not any laws in existence, that somehow we are creating laws and that without this there is mayhem.

The fact is that we already have a very tough Criminal Code. We have a judicial system that allows discretion for judges to take into account individual situations. One of the problems with these bills is that they remove that discretion, so in actual fact we are making the system less responsive and less effective.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be in the House today to talk about the important changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are included in the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Since coming to power in 2006, our government has been working hard to ensure that Canadians can feel safe and secure in their communities. A key part of this ongoing work has focused on improvements to our youth criminal justice system. In particular, the government is taking action to strengthen the ways in which the system deals with serious, repeat and violent young offenders. My remarks today will focus on some of the key proposals that address those concerns.

First, the proposed amendments ensure that protection of society remains a key goal of the youth criminal justice system.

While the principles of the youth criminal justice system currently identify the long-term protection of the public as an objective of the act, the bill before us would make it clear that the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by holding young offenders accountable, by promoting their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and by preventing crime by addressing the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour.

A youth justice system that fails to protect society fails Canadians. Canadians have the right to be protected from crime, including youth crime, and the Government of Canada is committed to achieving that goal.

During our committee hearings on the former Bill C-4, some witnesses expressed the view that this change to the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act would move us toward a more punitive youth justice system and away from a system that emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration.

In fact, if members look at the full statement of principles in the amendment, it is clear that this is simply not the case. Indeed, the proposed amendment specifically states that rehabilitation, reintegration and crime prevention are key to the protection of society.

Furthermore, the bill also proposes amending the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding a fundamental principle of justice already articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, namely that the youth criminal justice system must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or diminished culpability.

Therefore, the proposed changes to the principles reflect a balanced approach that, together with the preservation of the existing principles, will guide those working within the youth criminal justice system to respond to youth in a more effective manner.

The proposed amendments also make important changes to the principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The amendments add specific deterrence and denunciation as principles to guide a judge in sentencing young offenders. Right now, deterrence and denunciation are not even included as objectives in youth sentencing decisions, even though many Canadians believe that young offenders' sentences should be designed to deter further offending and to send a message to that particular young offender before the court that criminal behaviour is simply not acceptable.

However, the proposed amendment would also make it very clear that a sentence must still be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence. That means, for example, that judges will not be able to give a young offender an extra-long sentence just to send a message to other youth that the unlawful behaviour was wrong.

Once again, in my view these changes, taken together with the existing principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, represent a balanced approach that will allow courts to respond to youth crime in an appropriate and effective way.

The package of reforms also includes several significant changes to the definition sections of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The amended act would define “serious offence” as any indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty in the Criminal Code or in another act of Parliament of five years or more.

This definition includes both property offences, such as auto theft and theft over $5,000, and violent offences, such as common assault, sexual assault and robbery.

Right now there is no definition of “serious offence” in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This new definition will have important implications for pretrial detention, and I will touch on them in a few moments.

The amendments also expand the meaning of “violent offence” under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The current scope of “violent offence” under the act was interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as including offences in which a young offender causes or attempts to cause or threatens to cause bodily harm, but not to include other offences that endanger someone's life or safety. An example is dangerous driving.

The proposed definition includes offences in which a young person actually endangers the life or safety of another person by creating the substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm. This new definition would have application in a number of areas, including the imposition of custodial sentences and the lifting of publication bans.

The proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act modify the restrictions on the use of custody as a youth sentencing measure. Apart from exceptional cases, currently a court cannot impose a custodial sentence on a young offender unless that young offender has committed a violent offence, failed to comply with previous non-custodial sentences, or committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, and also has a history that demonstrates a pattern of findings of guilt.

The proposed amendment pertains to the third circumstance, namely to cases in which a young offender has committed a non-violent indictable offence for which an adult is liable to more than two years in prison. The amendment would simply allow and give discretion to a judge to impose a custodial sentence in such a case if the youth's history demonstrated a pattern of findings of guilt or of extrajudicial sanctions or both.

This means that custody could be an option for a young offender who has been found guilty of a non-violent offence and who has in the past engaged in criminal behaviour for which the youth has admitted responsibility, but which was dealt with through extrajudicial sanctions. This simply allows the court to take the youth's full history into account to help determine the appropriate sentence.

The bill also creates a requirement that records be kept when extrajudicial measures are used by law enforcement, which will make it easier to find patterns of repeated reoffending that the police and others may take into account in deciding on appropriate interventions, such as whether to use another extrajudicial measure or proceed through the courts.

Changes to the publication provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act are also contained in this package of reforms. Currently the identity of a young offender is protected, and identifying information can be published only in limited circumstances; for example, the publication ban is automatically lifted if a youth receives an adult sentence. The publication ban could also be lifted by the judge in cases in which a youth has received a youth sentence for an offence that falls within a very narrow category of the most serious violent offences.

The new law requires judges simply to consider lifting publication bans whenever a youth sentence is imposed on a youth found guilty of a violent offence. The publication ban could be lifted, but only if the judge finds that the young person poses a significant risk of committing another violent offence and only if the lifting of the ban is necessary to protect the public. It will always be up to the prosecution to convince the judge that lifting the ban is necessary.

As the title of the bill indicates, the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act contained in the safe streets and communities act would make violent and repeat young offenders more accountable for their actions and better protect Canadians. This is what Canadians expect of their youth justice system, and it is an important priority for our government.

I ask all members of the House to join together with me and the government to focus on the concerns common to all Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what worries me most about my colleague's speech is that he fails to take note of or at least recognize or acknowledge that we have 30 years of empirical evidence to draw from as testimony to the predictable consequences and outcomes of the course of action that the government is taking.

I am making reference to the tough on crime initiative of the United States, which American legislators are now saying has been a catastrophic failure and not only a catastrophic failure but it is bankrupting the 50 states. They have been building prisons and stacking up prisoners like cordwood for the last 30 years, to the point where they had to privatize the prison system, bringing in Halliburton to provide jails and to feed the prisoners, and bankrupting states. The streets are no safer.

Is my colleague aware of the recent trend in the United States that has stopped building more prisons, stopped mandatory minimum sentences, and is putting the money that is saved into crime prevention, especially in the context of drug rehabilitation and in dealing with the mentally ill rather than locking them up, giving them treatment? Prevention rather than punishment is the trend.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments. I hope he was listening closely to my remarks.

The member will see in them an acknowledgement by me that in fact rehabilitation, reintegration and prevention are important measures. I know, because I have spoken to our justice minister, that those are also important measures to our government. In fact, our justice minister often remarks to me that we are the only party that actually has a balanced program which does take those things into account.

With regard to the American experience, I really hope that my friend has an opportunity to study our legislation because he will see it is entirely dissimilar to what the Americans have been doing for the last 30 years. Our legislation is targeted, focused only on the worst cases, the worst offences, and with nowhere near the kinds of consequences, in terms of three strikes and you are out, and lengthy imprisonments that the Americans have experienced.

He will see that what we are doing is really quite dissimilar from what the Americans have done.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government claims to want to provide good public administration, but despite all the bad experiences in the world, it insists on maintaining a partisan vision of its public administration. The government does not seem to realize that sending more people to prison in a questionable manner, while cutting preventive and alternative methods, inevitably comes with significant prison costs.

Can the hon. member for Kitchener Centre tell us whether he is in favour of increasing prison costs for the provinces?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to take issue with a comment made by my friend, although I will say:

I want to thank him very much for his question.

What he said, as I heard it, was that this legislation proposes to put young offenders or people in custody on doubtful grounds. I can only hope, once again, that the member opposite who posed that question actually takes a minute to look at the legislation. He will see that there is no such thing in this legislation. There is so no such thing as putting people in prison on doubtful grounds. In fact, in many cases all we are simply doing is giving judges the discretion to exercise that option.

I am happy to say that in total, since 2006, our government has succeeded in passing 19 criminal justice reform bills. They have all been solid and, in my opinion, essential in tweaking and improving our criminal justice system.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act. I support the sections of the bill that aim to protect children from dangerous sexual predators.

In fact, I have introduced legislation myself, Bill C-213, that makes it an offence for an adult to communicate with a minor by any electronic means. This bill would close a loophole in the Criminal Code that allows sexual predators to communicate with children by any electronic devices such as cellular phones or even the social media. This legislation would give more tools to the courts to address the issues of child luring and abuse.

These changes to the Criminal Code are long overdue. This legislation was first introduced in 2008 by my predecessor Dawn Black. I brought forward this legislation when I was first elected and I recently reintroduced it in this session. The government has not addressed this loophole in the Criminal Code for years now. The Conservatives want to use it as window dressing for building mega prisons.

The world has changed in three and a half years, with cellphone and Internet use exploding. During these years, the government has left children unprotected. The government should have taken swift action and moved on this bill but has instead included it in a highly controversial omnibus bill which has many problems associated with it.

The people of New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody want effective public safety policies from the government. Coquitlam has one of the lowest police-to-population ratios in British Columbia. The police are constantly being asked to do more with less and this crime omnibus bill will only exacerbate the problem.

If the government were serious about protecting neighbourhoods, then it would ensure that communities like Coquitlam have adequate funding for the RCMP. The federal government has yet to deliver on its 2006 commitment to fund 2,500 new RCMP officers and to sit down with municipalities to review their community policing needs.

I believe we need to focus on crime prevention. My riding has experienced gang violence, a prevalent issue in the lower mainland. We need to increase funding for youth gang prevention programs as well as the number of police officers on the street. We need to prevent kids from getting involved with gangs to begin with.

In my riding we have a very successful youth restorative justice program. One organization, Communities Embracing Restorative Action, has been working in my riding since 1999. It aims to provide a just and meaningful response to crime, rehabilitate people who commit crime and to engage the community. The organization also offers preventive programs, running an empowering youth program in local schools. The program is aimed at crime prevention to give young people tools and information before crime emerges, and to build strong and inclusive relationships at an early age. The program has grown to be successful and is an excellent alternative for working with our youth.

We also need to increase support to those suffering from drug addiction and mental health problems. This legislation would increase the overrepresentation of offenders with mental health and addiction problems in our prison system. Our prison system is already strained for resources and resource programs. Currently, only one in five inmates has access to programs for anger management and substance abuse. How will the prison system cope with an influx of inmates needing this treatment?

This is one of the key problems with this crime omnibus bill. It downloads an extra cost and burden to provincial and territorial governments. To date, there has been no analysis nor consultation related to the increased costs for enforcement and prosecution which will be downloaded onto the provinces and territories.

Paula Mallea from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives states:

The cost of the [government's] crime agenda will be colossal, and a large part of it (some say most) will be borne by the provinces, who are responsible for implementing whatever the feds pass. So provinces and territories (many of them in elections as we speak) will be expected to pay for additional courts, clerks, prisons, Crown Attorneys, judges, sheriffs, court reporters and so on.

In British Columbia, our court system is already strained. Our prisons are already overcrowded. According to the B.C. government employees' union that represents prison guards in British Columbia, says jails in the province are at 150% to 200% in overcrowded conditions. Also, understaffing and overcrowding is responsible for an increase in attacks on prison guards. The province of British Columbia closed nine prisons in 2003 and made cutbacks to the corrections system.

How are the provinces and territories to deal with an influx of prisoners who are sent to jail on mandatory minimums?

Growing even six marijuana plants would trigger an automatic six month sentence with an extra three months if it is done in a rental unit, or is deemed a public safety hazard. According to Neil Boyd, a criminologist at the Simon Fraser University, this legislation could increase the proportion of marijuana criminals in B.C. jails from less than 5% to around 30%.

Has the government taken this into account? Is this the best use of our resources? Has this been fully costed? Unfortunately, I think the answer is no.

One of the key concerns with this bill is the cost. When the Conservative government came to power in 2006, the federal corrections system cost nearly $1.6 billion a year. By 2013-14, according to the department's own projections, the cost of our federal penitentiary system will have increased to $3.147 billion. In 2010-11, more than $517 million will be spent on prison construction. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the total annual cost per prison cell is about $260,000, while a new high security cell amounts to about $600,000.

Aside from the cost associated with actually building prisons, the cost to incarcerate inmates is high. The average cost for a female inmate is about $343,000 per year. For a male inmate in maximum security the cost is $223,000 while medium security is $141,000 year. Even while out on parole the average cost per inmate is $39,084 per year.

The crime rate continues to decline. The crime severity index, which measures the seriousness of crime, also dropped to its lowest point since the measure became available in 1998. So why is the government putting forward such costly legislation when crime rates continue to drop? Why is the government pursuing tough on crime policies that have failed so miserably in other jurisdictions such as the United States?

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Much of this is the result of mandatory minimums and the so-called war on drugs. It has not made the United States a safer place. In fact, most evidence indicates that it has not deterred crime and could even lead to less safe conditions in prisons and in communities.

Just as the costs are expected to be a large burden on our provinces and territories, the costs have proven to be crippling for the states. For example, Texas has recently moved away from using mandatory minimums because the costs to the state were too high.

The bill is not based on evidence. The government has failed to produce information that its legislation to impose mandatory minimums and lengthen sentences would have any deterrence on crime. The Minister of Justice the other day is quoted as saying, “We're not governing on the basis of the latest statistics”.

It has been shown time and again that the government fails to understand the importance of statistics, facts and science. To put forward such costly legislation without having statistics to back it up is inappropriate. To put forward legislation based on failed U.S. policies is shortsighted. We need to be moving forward not backward.

Mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion and this is highly problematic. In some cases, it could lead to judges giving lesser sentences then they otherwise would because they need to rely solely on legislation for sentencing.

According to the Canadian Bar Association, there are concerns with several aspects of the government's proposed omnibus crime bill, including mandatory minimum sentences, an overreliance on incarceration, constraints on judicial discretion to ensure a fair result in each case, and the bill's impact on specific already disadvantaged groups.

While the bill has some parts that I am in favour of, it is only on a case-by-case basis.

My concern is that the government has mixed good legislation in with bad and plans to ram it through all at once. It is ineffective and expensive. I cannot support the bill as it stands.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the floor and I hope he has the opportunity to listen again to what he said because a great deal of it did not make sense.

On the one hand, he used statistics from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on the cost of prisons but he certainly did not talk about the real numbers that Corrections Canada provided, which are totally different.

He is talking about crime rates going down and more people going to prison. I can tell members that if people do not commit a crime, they do not go to prison. I do not know where all that comes from.

The member talked about megaprisons. I would like to know where that term came from and how he associates it to this, other than in something in the opposition side where the soft on crime approach is that we should not build prisons.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that building more prisons is something the government is focused on. We can easily make a connection with the United States policy where the Americans are building megaprisons. This is a trend toward that direction.

We should be focused more on prevention, putting our resources and focusing on prevention programs for individuals, especially young people, disadvantaged people and those who suffer from mental health problems and substance addictions. We should be addressing those issues and helping people who need that help in order to stay out of prison in the first place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that the member has put on the record. I especially liked the comments put on the record by the member for Mount Royal in terms of why it is that Bill C-10 is so fundamentally flawed, why it is that we need the government to take more of an aggressive approach in dealing with some of the causes of these crimes and why we are not doing enough to prevent crimes from occurring in the first place.

I am sure the member for Vancouver Centre would be aware that the Government of Manitoba has taken the position that the bill does not gone far enough. It surprised me, I must say, when it took that position.

Does the member believe that the additional responsibilities that would be given and the financial obligations from the provinces as a result of this legislation are totally unfair? Is he aware of any sort of consultation that has been taking place between the provinces and Ottawa with regard to these costs?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the biggest issues in this omnibus crime bill is the costs. There will be tremendous costs downloaded to our provincial and territorial governments. We are already hearing concerns from the provinces and territories about the bill and with the extent of the bill.

While there are some elements that are good aspects of this bill, the overwhelming majority is not something I can support. This is the wrong direction into which we need to be putting our scant resources.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, aboriginals, women and children are overrepresented in our jails. In fact, I have some numbers here. Aboriginal women are overrepresented in maximum security prisons specifically. They make up 46% of federally sentenced women. I wonder if my colleague could speak to the fact that they lack services and rarely get proper legal representation. The government is giving few resources to combat all these things and, in fact, Correctional Services' own statistics say that there has been no significant progress in this in the past 20 years.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to how this bill would not actually targeting the problem.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague. What is not addressed in this bill is a focus on prevention, a focus resources to those who need it most. That is where there are huge shortcomings in the bill and that is why I cannot support it.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-10, legislation that would further strengthens our government's already impressive track record of keeping our streets and communities safe.

The people of Mississauga South tell me every day, in letters, phone calls, as well as visits to my office, that they want this government to crack down on crime.

I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

The legislation before us today builds on this work which Canadians have given us a strong mandate to continue, the work of that impressive track record.

One very important component of our government's efforts to build safer streets and communities involves ongoing reforms to help ensure the system of corrections in this country actually works to correct offenders. I would therefore like to focus my remarks on this very important area.

I will begin with the victims of crime because, when it comes to our corrections system, they deserve to have their interests and concerns heard and know that their government is listening.

The current act clearly recognizes that victims of crime have an interest in the correctional process and yet victims and their advocates have expressed dissatisfaction with the current law. They have consistently called for improvements that would ensure a stronger voice in the process. This government has heard their concerns. We have listened and now we are acting on those concerns.

As it stands now, victims sometimes travel long distances to attend parole hearings, but if offenders withdraw their participation, the hearing could be cancelled at the last minute. This creates both a financial and emotional burden for victims.

The bill would remove the ability of offenders to cancel their parole hearings less than two weeks in advance, and victims would have the right to ask why the offender has waived that parole hearing. These measures would go a long way to preserving peace of mind for victims.

Bill C-10 would also enshrine in law a victim's right to attend and make statements at parole hearings. In addition, it would enable victims to request relevant information about an offender's time in custody, including reasons for transfer between institutions, or why they have been granted temporary absence and participation in their correctional plan.

Additionally, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would be amended to expand the information that may be disclosed to victims by CSC and the Parole Board of Canada. This includes providing information on the reason or reasons for offender transfers with, whenever possible, advance notice of transfers to minimum security institutions; disclosing information on offender program participation and any convictions for serious disciplinary offences; and providing guardians and caregivers of dependants of victims who are deceased, ill or otherwise incapacitated with the same information that victims themselves can receive. Such changes would help to ensure that the interests of victims are front and centre.

The second major area of reform relates to the responsibility and accountability of offenders. Additionally, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would be amended to allow for the establishment of incentive measures designed to promote offender participation in their correctional plan.

A successful transition to the community does not happen by accident or through wishful thinking. It demands that offenders play an active role in their rehabilitation. That is why the bill before the House stresses that rehabilitation is a shared responsibility between offenders and Correctional Service Canada.

Offenders would be expected to respect others, obey the rules and actively participate in fulfilling the goals of their correctional plans. To that end, each correctional plan would set out expectations for behaviour, participation in any programs and fulfilment of any court ordered financial obligations.

The third area of reform relates to the management of offenders and their re-integration into the community. In short, we need to do better so that we better protect law-abiding Canadians in all conditional release decisions. To that end, this legislation proposes to give police the power to arrest without warrant any offender who appears to be in breach of his or her release conditions.

Finally, the bill would automatically suspend the parole or statutory release of offenders who receive a new custodial sentence.

In the final area of reform, Bill C-10 would modernize the system of discipline in federal penitentiaries. Specifically, it would create in law new penalties for breaking rules, such as disrespectful, intimidating or assaultive behaviour, including throwing bodily substances. It would also restrict visits for inmates who have been segregated for serious disciplinary offences.

As we have heard, Bill C-10 proposes several fundamental reforms to the corrections and conditional release system to help ensure that our correctional system is actually correcting offenders.

The amendments that our Conservative government is proposing would enhance offender responsibility and accountability and strengthen the management of offenders during their incarceration and conditional release. These amendments would also modernize the system of disciplinary sanctions in federal correctional facilities and give victims the opportunity to request more information about the offender who has harmed them. All in all, the amendments would reinforce and build on the work already under way to strengthen the corrections and conditional release system.

Today we know that many of the offenders arriving in Canada's correctional system also arrive with histories of violent offences. More offenders than ever have gang or organized crime affiliations, and nearly four out of five now arrive at a federal institution with a serious abuse problem. In addition, an increasing number of offenders have serious mental health issues. Such changes in the offender population require a new approach to corrections and conditional release. That is why the government is moving forward with the proposals in Bill C-10.

The reforms being proposed would better serve victims by increasing the information that may be shared with them and guaranteeing their right to be heard at parole hearings. The proposed reforms would also help ensure that offenders are more accountable for their actions and so that their rehabilitation will be more effective.

These measures would also modernize the disciplinary system for inmates.

Further controls for offenders under community supervision are also being introduced.

I urge all members of the House to give their unconditional support for the bill for the sake of offenders who must take more responsibility for a successful transition into the community. I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-10 for the sake of crime victims who deserve a greater voice in the correctional system. I urge them to support the legislation before us today for the sake of corrections officers who have a right to a safe work environment.

I urge all hon. members to support this legislation for the sake of all Canadians. The protection of society is our top priority. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities. Victims deserve to be treated with respect, as do the guards in our institutions. Offenders must be prepared to take more responsibility for their conduct and pay the price if they break the rules.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would like to respond to a quote from the Canadian Bar Association with respect to the legislation:

The Bill’s approach is contrary to what is known to lead to a safer society.

The CBA believes that the Bill will make already serious criminal justice system problems much worse, with huge resource implications.

Perhaps the hon. member could comment on why that is so wrong.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government fundamentally disagrees that being tough on crime will not work to deter criminals. This is a very basic step in the process. I wonder whether the member opposite truly believes that allowing offenders to take more responsibility for their incarceration and for their conditional release is a good idea.

These laws are meant to improve on what currently exists, but more importantly, we are talking about protecting victims of crime. That is what Bill C-10 really wants to do. We are protecting victims of crime by putting in place tougher sentences.

I am wondering which part of this he does not agree with. Does he not want to protect the guards in the prisons? Does he not want to make their working conditions safer? These are the kinds of things that amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will do. I urge him to support these changes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from Mississauga South would agree that if longer prison sentences in and of themselves meant safer streets, the United States would have the safest streets in the world. The Americans lock up people at a higher rate than any other country. Even they have seen the folly in their ways. Would she not concede that the United States has now confessed that it was wrong and changed its practices and is dedicating more of the money it is saving by not building more prisons to prevention and substance abuse programs and treatment and rehabilitation? The U.S. is now enjoying a reduction.

Why are we borrowing billions and billions of dollars to build more prisons when we know full well it will not make our streets any safer? Is this not just a cheap pandering to the Conservatives' voting base?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, these measures address specific deterrents. When a criminal is in jail, the victim can no longer be victimized. That is whom we care about. We care about the victims. That is whom Canadians care about. That is why we are preventing sexual exploitation of foreign nationals. That is why we are eliminating pardons for serious criminal acts. That is why we are ensuring that young offenders are given the opportunity to properly be rehabilitated. If they have done the crime they should also serve the time as adults if necessary. We are giving the courts the options to deal with the crime without having to worry about how many spots there are in jail.

We are doing the right thing because--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Questions and comments. We have time for one quick question and a brief response. The hon. member for Winnipeg South.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have run in various elections going back to 2004. When I was on the campaign trail, with all the parties that are represented here in the House, I remember their referring to our crime measures in general as being needed. Whenever I was at a debate with candidates, they would talk about how we needed to get tough on criminals. Yet when they return to this place they revert to their leftist philosophy on crime, which unfortunately does not work. Canadians have spoken on it, and I am sure the member heard the same thing on the campaign trail.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do hear the same thing from my constituents in Mississauga South. They are concerned about crime. They are concerned about their children. They want safe streets and safe communities. That is what we are doing here. We are making sure that offenders serve the time and that when they are released, they are given the proper opportunities for rehabilitation.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-10.

As hon. members know, Bill C-10 contains provisions from various bills that were introduced in the previous Parliament, but unfortunately were blocked by the opposition.

The focus of my remarks today will be on the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act reflect what we as parliamentarians have been hearing from our constituents. They are concerned about the threat posed by violent young offenders as well as by youth who may commit non-violent offences but who appear to be spiralling out of control towards more and more dangerous and harmful behaviour. In talking to fellow Canadians, we have found that they can lose faith in the youth criminal justice system when sentences given to violent and repeat young offenders do not make these youth accountable for their actions.

The package of Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments also responds to issues raised during cross-country consultations, to key decisions of the courts, to concerns raised by the provinces and territories, and to the positions put forward by the many witnesses who appeared before the justice committee during its study of former Bill C-4.

The reforms reflect the widely held view that while the Youth Criminal Justice Act is working fairly well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes, there are concerns about the small number of youth who commit serious repeat or violent offences.

The proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are found in part 4, clauses 167 through 204, of the comprehensive Safe Streets and Communities Act. With a few exceptions, the proposed changes are the same as the changes that were proposed in former Bill C-4, also known as Sébastien's law.

Bill C-4 was introduced in the House of Commons on March 16, 2010 and was before the House of Commons justice and human rights committee, of which I am a member, when Parliament was dissolved prior to the May 2011 election.

As I have indicated, most of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions in the bill now before us were included in former Bill C-4. However, after Bill C-4 was introduced in Parliament, a number of provincial attorneys general expressed concerns about the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions dealing specifically with pretrial detention, deferred custody and supervision orders, and adult sentencing.

These concerns were raised directly with the Minister of Justice and were brought before the justice committee. The government has listened carefully to these and other concerns, and has responded by making the appropriate changes to the previous legislation.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, has already given the House a thoughtful and thorough description of the provisions that were found in former Bill C-4, I will specifically discuss the minor changes that are included in this version of the bill.

With respect to pretrial detention, the government recognizes that the current Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions are complex, leading to a varied application of the provisions by the courts.

Bill C-4 proposes a much more straightforward approach to pretrial detention that would have allowed courts to detain a youth awaiting trial if the youth was charged with a serious offence and the court found a substantial likelihood that, if released, the youth would either not appear in court when required to do so or would commit a serious offence while awaiting trial.

The provinces' primary concern with the approach of Bill C-4 was that pretrial detention would be available for youth charged with an offence that was not deemed to be a serious offence. They felt that this could prevent detention of a youth who, although currently charged with a non-serious offence, had a prior history of charges or offending and appeared to be spiralling out of control and thus was posing a risk to public safety.

I will be happy to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The member will have six minutes remaining for his speech when the House next considers this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will go back to the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert, who has six minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous comments, I was talking about Bill C-10 and specifically the portion affecting the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

On the old Bill C-4 from the last Parliament, the justice committee heard concerns from many of the provincial attorneys general concerning the issue of pretrial detention. I would remind the House that the primary concern of provinces with the approach of Bill C-4 was that pretrial detention would not be available to a youth charged with an offence that was not “a serious offence”.

The provisions in the current Bill C-10 address this concern. Under the proposed amendments, pretrial detention of a youth charged with a non-serious offence is possible if the youth has a history that indicates a pattern of either outstanding charges or findings of guilt and if the court finds that detention is necessary for the protection and safety of the public.

This change would allow for detention of so-called out-of-control youth who would pose a danger to society even if that youth were not presently before the court on a serious offence charge.

Moreover, the test for pretrial detention will be self-contained in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, without requiring reference to the Criminal Code provisions as is currently the case.

The second modification to the former Bill C-4 deals with the availability of the deferred custody and supervision order, which is a Youth Criminal Justice Act sentencing option that allows a young person who would otherwise be sentenced to custody to serve his or her sentence in the community under conditions. If those conditions are violated, the young person can be sent to custody.

Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, this order is not available as a sentencing option if the young person has been found guilty of a serious violent offence, currently defined in the act as an offence in the commission of which a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm.

The new narrower definition of a “serious violent offence” proposed in Bill C-4 would have expanded the scope of offences for which deferred custody and supervision orders would be available.

However, the provisions in the current bill include the new definition of “serious violent offence” and would also include a change to the amendments proposed in the former Bill C-4 in order to retain the current law on eligibility for these orders, meaning that a deferred custody and supervision order will not be available if the youth is found guilty of an offence involving either serious bodily harm or an attempt to cause serious bodily harm. I think members could agree with me that these modifications are an improvement over the former Bill C-4.

The third modification since Bill C-4 concerns the adult sentencing provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The amendments to the former Bill C-4 and contained in this new bill would require a prosecutor to consider seeking an adult sentence for young offenders 14 and older who committed serious violent offences. Prosecutors would also have to inform the court if they decided not to apply for an adult sentence for individual 14 or older who were convicted of a serious violent offence. When the Crown would apply for an adult sentence, the onus would have been on the Crown to convince the judge that an adult sentence was justified.

In part these amendments respond to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the case of R. v. D.B. that certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act violated section 7 of the charter. These presumptive offence provisions placed an onus on a young person found guilty of certain serious violent offences to justify receiving a youth rather than an adult sentence and to justify the continued protection of their privacy.

The proposed amendments remove the presumptive offence provisions from the Youth Criminal Justice Act as well as other inoperative provisions to clarify the test for the imposition of an adult sentence and ensure that the onus is on the Crown to satisfy the court as to the appropriateness of an adult sentence.

In the former Bill C-4 the proposed test for an adult sentence would have required that a judge be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an adult sentence was necessary. When we were consulting, a number of the provinces expressed the view that “beyond a reasonable doubt” was too high a standard to meet, was not required by the current case law and would make it significantly more difficult to obtain adult sentences in appropriate circumstances.

The current proposals remove reference to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that had been in the former Bill C-4, thus leaving it up to the courts to determine the appropriate standard of proof, as is the case under the current law.

I think all members of the House will agree that the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act included in Bill C-10 are the result of the widespread consultations and respond to the concerns of Canadians. Our government listened to our provincial and territorial counterparts, to provincial attorneys general, Canadians and victims and have made the necessary changes to this part of Bill C-10.

I think all members can agree that the changes I have described and outlined for the House are reasonable and responsive. I encourage all hon. members to support all parts of Bill C-10.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental elements of this omnibus bill obviously deals with the issue of mandatory minimums as a deterrent. Would my hon. colleague justify how this is to be a deterrent when it comes to mandatory minimums?

We have examples where in certain jurisdictions around North America the death penalty exists, yet their capital offence rates are much higher than jurisdictions that do not have the death penalty in place. When we see situations like that, we have to wonder whether mandatory minimums do serve as that deterrent? Perhaps my colleague can convince me that this is the case.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening to my speech, he would have know that I was talking specifically about changing amendments and provisions to the Youth Criminal Justice Act not to the minimum mandatory sentence provisions, which I suspect he might be referring to those who traffic in cannabis and other controlled substances.

However, notwithstanding the lack of relevance of the question toward my speech, I will attempt to answer it. Certainly, there are no provisions anywhere in Bill C-10 dealing with death sentences, nor ought there to be in my view.

Minimum mandatory sentences in appropriate circumstances do deter crime for one very simple proposition that appears to be lost on most members of the opposition, and that is an individual when incarcerated cannot commit further crimes.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced the safe streets and communities act as if the very title alone validates the legislation. It is presented to us as it is called res ipsa loquitur. The very title speaks for itself. If there is any doubt, the government repeats the mantra, as it is done over and over today, that it has “a mandate” for enacting the safe streets and communities act.

Every government not only has a mandate but an obligation to protect its citizens. As a government, we too spoke of safe streets and safe communities in our speech from the throne. Five years ago, in debate in this very House, I spoke as follows:

Safe streets and safe communities are the shared aspiration of all Canadians and the common objective of all parliamentarians and parties. No political party can claim that it alone speaks or cares for the safety of all Canadians or that it alone is legislating for that purpose.

The question then becomes this. What are the means that are chosen to bring about what we have defined as a shared objective of all governments and all parties, namely safe streets and safe communities? For example, we cannot enact unconstitutional legislation and say “These measures are necessary to protect safe streets and safe communities”. Nor can we justify bad policy through the repetition of the mantra about a mandate. Legislation has to be examined on the merits.

Accordingly this omnibus legislation, taken as a whole, because there are certain bills within that I would support if the good and the bad were not bundled together, reminds me of Gresham's law, that the bad drives out the good. This type of omnibus legislation will result in more crime and less justice at exorbitant and still undisclosed costs.

I will summarize some of the principal defects of the legislation.

First, even before this legislation was tabled, and this appears to be overlooked by the government sometimes, there was a serious problem of prison overcrowding, with some provinces already reporting 200% capacity. We know overcrowding leads to more crime within prisons and more crime outside prisons. The U.S. supreme court has found that overcrowding of 137% can even constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This legislation will only exacerbate the problem in Canada, both as a matter of policy and arguably even as a matter of the constitution.

Second, we need to talk about cost. Not only do we not know how much all these measures will cost, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that just one part of this bill will cost $5 billion. Canadians and Parliament have the right to all of the figures.

Third, we need to consult the provinces and territories, which will be assuming these costs, to the detriment of services, and ensure that the focus is also on crime prevention and not just on crime and punishment.

Fourth, bundling nine major pieces of legislation in one omnibus bill would not allow for sufficient and differentiated parliamentary discussion and debate let alone oversight of the legislation. This is a constitutional responsibility of parliamentarians particularly with the spending this bill has though the costs remain undisclosed. In effect, it would serve to undermine the parliamentary process.

If we ask the Canadian people if they are in favour of protecting victims and of safe streets, of course the answer will be yes. The question is how to achieve that. This bill would not achieve that. Rather, it would make things worse.

Fifth, the omnibus bill is about principles and priorities. At its core it is about values. If we spend billions of dollars on building unnecessary prisons while crime is receding and putting more people in prison for longer periods of time, that money cannot be used to invest in: a social justice agenda, child care, health care, crime prevention, seniors or social housing. At the end of the day, we would probably have more crime and less justice as a result of this bill.

The evidence demonstrates that the use of mandatory minimum sentences such as would be expanded by this legislation would not deter crime and would have a differential discriminatory impact on vulnerable groups. I particularly highlight the differential and discriminatory impact it would have on aboriginal people, where 34% of all women inmates are aboriginal, and unduly circumscribes judicial and prosecutorial discretion.

As has been mentioned in this debate, even U.S. conservatives now regard it as a failed policy that has caused the prison population to skyrocket while creating expensive megajails that have effectively become factories of crime.

Finally, the manner in which debate is being limited is an abuse of the parliamentary process if not an abuse of the democratic process. In effect, we are being asked to inhibit discussion with our constituents and almost silence or shut them out of the debate. This prejudices members of Parliament from all parties.

The Minister of Justice said that this bill and the bills contained within it were before us in the previous Parliament. There are many current members of the House who were not members of the House in previous Parliaments. Why should they not have a right to discuss this legislation? Why should we not solicit their input? Why should they not be able to consult their constituents? In effect, that is an abuse of the democratic and parliamentary processes and prejudices the very objective this legislation seeks.

I would call upon the government to rethink and revisit its approach with respect to procedure, principle and policy. This sets a disturbing precedent regarding parliamentary procedure as well as a disturbing principle regarding a matter wherein it seeks to enact criminal justice policy.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with the member for Mount Royal's substantive critique of the bill before the House. In my question I would ask him to address his complaints with respect to process.

I would emphasize that not only were the bills collectively given dozens of hours of debate in the previous Parliament, they were a central element in the electoral platform of the Conservative Party, which committed to passing these bills within 100 days of the resumption of a new Parliament.

For him to characterize the government maintaining its democratic commitment and executing its democratic mandate as somehow undemocratic denudes the term “democracy” of any meaning.

He said that all members should have an opportunity to debate. Of course we will have a debate. We will continue to have a debate on these matters. Every party and many dozens of members have spoken to the bill.

Let us be clear. The opposition will do everything it can to prevent the bill from passing. It is not interested in debate. It is interested in using dilatory tactics to prevent the adoption of the legislation, which is a core part of the government's democratic mandate.

He said that this is without precedent. I was in the opposition when his party invoked a time limit on debate dozens of times, so I think he is being a bit--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will stop the member there to allow the member for Mount Royal a chance to respond.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the architects of prorogation do not have any lessons to give us about the protection of parliamentary procedure and protection of parliamentary debate.

The notion as the minister has put it that these bills were all public through their introduction in the previous Parliament is no less problematic than it is demagogy. Not all of these bills made it through full deliberation and debate in the House let alone in clause-by-clause consideration in committee.

More important, there are new MPs on his side of the House as well as on this side of the House who deserve to have the right to participate in a debate on these bills, which they will not have a chance to do, to discuss it with their constituents and not have the mantra thrown at them: we have a mandate.

We all have a mandate for safe streets and safe communities. The question is how to achieve that mandate. It will not be achieved through this procedure.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member said that there are parts of the omnibus bill that the opposition agrees with. Would he tell us what the government could do with this omnibus bill if it were really interested in the security of victims and helping victims, if it were really interested in enforcing the laws of this country?

What could the government do to help speed up this omnibus bill?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first things it could do is to unbundle this legislation and allow for a differentiated consideration of each bill on its merit.

For example, let us take the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and related amendments to the State Immunity Act, former Bill S-7. I myself introduced a private member's bill on this issue. I support this legislation in principle, though it could be refined by way of amendment with respect to the issues in my private member's bill. This will not even get to the floor for discussion and debate.

At the end of the day, we will have a bill that provides civil remedies for victims of terror. I support that and many members in the House would support that. However, it would not be as good or as effective a bill as it could be without a differentiated study of it.

Similarly, with respect to the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, we could discuss and even approve that kind of bill in a very short period of time.

I can go through all of this legislation. However, in a word I am saying "unbundle" the bill. Allow every piece of legislation to be considered on its merits. Some bills can be fast-tracked because we will find consensus in the House with respect to the principles and the policies of the bills. Others will be properly amended and improved for the sake of the public and criminal justice, generally speaking.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the hon. members' contributions on Bill C-10. I am grateful to have the opportunity to join the debate.

As members know, in the spring of this year our government made a commitment that should Canadians give us their trust and return us to office we would swiftly reintroduce our legislation to make our families, streets and communities safer.

This bill includes a broad range of measures. It includes measures that crack down on drug dealers who target our children. It also includes measures to ensure that those convicted of a sexual offence against children will never be eligible to have their record suspended. It includes measures to get tough on violent young offenders. As well, it includes measures to increase offender accountability and provide stronger justice for victims.

There are several portfolios under which this legislation, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, falls. In addition to justice and public safety there is legislation in the bill that is part of strengthening Canada's immigration system. It is to those proposed changes that I would like to speak today.

Canada's immigration system is an important part of our identity, economy and society. I see these impacts every day in my great riding of Don Valley West. For those people who are applying to enter our country, Canada represents hope, safety and a new beginning. Unfortunately, some arrive here only to have their hopes and dreams shattered. For example, some temporary foreign workers are more vulnerable than others. We cannot turn our backs on them. That is why the Safe Streets and Communities Act includes measures that would prevent the trafficking, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants.

According to the provisions of Bill C-10, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism would have the authority to provide immigration officers with instructions for refusing a work permit. Instructions would be based on clear public policy considerations and would be supported by evidence that shows the risk of humiliating or degrading treatment. The instructions would not target specific work permit applicants directly. Rather they would apply to applicants of a particular occupation or a group of applicants who could be identified as vulnerable to abuse or exploitation.

The instructions would describe situations that could represent risks to an applicant and would set out the risk factors for officers to consider. They would also help define who would be considered vulnerable depending on the situation or context. For example, an individual applying to come to Canada as an exotic dancer might be refused a work permit because he or she may be vulnerable to abuse. However, the same individual might be granted a work permit if he or she applied to come to Canada to work in another occupation or a different situation that did not pose the same risk.

It is also important to note that this legislation only creates the legal authority to issue instructions. It does not establish any actual instructions. We anticipate that input from all members of the House will be forthcoming as these ministerial instructions are drafted. Their input is certainly welcome.

Without these amendments, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has no discretionary authority to deny a work permit to someone who meets all the requirements to enter Canada even if immigration officers believe there is a strong possibility of exploitation or abuse. The amendments we propose also include strong measures to ensure that the government is accountable for its use of the new authority. There will be accountability. Each time the minister issues instructions under the authority they must be published in the Canada Gazette. In addition, they must be published in Citizenship and Immigration Canada's annual report to Parliament.

Assessments by immigration officers would be made on a case-by-case basis and would take into account the public policy considerations set out in the ministerial instructions.

As I have already stated, these would need to be supported by evidence showing the risk of humiliating or degrading treatment. Furthermore, any decision by an immigration officer to refuse a work permit would need to be reviewed by a second immigration officer.

Canadians do not want an immigration system that can be used to victimize or exploit people. With this authority we can help protect vulnerable people from being brought into our country to face abuse and exploitation. Bill C-10 will protect the vulnerable from abuse.

Again, this action that would prevent the exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers is only one part of our comprehensive crime legislation that makes up the safe streets and communities act.

To recap, the legislation before the House would better protect children and youth from sexual predators; increase penalties for organized drug crime; end house arrest for serious crime, and thus prevent serious criminals from serving out their sentences from the comfort of their living rooms; protect the public from violent young offenders; eliminate pardons for serious crimes, such as sexual abuse against children; enshrine in law a number of additional key factors in deciding whether an offender would be granted a transfer back to Canada; support victims of terrorism; increase offender accountability and support victims of crime; and, as I have discussed here today, protect vulnerable foreign nationals against abuse and exploitation.

Parliament has already seen and debated a great deal of this legislation. None of it is a surprise. All of it is part of our important action to make Canada's streets and communities safer for law-abiding Canadians and their families.

We made a commitment to Canadians. Canadians gave us a strong mandate to follow through on that commitment, and that is what the safe streets and communities act is about.

I close by asking that the hon. members across the floor join our government as we work to keep Canadians safe by helping us to pass this important legislation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects of the crime bill that the hon. member did not appear to address in speaking about the bill.

One is that in the last Parliament, public prosecutors came to testify on the previous proposed provisions for mandatory minimum sentences for juvenile offenders. They testified that only 5% of all youth offenders are actually involved in violent crime and that it did not make sense to have a blanket approach to all youth offenders.

Second, there was a very sad incident in my riding this past summer. The alleged actions of someone who was mentally suffering caused the death of an elderly woman.

I would ask the member for his comments on the apparent rise in numbers of people with mental problems who are being sentenced for crimes instead of being re-routed before the crimes are committed, thus preventing the crimes. What is the response to that? Should we not be taking action to prevent people with mental problems from committing serious crimes, rather than jailing them?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly these issues go hand in hand. Our mandate is to make our streets and communities safer for our families. As the member experienced, in my riding we had three serious shooting events that clearly described the severity of gang violence and drug violence in communities today.

I understand her question on the mental health issue clearly. We have a responsibility to ensure that those questions are addressed as well, but our mandate is to deliver this bill. I would ask her to get on board with us and vote in favour of this bill so that we could take it to committee and deal with these issues directly.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member across the way for eloquently stating his ground. However, there was a point that I missed, and I would ask for clarification.

My colleague stated that the bill would help temporary foreign workers in Canada. He said that it would give the minister the right to extend their work permits. Then he went on to say that if there is an exotic dancer who applies and does not quality, then that person could apply for something else.

I wonder if the member is recommending to the people who want to come to Canada that they can shop around in how they could apply to come to Canada. That is what I understood from his wording. I am sure that if he looked through his speech, I think he might find that he made a mistake and might want to rephrase what he said.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will review my speech in due course, but clearly we want to protect the victims of abuse and take steps to ensure that newcomers to this country are not exploited or taken advantage of.

In the case of that one example, we know that those who come here are in a vulnerable state and could be placed in a position of untenable stress.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is outranked among western democracies only by the United States in terms of its high incarceration rate. Barring interventions, prison populations are expected to grow in the next decade by over 50%. I wonder if the member--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

We will get back to the member for Davenport. I am sure that members, and certainly the member for Don Valley West, will need to hear the question and comment.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association has a long list of reasons describing why overcrowding is detrimental to the rates of prisoners being able to be reintegrated into Canadian society. Overcrowding impairs reintegration efforts of offenders and contributes to rates of recidivism. It spends vast quantities of resources to warehouse inmates, with negative rather than positive impacts, diverts resources from treatment and cripples the ability of the system to deliver programs and treatments in a timely and appropriate manner.

What we are going to have is more overcrowding. What is there in the bill that solves these problems? Could the member answer that question?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member's question is outside the area I was speaking to today, but if we are going to provide safer streets and create crime bills that create deterrence, yes, there is going to be additional demand on our system. We are going to have to find resolution to living with that.

However, the mandate we have been given by the people of Canada is to provide safer streets for our communities and our families.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the member for Mount Royal, but he spent his entire opportunity to speak to the bill, which he said he did not have enough time to speak to, in explaining why he needed more time to speak to the bill. I am looking forward to having my opportunity to speak to Bill C-10, which I think does much for the people across this country.

Canada is a land of opportunity and freedoms, and we should not practise anything different. Many come to Canada to seek a better life but instead find themselves vulnerable to exploitation by employers. Found in vulnerable situations, they have no one to turn to. We should not let the vulnerable be exploited. We need to stand up for those who are being exploited by others.

I am speaking about one part of Bill C-10, which deals with preventing the trafficking, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants. It is former Bill C-56. Our government is making good on the commitment we made to Canadians. It is our duty to hold criminals accountable for their actions and to do everything we can to make our communities safe for law-abiding citizens who work hard and play by the rules. It is our duty not to let people take advantage of our generous immigration system.

People in St. Catharines have said that cracking down on criminals and making their community safer is one of their top priorities. People in Niagara and across the country want and deserve to be able to feel safe in their homes and communities, and that means criminals need to be kept off the street. I have heard my constituents loud and clear, and I will stand up and support the bill because they have asked me to do so.

The bill will not only keep our communities safe but will also ensure that vulnerable foreign workers who contribute to many of our communities are not exploited. As my hon. colleagues know, some temporary foreign workers may have weak language skills and very little money. They may have no family or friends in Canada and they may also fear the police and any level of government. This often puts them in a vulnerable position. With no one to turn to, their situation can place them at the mercy of those who wish to abuse them or exploit them.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I have conducted consultations with employers who rely on the temporary foreign worker program. Almost all of them treat their employees with the respect and dignity they deserve, but some of them do not. When we talk to employers who use the temporary foreign worker program and entreat individuals to come from another country to work in this country to help provide for their families back home and earn a living, it is clear that there are those in this country who do take advantage of temporary foreign workers who come to Canada.

Whether it is New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec, employers who love and use and understand this program have developed it into something that is respected around the world. In my view and in many employers' views, the program is actually the best foreign support program we could offer workers because of what it allows them to do in terms of bringing home the revenue they are able to make here. It helps their families, it helps their children go to school, it improves their lives with respect to their homes, and it ensures that their children get a college or university education.

It is the same employers who support this program who want us to crack down on the employers who take advantage of those individuals.

That is exactly what the bill would do. It is what this portion of the bill would allow us to move forward on. The bill would help us protect vulnerable foreign workers by giving immigration officers the authority to deny work permits to those who are at risk of humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation. The ability to deny work permits to vulnerable workers would enable the government to protect applicants by keeping them out of these types of situations.

Bill C-10 would actually alter the current objective in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 3. Instead of referring to protecting “the health and safety of Canadians”, it would refer to protecting “public health and safety”.

We are not just defining the bill anymore to Canadians. We are extending that obligation of employers and of our government to those who are here on a temporary basis to seek and find employment and work here on behalf of their families at home. We are doing this because the government believes that it is our responsibility to protect the health and safety of individuals who not only apply for Canadian citizenship and permanent residence, but apply to work here in our country legally.

We are committed to ensuring that Canada's immigration system continues to have a positive impact on our economy in society and that everyone who enters Canada has a fair chance to find what they are looking for, which is hope, safety and a new start. It does not make sense for the government to knowingly authorize vulnerable foreign nationals to enter into a potentially abusive situation. As the government, we will work to ensure that people who come to Canada can pursue their new lives without fear for their own safety.

Bill C-10 is an important step forward to that goal. If members share this goal, I ask them to support this legislation.

Preventing the trafficking, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants act would authorize immigration officers to refuse work permits to vulnerable foreign nationals when it is determined that they are at risk of humiliating or degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation or human trafficking. This is but one of ten, but a step in the right direction to accomplishing that.

I would also submit that we have seen the success of the program. Many employers across the country call this the best foreign aid program this country has to offer. We have temporary foreign workers who come here and are able to fulfill an obligation that they have to themselves and to their family to provide for a stronger future for their families in the countries they come from. Many of those temporary foreign workers who come here have told me about how successful this program has been and what it means to them. All of them feel that their employers treat them in a way that makes them feel they are part of the organization, part of the company, part of the extended family.

By putting this bill forward, we are not only suggesting to Canadians and to employers across this country that fair, humane and equal treatment is an obligation that we have, both under our Constitution and obviously under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it is an obligation that we are now extending not just to Canadian citizens, not just to permanent residents, but to those who come here to work under the conditions of a permit that they have met the obligations of, and have a chance to work for their families and for themselves, to put their children through school and to build a better life.

With this bill, we would be putting in place a system that would actually improve a program upon which, since the 1960s, we have built on in this country, that has been successful and that has proven to be successful. In fact, with the enhancements in a small part of this bill, we would be preparing and providing for them in a much stronger and better way than we already are.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for elaborating on one part of the bill that is before us.

I would like to ask two questions pertaining to two parts of the bill. First, what concrete measures will ensure that temporary foreign workers will not be exploited? And how will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration verify the working conditions of foreign workers to ensure that they are not being exploited?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second part of the question first.

Basically, our department, along with Human Resources and Development Canada, spends a great deal of time ensuring that those employers who seek to have temporary foreign workers assist them in their companies have it done in a manner that is clear and effective. Every employer must meet specific standards with respect to this issue. The department and the government, along with our provincial counterparts, ensure that is put into place.

In terms of the first part of the member's question, very specifically, Bill C-10 would alter the current objective within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Section 3(1)(h) would be changed from protecting the health and safety of Canadians to protecting public health and safety. This extends, specifically, the right to fair treatment and the right to the type of protection to which I spoke, not just to Canadians and permanent resident but to temporary foreign workers as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this particular bill is that the government has made a decision in its wisdom to say that it wants this, this and this. Those are all pieces that should have been separate pieces of legislation so that when the government brings forward individual pieces of legislation there is more legitimacy to the debate on the issue and the law that it is attempting to change.

There are many things that we could be doing in terms of amendments to the refugee and immigration laws.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recognize that there is so much more that could have been done had this been a stand-alone bill, which would have enabled all members to have a better engagement on what is a critically important issue across this country? In fact, there needs to be dialogue with provinces? Some provinces have actually made significant advancements on protecting the workers. Would the hon. member not agree with that?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the point the member is making. I compliment him on his appointment as critic for the third party at our citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism committee. I look forward to working with him on that committee.

The member understands. He was here for part of the 40th Parliament when we introduced and passed Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act and Bill C-35, the crooked consultants act, two pieces of significant legislation. In fact, I would argue that, aside from our budget, Bill C-11 was the most significant piece of legislation that this Parliament passed in the 40th Parliament. That legislation arrived in this House after second reading, went to committee, came back for third reading and was passed unanimously by the House.

I can let the member know that we have lots in this bill that we want to pass. We have passed quite a bit with respect to citizenship and immigration. There is a lot more to come.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is very much a rural riding. In that riding, from one end to the other, we have the great use of the temporary foreign workers programs. It is so significant and so important to our farming community, whether it is apple orchards or greenhouses. I have been to a number of those farm operations. The care that these operations provide for their temporary workers is just immeasurable, quite honestly, and they are the ones I want to compliment.

However, these operators are also concerned about those who do not have protection. They want to ensure that, when a bill goes through, it will actually offer protection so that no foreign worker is being exploited. Would this bill fulfill that need?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this issue, time and again the member has come to speak to me about the good work that the employers in his riding are doing and about the importance the put on the treatment of foreign workers in his community.

I want to assure the member that from a department perspective we will continue to work at that. As a government, we show support to those employers who want to follow the rules and ensure that this program works but for those who do not they will pay substantially for it.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-10, the Conservative government's omnibus crime bill. Sadly, I only have 10 minutes to make my remarks, which is wholly inadequate for offering an in-depth analysis of each section of the 110 page bill.

However, since this is second reading, the stage in a bill's passage during which all members are charged with providing feedback to the government on the principles of the legislation before us, I am confident that I can at least do that within the allotted timeframe.

I will begin by stating what ought to be obvious. All members in the House, regardless of political party, agree that serious crime requires a serious response. There is absolutely no debate here. However, we also need to remember that the iconic statue of justice holds a scale in her hand for a reason: justice requires balance. It is that balance that is lost in the bill that is before us today.

My NDP colleagues from Windsor—Tecumseh and Vancouver Kingsway have already articulated the fact that the bill puts wedge politics and ideology ahead of facts and evidence. It is a point that bears repeating.

It is absolutely true that we have three years of evidence now to prove that the violent crime rate in Canada is falling dramatically. We also know that there is not a single empirical study in Canada, or any other democracy for that matter, which proves that incarceration is an effective deterrent.

On the contrary, by imposing mandatory minimums on young offenders and therefore sending them to jail for longer periods of time, we will be creating more recidivists, not less. A government policy that turns young offenders into hardened criminals surely must be seen as completely undermining the goals of any criminal justice reform.

Equally absurd is the part of the bill that mandates less jail time for a child rapist than someone being charged with growing pot. The omnibus legislation would impose a one year mandatory minimum for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of those offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land. A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him or someone who exposes himself to kids at a playground would receive a minimum 90 day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

I do not think there is a single constituent in my riding of Hamilton Mountain who would agree with either that approach or that outcome. However, that is what we get when, instead of looking at the Criminal Code as a whole, exploring reforms systematically and ensuring that the same sentencing principles are applied in all sections of the code, we have a government that simply lumps a whole bunch of pre-election promises together in an act of political expediency. Ideologically, the government may want to be seen as being tough on crime but effective criminal law reform requires us to be smart on crime. Bill C-10 fails that test completely.

The Canadian Bar Association would concur with my assessment. The association made a specific comment on the minimum sentencing provisions of the bill by pointing out that they fail the mentally ill, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor. Mandatory minimum legislation will simply clog the courts and fill Canadian prisons with vulnerable segments of the population. As a result, the Bar Association is calling on the government to reverse course and to allow judges leeway in applying mandatory minimums so that they are not imposed when it would be cruel or inappropriate.

The CBA is spot on. It leads me to ask my Conservative colleagues why they are so intent on imposing a straitjacket on Canadian judges by so aggressively pursing mandatory minimum sentencing. Justice requires the ability to differentiate between similar offences when they are committed under completely different circumstances. I am not saying that judges are perfect. They are human and might on occasion make mistakes. However, they enjoy the confidence of the vast majority of Canadians. They are highly educated and highly trained and, therefore, are much better equipped to determine appropriate sentences than any of us here in the House. I suggest that we allow them to do their jobs.

There is a particular irony in the timing of the proposals contained in the bill with respect to mandatory minimums. While I appreciate that their genesis lies in the tough on crime and drugs approach adopted decades ago by the United States, the Conservatives are choosing to emulate that agenda at precisely the time that it is being discredited south of the border, even by Republicans, as an exorbitantly expensive failure.

I will begin with the obvious. I want to reiterate the succinct statement made by my colleague the member for Kings—Hants:

If putting more people in prison for longer periods of time created safer communities, American cities would be the safest in the world, because nobody incarcerates more people than the Americans.

U.S. conservatives are now recognizing their folly. Even Newt Gingrich, the right-wing Republican former speaker, is on the record now acknowledging that longer prison terms have not been effective deterrents. In an editorial to The Washington Post he wrote:

Our prisons might be worth the current cost if the recidivism rate were not so high, but, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, half of the prisoners released this year are expected to be back in prison within three years. If our prison policies are failing half of the time, and we know that there are more humane, effective alternatives, it is time to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners.

He then went on to praise Texas as a state that has reduced its prison population while keeping the public safe. He wrote:

Several states have shown that it is possible to cut costs while keeping the public safe. Consider events in Texas, which is known to be tough on crime. Conservative Republicans joined with Democrats in adopting incentive-based funding to strengthen the state's probation system in 2005. Then in 2007, they decided against building more prisons and instead opted to enhance proven community corrections approaches such as drug courts. The reforms are forecast to save $2 billion in prison costs over five years.

The Lone Star State has already redirected much of the money saved into community treatment for the mentally ill and low-level drug addicts. Not only have these reforms reduced Texas's prison population - helping to close the state budget gap - but for the first time there is no waiting list for drug treatment in the state. And crime has dropped 10 percent from 2004, the year before the reforms, through 2009, according to the latest figures available, reaching its lowest annual rate since 1973.

Canada should heed the experience south of the border and it should heed the advice of Gingrich, who himself entered into this debate primarily because of the exigencies of rising budget deficits.

Here in Canada, we appear to be on the brink of another recession and instead of investing in people and jobs, the Conservatives announced that they are seeking $4 billion in annual savings. Clearly, the government is not seeing the forest for the trees.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is estimating that this new crime bill could double the annual prison costs from $4.4 billion to $9.5 billion in five years. That is an increase of $5.1 billion, while they are looking for savings of $4 billion in program costs elsewhere.

I would urge the government to put this question to Canadians: Do they support the doubling of prison costs at the cost of reduced benefits in other programs? Or would they rather see that money continue to be spent on health care, job creation, employment insurance, adequate pensions, and education for their kids?

I think the Prime Minister knows the answer and that is why he is not going to the Canadian people to offer them that choice. Instead, he is paying a private consultant $90,000 a day to find savings in other programs just so he can pay for his ideological priority of building more jails. It is absolutely absurd.

Let me end where I started. I talked about the scales of justice and their symbolic call to all of us to strive for balance. I would therefore be remiss if I did not acknowledge that there are parts of this bill that I do support.

I do support the initiatives to protect children from exploitation including sexual assault. In fact, two of the new offences that this bill targets came from NDP private members' bills relating specifically to communicating for the purposes of luring a child. As I said before, we part ways when the government's solution focuses simplistically on creating additional mandatory minimums.

I also agree with putting victims rights into law. I would argue that this is long overdue.

I supported legislation in the last Parliament that blocked Karla Homolka from getting a pardon.

However, the additional changes proposed to the pardon system in this bill are neither rational nor evidence-based and they fail to put public safety first. That, to me, must be the basis for evaluating the entire omnibus bill. Failing that test, I cannot possibly vote in favour of the current bill.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague is aware of a recent article by Mr. Peter Blaikie who is one of the founding partners of the well-known Montreal law firm, Heenan Blaikie, and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. In an article on August 2 in The Gazette he stated:

A civilized, effective system of justice should have two overriding objectives: to protect society, perhaps forever, from the truly dangerous and, while punishing the others, using every possible effort to rehabilitate them, turning them into productive citizens. The government’s approach, in effect and almost certainly in intention, reverses these objectives. It is all stick and no carrot. It even abandons the highly successful, self-sustaining, century-old program of prison farms, which taught generations of inmates critical life skills.

I would like her comments on this.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, when people actually start to look at the legislation, it is incredible how many are astounded at the lack of balance in the omnibus crime bill.

The member is absolutely right. It is always delicious in the House when a member quotes another Conservative and I appreciate him doing that. It is perhaps one of the more fun moments that we get to enjoy in this place. However, it is an important piece of legislation and we should not make light of it.

The reality is that this bill does nothing for the victims of crime in terms of preventing crime from happening in the first place. If we are serious about wanting to help victims, we have to ensure they do not get victimized in the first place.

I would have liked to have seen provisions for expanded programs to deal with mental health issues, poverty, and all of the root causes of crime. Of course, none of that is in there. Instead, we are downloading prison costs to over-burdened provinces that cannot possibly deal with the additional demands that are made on their prison system.

As I said at the outset, there is absolutely no balance in the bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I understand the political jousting that consists of vilifying the opposition by saying it plans to vote against certain parts of the bill, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this bill's general approach. It seems to pit victims and offenders against one another, as though each of these groups could not find within a bill any essential elements to improve safety.

I feel as though the government is creating a false sense of security with this bill. On the one hand, by imposing minimum sentences without coming up with any solutions to rehabilitate offenders, once those sentences are over, we will be no further ahead.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right, there is nothing in the bill that talks about investments in rehabilitation.

As I said in my speech, all of us in this House, no matter which side of the floor we sit on, believe that serious crimes must be dealt with seriously. There is absolutely no disagreement. We all want our communities to be safe communities. However, let us look at the crime statistics. We know that crime has gone down over the last 20 years successively. That is true both for property crimes and for things like murder and assault.

The member is absolutely right to point out that what we need to do when we are dealing with the criminal justice system is to, first of all, deal with it holistically. We need to ensure that we deal with both the criminals and the victims in a way that is fair, that allows for rehabilitation in our prison system, and that we are not just adding cost without any benefit in creating a better justice system.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have enough time for one brief question and one brief response. The hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have been hearing over and over when it comes to everything else that the government talks about is cost. The Conservatives talk about it being costed in their election platform and costed here and there. However, there is absolutely nothing coming from the Conservatives that relates to the cost of the bill. Our justice critic has put the question to the minister and we did not get an answer. I would like to hear the member's comments.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury was here in the last Parliament when the Conservative government actually denied us access to the costing of its previous round of crime bills.

We know that prison costs are up 86% since the Conservatives took power. By 2013-14, the federal prison budget will almost double to over $3 billion. This evidence exposes a real question of priorities. If the government is belt-tightening everywhere else, why is the opposite true here?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Hon. members will know that over five years ago our government made a promise to Canadians. We pledged to keep them safe and secure.

This bill builds on the work our government has already undertaken to more fully hold offenders to account for their actions and to stand up for victims.

Victims have always been central to our government's crime reduction agenda. With that in mind, I would like to devote my remarks today to discuss a very important component of Bill C-10 which deals with victims of terrorism.

The threat of terrorism is a reality for Canadians. It is not a distant concept or something that only happens in far corners of the globe.

The reality is that terrorism can happen. It has happened right here on our soil and Canadians can be, and are, also targeted by terrorist organizations when they are living, working, and travelling in other countries.

Since September 2001, 195 Canadians have fallen victim to terrorism. This year, on the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, we remember the 24 Canadians killed that brutal morning.

In 2002, two Canadians were killed in the Bali bombings. Another individual killed by terrorists in Indonesia that day was my friend, Peter Record, a 32-year old British citizen. Peter was like any typical Canadian. He liked the outdoors, he enjoyed a pint of ale, but instead of hockey was a big rugby fan. Peter and I worked together in Hong Kong, and on that tragic day in 2002, he was vacationing in Bali when he was killed by a bomb. For me, this is a striking reminder that a terrorist attack is not something that only happens to the friends and families of others. Indeed, this is a global threat and Canada must do its part to protect its citizens.

In 2003, a year later, two Canadians were killed in the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. A Canadian diplomat was killed in Afghanistan in 2006 in an attack on a Canadian convey. Two years later, in 2008, four Canadians were killed and injured in the Bombay attacks, and another two Canadian aid workers were ambushed and killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In 2009, an explosion in Kandahar City claimed the life of a Canadian journalist. More recently, in 2011, two Canadian citizens were killed in a café attack in Morocco. One hundred and fifty seven members of the Canadian Forces have been killed combatting terrorism while serving in the Afghanistan mission.

To this day, terrorism continues to threaten the lives of innocent citizens in Canada and around the world. A number of international and domestic extremist groups are present in Canada. Some engage in terrorist activities here or support terrorism beyond Canada's borders. Some have worked to manipulate or coerce members of Canadian society into advancing extremist causes hostile to our nation and our nation's values. Terrorism is a serious and persistent threat to the security of Canada and its citizens.

This government is committed to protecting Canada from terrorism and keeping its citizens safe in their communities. Ensuring the safety and security of all Canadians is a commitment our government takes seriously.

The bill before us today is another important initiative to strengthen our country's national security network.

Bill C-10 would complement our exiting counterterrorism measures by deterring terrorism, responding to the needs of victims of terrorism and demonstrating Canada's leadership in acting against the perpetrators and supporters of terrorism around the world. Indeed, Bill C-10 would constitute another important instrument in our efforts to deter this global threat.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide members with an overview of the provisions contained in Bill C-10, which pertain to victims of terrorism and explain how our government proposes to respond to their needs.

To achieve these goals, Bill C-10 would allow victims of terrorism to sue, in a Canadian court, perpetrators of terrorist acts and their supporters, provided the victims could demonstrate a real and substantial connection between their actions in Canada.

Specifically, Bill C-10 would allow victims of terrorism to file a court case against perpetrators of terror, such terrorist entity listed under the Criminal Code, or other persons or organizations that carried out a terrorist attack. In addition, a legal case could be brought against individuals, entities or listed states which provide and support to a terrorist entity.

If the loss or damage occurs outside Canada, there must be a real and substantial connection to this country. This legislation would be retroactive to January 1, 1985, in order to allow victims of terrorism to seek redress for loss and damage that occurred as a result of a terrorist act committed anywhere in the world on or after that date. Allowing victims to terrorism to sue for past events would send a message to perpetrators and supporters of terror that Canada would hold them liable for their actions.

To allow for legal action against listed states, Bill C-10 would amend the State Immunity Act to lift the immunity of states that were supporters of terrorism. Lifting a state's immunity is a decision that cannot be taken lightly, as it may have significant impacts on Canada's international relations, interests and foreign policy.

This bill would create a robust mechanism for determining whether a foreign state should be listed as a supporter of terrorism. The Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, would be able to add a state to the list if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the state supported, or had supported, a terrorist entity listed under the Criminal Code.

Using the list of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code is an adequate criterion to justify the listing of a foreign state since the Criminal Code list is determined through a rigorous analytical process. There are currently 44 listed entities.

Let me assure members that the government will take all the appropriate precautions to minimize any potential negative impact on Canadian trade, or foreign relations or threats to Canadian personnel, interests and citizens abroad when listing and delisting states.

Bill C-10 would also establish a review mechanism to ensure the timely removal of states from the list if they were determined to no longer support terrorism. Here, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, would review the list every two years to determine whether a state should remain on the list and whether other countries should be added to the list.

Also, a listed state could apply to be removed by submitting a written application to this effect. Once this application was received, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety would decide whether there were reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor-in-Council that the state no longer be listed.

Bill C-10 would do more than just create a cause of legal action for victims of terrorism. It would also allow plaintiffs who had received a judgment in their favour to request assistance from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety in identifying and locating in Canada the property of a foreign state against which a judgment had been rendered. Such assistance would have to fall within the mandates of those ministers and would be provided to the extent reasonably practical, unless doing so would be detrimental to Canada's interests.

These provisions would strike a balance to allow the Government of Canada to help victims in real and tangible ways, while safeguarding Canada's standing in the international community.

Finally, Bill C-10 also calls for the recognition of foreign judgments by Canadian courts in favour of victims of terrorism.

Bill C-10 is yet another indication of our determination to give victims not only a voice, but legal means to seek justice against those who caused them harm. This is the latest tool in our growing arsenal to deal with the threats of the safety of Canadians both here at home and abroad.

I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-10 in order to provide justice for victims and punishment for terrorists perpetrators and supporters of terrorism.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech and ask him a question.

I am aware of the work that he did previously as the president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. One of my biggest concerns about Bill C-10 is the fact that we do not know how much it will cost the provinces. We do know that the bill will cost the federal and provincial governments a significant amount of money, particularly because of minimum sentences.

Can the hon. member give us an idea of how much will be covered by the provinces and how much will be covered by the federal government, and can he tell me what he thinks of a government that cannot give us an answer in this regard?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question does not really address the issues I have raised today, but let me touch on it nonetheless. It is clear there is a cost to society when crime is allowed to happen and is not deterred. Our government is simply taking steps to reduce crime thereby saving society money.

I will touch on the comments by the Minister of Justice earlier today. It is ironic that the only time the official opposition seems to be concerned about spending initiatives is when it comes to the protection and safety of Canadians.

Regarding this aspect of Bill C-10, this measure would give rights to the victims of terrorism to seek help or redress in the courts. This is not an area that will end up costing the Government of Canada huge sums of money. We are acting to facilitate victims of terrorism so they can seek justice in our courts for what happens here or around the world.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is in a similar vein to the previous one. I know the member is an economist, but he also used to work for an organization that took every opportunity to be against higher government spending in favour of lower taxes.

Bill C-10 involves higher government spending, not the usual kind that is explicit and honestly stated, but hidden government spending. We have a situation where it may be $3 billion, or $10 billion or whatever numbers of billions of additional expenditures on prisons and the government refuses to give us any idea of what that additional cost is.

I have nothing against most of what the member said in terms of the ability of victims of terrorism to sue, that does not even cost much money, but the overall bill costs an unknown number of billions of dollars possibly ranging into tens of billions. Therefore, one might like something if it costs $1 billion, but not like it if it costs $12 billion.

How can the member possibly justify the government giving no information to Canadians on the cost of this legislation?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the group I used to work for, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, was primarily opposed to wasteful government spending, which is an altogether different thing than opposing all government spending.

On that note the member has a valid point. For example, the long gun registry sounded like a great idea when we were told it would cost $2 million, but when the price tag hit $2 billion, suddenly Canadians no longer agreed with it. The member is correct. Governments can waste money and often do.

Again, when it comes to the bill, documents were tabled that outlined some of the costs, but we also want to step back here. The Minister of Public Safety has pointed out in the media that his own department thought some of the provisions we enacted would increase the prison population to 16,000 when it had gone to 14,800. By getting tough on crime, it is the repeat offenders who are serving time in jail longer as opposed to us locking up more and more Canadians, which seems to be a concern of the opposition.

This is a reasonable bill, which addresses the concerns of Canadians. Yes, there is a cost to it, but there is a greater cost to society when government sits back and allows crime to happen without it being punished.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, The Environment; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Poverty.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the sweeping omnibus crime bill tabled by the government will have one clear result, and that is thousands more will be incarcerated, billions more will be spent on prisons and aboriginal Canadians will be most at risk.

This “jail everyone” policy shift contradicts testimony by experts and sound recommendations from countless national reviews on how to reduce the number of aboriginals committing crimes or who are the victims of crime.

While only 3% of Canadians are aboriginals, they constitute 22% of prison populations, nine times the national average.

I cannot even hear myself speak, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Edmonton—Strathcona has the floor. I am sure that members will be interested to hear. It is difficult to do that when there is so much noise in the chamber.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the caustic comments coming back at my request for consideration.

This policy shift to jail everyone contradicts testimony by experts and the sound recommendations from countless national reviews on how to reduce the number of aboriginals committing crimes or who are the victims of crime. While only 3% of Canadians are aboriginal, they constitute 22% of the prison populations, nine times the national average. In 2008, one in four people identifying as aboriginal was in provincial or territorial sentence custody. In Nunavut, prisons are so crowded prisoners are sent away from the community to serve their sentences. They are dislocated from any community support. The long-standing housing shortage in Nunavut may soon be perversely solved through expanded jails.

Yet only 2% of the federal prison budget is spent on aboriginal programs. While the Canadian Human Rights Commission decries the government's failure to offer rehabilitation for aboriginal inmates, the government continues to cut effective programs, including prison farms and healing circles.

National Chief Shawn Atleo has told us that aboriginal high school students are more likely to be incarcerated than to graduate. Aboriginal youth face a 14% unemployment rate. Aboriginal women suffer more than twice the rate of unemployment than non-aboriginal Canadians.

The Samson Cree first nation faces an unemployment rate of 53%, high levels of substance abuse, marked increase in gang activity, and among the highest rates of incarceration per population of any first nation in this country.

A task force of first nations, RCMP and government agencies examined the root causes and recommended a number of measures. At the top of the list was a youth centre to stream vulnerable youth away from the incubating of gangs, yet they were told the government does not fund recreation centres for aboriginals.

Aboriginal women make up a whopping one-third of women in custody. Federal correctional investigator Howard Sapers has reported systemic discrimination against aboriginal women prisoners. He has reported that they do not receive timely access to rehabilitation programs which hinders their community integration. Given the percentage of women imprisoned, that is likely having a significant impact on aboriginal communities.

Anyone who commits a crime must face justice, but is it not equally important to take action to prevent involvement in criminal activities?

As the majority of prisoners are released back into the community, and as the intended result of this legislation is to imprison more people, is it not important that greater attention be given to rehabilitation programming? Is that not important to reduce the risk of reoffending and thus reduce more victims of crime? Instead of building more jails, why not invest more in education and job creation for aboriginal Canadians?

Aboriginal people are also victims of crime and deserve informed, effective strategies to protect their communities and their streets.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2009, 37% of aboriginals age 15 or older in the provinces have suffered violent victimization compared to only 26% among non-aboriginals. Twelve per cent of aboriginal people have been victims of violent crime compared to 5% of other Canadians. In 2009, 67,000 or 13% of aboriginal women reported being a victim of one or more violent crimes. The number of aboriginal women reporting incidents of spousal violence was two times more than non-aboriginal women. The number of missing and murdered aboriginal women continues to rise.

In assuming the portfolio as aboriginal affairs and northern development critic for my party, I have taken the time to review reports by the Auditor General. Sixteen reports over two decades have raised significant issues regarding the federal response to rising aboriginal health, housing, education and employment disparities. Aboriginal affairs reports that aboriginal people are four times more likely to live in crowded dwellings and in poor conditions.

Sheila Fraser advised that she was profoundly disappointed to note that despite federal action in response to her recommendations, a disproportionate number of first nations people still lacked the most basic services that other Canadians take for granted. In her words, “In a country as rich as Canada, this disparity is unacceptable”. She called for action on structural impediments to services. Nowhere in her report does she call for the construction of yet more prisons to address this disparity.

The government has committed, under the Canada-First Nations Joint Action Plan, to address disparities in education, jobs and governance. It is unclear whether similar commitments will be extended to Inuit and Métis Canadians. The question to ask is, what new fiscal commitments are being made to deliver on these promises?

The government has yet to table in the House the projected costs of the prison expansions needed under Bill C-10. It has also not yet revealed if there will be cuts to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In the last budget the government cut support for the healing centres. As many provinces are facing significant deficits, the downloading of prison expansion costs will have implications for their programs, such as for addictions and fetal alcohol syndrome.

Alberta already has faced public displeasure over the decision to cut its restorative justice program. Municipalities are begging for support for housing. Sadly, a good percentage of the Edmonton murders recently are related to mental health and homelessness. One victim was murdered as he slept on a bench. He was slated to move into his first home the next day after 20 years of living on the street.

The situation in which far too many aboriginals find themselves growing up fosters criminal activity and abuse. Why not respond to the myriad commission reports calling for increased investments in housing, in youth programs, in schools, and addictions counselling, and reduce the probability of yet more victims of crime? Why not invest in programs that may provide a ray of hope instead of legislation and policies that merely entrench despair?

The Auditor General and many others have offered constructive measures. It is time for the government to respond.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member will no doubt know that the City of Edmonton is currently facing a murder epidemic. There have been 38 murders in the City of Edmonton in this calendar year alone, more than in any other city in Canada. I am curious as to why she and her party are opposed to the government's safe street and communities agenda, given that crime is out of control in the city in which both she and I live?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the murder rate in my city and it is reprehensible. What Edmontonians want is action by the federal government and all governments, including the police forces and all government departments and agencies to prevent more violent crime. It provides little redress to the victim of a crime that we are going to incarcerate somebody after the fact.

As I mentioned, there is the very sad case of a mentally troubled individual allegedly causing a fire in a building and causing the death of someone. A number of homeless people are being murdered on the streets as they are sleeping. This calls for a much broader response than simply locking people up on a minimum mandatory sentence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sensitive to many of the comments made by New Democratic members on this bill. However, in the September 21 issue of the Winnipeg Sun, I was quite surprised to read the NDP government's position on this bill. Gord Mackintosh, whom I have known personally for a number of years, stated that they strongly urge all parties in Ottawa to support this crime bill and to support it expeditiously. In fact, Mr. Mackintosh indicated that the bill does not go far enough.

Has the NDP government caucus in Manitoba had any consultation with the member's caucus as to what its position actually is on Bill C-10? Could her party share with the House what those costs might be, for example, in the province of Manitoba?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of my caucus who are from Manitoba regularly speak to their provincial counterparts. I would not deign to step on their toes. I am busy enough dealing with the Alberta government.

I cannot speak to the details on that question except to say it is a pretty broad-brushed question to ask what further can be done in all the provisions of the bill. My colleagues have been very clear on the parts of the bill we do support, and that is to expedite the provisions relating to the protection of children from pornography and assault, and in fact to hold off on measures such as mandatory sentencing for youth who might be caught with five marijuana plants.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, mandatory minimums, which have been universally condemned by everyone with expertise in public policy and criminology, have now had an additional criticism laid against them from evidence in the United States. The New York Times reported on September 25 that mandatory minimums are now increasing plea bargains, that prosecutors are taking all the powers that judges used to have and it is actually resulting in criminals getting lighter sentences than they would have had, had their cases gone to trial.

I would be grateful for any comments from the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues stated earlier, many in the U.S. government, both at the state and the federal levels, are raising questions about the past policies of the U.S. government and are moving toward the kind of measures we are proposing which are to prevent crime.

Indeed, we need to reconsider the elected members making the decisions on what the appropriate sentence should be and instead rely on the judges and prosecutors who hear the details of each case.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the excellent speech of my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona brought forward what is truly one of the parts of this legislation which the government has failed to talk about, which is the impact on aboriginal people.

Certainly my colleague has explained this at length, but I would like to hear more about how this legislation leaves out people who are often the most negatively impacted as a result of the inequality that exists in our society. They often end up in the correctional system without the services, without prevention, and without the needed supports. Obviously it is a major gap and we hear nothing about this from the government. It has a fiduciary obligation to first nations and aboriginal peoples.

I would certainly like to hear from the member how the government is letting go of that obligation and leaving aboriginal people out in the cold.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Churchill has been strident in the House in speaking on behalf of the rights and interests of aboriginal communities, including those in her own riding. She spoke out stridently against cutting the healing centre funding. There is no substance to the apology to our aboriginal communities, our first nations, if we do not come forward with substantive programs.

Absolutely, I have been sitting in here today and have heard no mention whatsoever of the consideration to our aboriginal Canadians. We need to be, not only in sentencing, giving due consideration to their plight and the impact on them from residential schools, their poverty and so forth. Also, we need to know what the government will do to invest in providing additional programs to help make aboriginal Canadians part of our economy.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my statement today, I will say that, as a retired member of the RCMP, I am proud to be part of a government that is putting forth legislation to assist police officers across Canada in serious investigations. More so, I am extremely proud that we are putting the rights of victims of crime before that of the people who commit the crime.

I am very pleased today to have an opportunity to speak to the safe streets and communities act and also to talk a bit about the good work our government has been doing to keep our streets and communities safer for Canada's law-abiding families.

As we know, the legislation in this comprehensive bill, which encompasses nine bills that have been brought before Parliament at various times since 2007, is not new to Canadians. In fact, this legislation has already had 79 full hours of debate in this place and has been studied in committee for 123 hours. All together, that is more than eight straight days spent considering common sense legislation.

Furthermore, in the election this past spring, we were very clear that, if elected, a strong, stable, national, majority Conservative government would bring legislation before the House in this manner. I am pleased and proud that Canadians saw fit to give us a strong mandate to carry on with our work.

I am also hopeful that members of the opposition will do the right thing and help us pass this important legislation.

As several of my hon. colleagues have pointed out, since taking office our government has not wavered from our commitment to crack down on crime and continue working to put the safety and security of Canadians at the forefront of our law and order agenda.

Hon. members will know that our government told Canadians, when it was first elected, that we would do things differently than the previous Liberal government. In fact, we have taken action on a number of fronts.

We said we that would get tough on crime. We have delivered. We said that we would ensure that people convicted of serious gun crimes would be given serious sentences. We have delivered. We said that we would take action to give law enforcement the tools it needed to do its jobs. We have delivered. In fact, we have taken steps to augment police forces and to help in efforts to improve recruitment for law enforcement agencies. For example, in 2008, we committed $400 million for the police officer recruitment fund to assist provinces and territories in hiring additional police officers.

That is a significant federal contribution to provincial and municipal policing costs over a five year period, and it supports the efforts of these jurisdictions to recruit new police officers in order to target local crimes and make communities safer.

On the legislative side, we have passed legislation targeting gang violence and organized crime by addressing issues such as gang murders, drive-by shootings and additional protection for police officers.

We have passed legislation to end the shameful practice of giving two for one or even three for one credit for criminals in pre-sentencing custody. This change will help ensure that offenders serve sentences that truly reflect the severity of their crimes.

We have also passed legislation to help reform the pardon system, and Bill C-10 contains further measures to eliminate pardons for serious crimes including those who sexually abuse the most vulnerable citizens in society, our children.

As well, we have passed legislation to strengthen the National Sex Offender Registry and the National DNA Data Bank in order to better protect our children and other vulnerable members of our society from sexual predators. This change means that police officers can now use the Sex Offender Registry as an effective tool to investigate and, hopefully, prevent crimes.

We also recently passed legislation that eliminates accelerated parole review, ensuring that drug dealers and white collar fraudsters are no longer eligible for release on day parole after one-sixth of their sentence.

We also have ended the faint hope clause so that persons convicted of first degree murder serve their entire parole eligibility period in prison.

Clearly, our government has done a lot to help ensure that criminals are fully held to account for their actions and to keep our streets and communities safe.

Over the last three years, our government has done what it said it would do to keep Canadians safe in their homes and communities. We have done that because we said that we would help the victims of those crimes. I will talk a bit about that now.

First, with a great deal of this legislation, we are recognizing the harm done to victims in this country by serious violent crime. We are delivering tangible action to help make them part of the corrections process, as well as help them to seek redress for what they have suffered.

As we know, the repercussions of crime extend far beyond the act that the victim of crime will suffer at the time. The repercussions extend for years into the future, causing financial, emotional and even psychological impacts. As well, for the victims of crime, regardless of how long one works to try to come to terms with what has happened, the act of crime and the long-lasting impact it has on the victims will, invariably, last a lifetime. With that act of crime, the victims' life, as they know it, is effectively taken from them and replaced with one of ongoing distress, the effect of which could be multiplied by the changes in conditions for their attacker. That is why the safe streets and communities act includes provisions to ensure that victims are actively included in the corrections process.

For example, the safe streets and communities act would enshrine in law a victim's participation in Parole Board of Canada hearings. That means it would be formally recognized that a victim must be included and heard in the process by which an offender is considered for conditional release into the community.

Also included in the safe streets and communities act are provisions that would ensure victims are kept better informed about what is happening with the offender in the corrections system. These provisions would specifically deal with how offenders are behaving while they are incarcerated, whether they are adhering to their correctional plan and if they are being transferred to a lower security institution. By keeping victims better informed about the behaviour, movements and potential release of offenders, we would ensure that victims are more fully engaged in the overall corrections process.

It is not as a mere formality or acknowledgement of what they have suffered. Ensuring that victims are actively involved in the corrections process is essential for both their healing and well-being. It also demonstrates to offenders the true nature of the harm they have done to society, which is a necessary part of the rehabilitation process.

Another way that safe streets and communities act is standing up for victims is the provision that would allow victims to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism and hold them accountable for their actions. The legislation would create an action where the victim could sue, in a Canadian court, an individual or a listed state that was responsible for actions of terrorism by which that individual had been directly affected. This is something in which Canada is leading the way and a new way in which criminals and terrorists could be held accountable and no longer act with impunity outside the law.

We hope that the opposition will support this legislation as we work to deliver better tools to help victims seek redress from the crimes committed against them. As well, by bringing victims more formally into the corrections process, it is our aim to protect the rights of victims and continue to take action to put the safety and security of Canadians, including victims, at the forefront of the way that corrections is handled in our great country.

I will end my speech by calling on the NDP to support this important legislation and stop its pattern of putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about the fact that, at its annual meeting on August 13 and 14, 2011, the Canadian Bar Association adopted a resolution that states:

...WHEREAS mandatory minimum sentences remove judicial discretion from the sentencing process, precluding sentencing judges from balancing all the factors of the case and imposing a one-size-fits-all solution to dispositions;

...WHEREAS mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately impact already disadvantaged populations, including Aboriginal people;

I would like to add youth to that.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the resolution adopted by the Canadian Bar Association.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to minimum sentencing, police officers across Canada have been looking forward to this legislation for a long time. They understand that there is a certain segment of society that requires incarceration and the bill would supply that to those people who need incarceration.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by citing a couple of quotes. The first quote comes from the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism on May 27, 1998, when he stated:

I begin by condemning this government for allowing itself to trample on democracy and democratic deliberation....

He was referring to time allocation, among other things.

This quote on June 10, 2003 comes from the member for Edmonton Southwest, who said:

The purpose of the institution of Parliament is supposed to be a deliberative assembly. When we shut down debate, we eliminate the whole purpose for the institution in the first place.

What is the government doing here? It has taken a bunch of bills and put them into one, which we call Bill C-10, and now it is putting a time limitation that prevents members of Parliament from being able to talk on each and every, what should be, separate bills. What would those members have said back then about government action?

I would suggest that what is being forced upon the opposition today is most unfair and not very well principled when it comes to the democratic principles of the House of Commons.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this legislation has already spent 79 full hours of debate in this place, not including today. It has been studied at committee for 123 hours for a total of 8 days. I believe that we have studied the bill long enough.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay—Columbia opened his remarks indicating support for the bill based on his experience as a retired RCMP officer. What specific measures in the bill would add to the police toolbox as they continue their fight against crime?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to what will assist in this, certainly the sex offender registry data bank will help. Police officers across Canada would be able to follow where those people are if they should move. The DNA bank will also be very helpful for investigations should an offender commit a crime that needs to be determined at a later date. With DNA evidence, they can do that.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I heard my colleague call for the NDP to support this bill.

My question is very simple. Would the member agree to split up the bill so that we can speak with one voice on issues on which we all agree, and then try to build bridges for issues on which we are divided?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, since 2007, a number of these bills have come before the House and they have all been debated at great length. We believe it is time now, with Bill C-10, to push these forward.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising for the second time on this bill. As we are aware, the motion that is currently before the House is the one from the third party in the House. It recommends that the bill deferred for an extended period of time for a number of reasons. With regard to that, it is an appropriate motion given the complexity of the bill, so it would be one that my party would be prepared to support.

It is obvious that the government will not to back off on this bill. Therefore, I would like to make a few other comments with regard to its approach, both what we have seen with the time allocation motion that it brought before and now passed in the House and the propensity for the Conservatives to further curtail debate in committee and perhaps when the bill comes back to the House at report stage and third reading. If this is any indication of the nature in which they will govern with a majority, it certainly strikes at the very foundation of the principles of democracy that the House is supposed to encompass. We will wait to see how the Conservatives will handle it at committee and when it comes back to the House, but I approach the bill in the way they have approached it, with a great deal of foreboding.

With regard to the contents of the history of the bill itself, in its various other incarnations, we have heard the statistics about the amount of debate that has taken place on this. The interesting part is a number of the recommendations that were passed with majority votes in committee and in the House have been ignored by the government. That certainly does not bode well for the democracy in our country.

In particular, I want to address the bill that dealt with the sexual abuse of children. That part of the bill, which we see encompassed in the larger bill today, had a great deal of debate. We took a good deal of evidence at the justice committee and it ultimately came out of the justice committee with only a couple of minor amendments. The bill basically created several new offences, which had support from all four parties at that time. In fact, two of the major new endeavours in that regard, around criminalizing the luring of children and the grooming of children for potential sexual victims, came out of NDP private member's bills over a number of years, which the government had latched onto and encompassed into what was Bill C-54 in the last Parliament.

We were quite supportive of that. The use of grooming techniques is well known. Psychologists and psychiatrists have taught us very clearly what to look for in that regard. Therefore, both the NDP private member's bill and the government bill took that into account and prohibited a number of types of conduct and imposed penalties if that conduct was deemed to have occurred and people were convicted of it.

We had concerns with that part of Bill C-54 in the sense that there were unintended consequences that I believed would occur with the mandatory minimums that the Conservatives imposed. We rarely have judges who are prepared to not sentence people who are convicted of these sexual abuses of children to time in prison. The difficulty I had with the bill was that a number of the mandatory minimums, taking away that discretion from the court as to how to best and perhaps more severely deal with the offenders, were being taken away and very rigid penalties were being imposed. I believe in some cases the result would be that we would see judges hesitating to impose more severe penalties because the mandatory minimums had now been set by the legislature.

However, we ultimately concluded, as a party, that we would allow this bill to go forward because of the new crimes that were being committed. This is really where we were going to make our children, our grandchildren, safer, by prohibiting that kind of conduct and allowing our police, prosecutors and judges to identify, convict and sentence on those types of offences.

We were quite supportive of that.

Also additional provisions were given to the judges in terms of the type of penalties they could impose, expanding them from beyond just the penalties that sentence them to prisons, but to also, when they came out, limiting access to the Internet, for instance. Only under supervised circumstances would they be able to have access to children. Those provisions were badly needed to expand the ability of our judges to control conduct after a person was released. Those were very good provisions, again, ones that we had suggested earlier on.

We are quite supportive of that kind of approach. Again, I have some reservation with regard to the mandatory minimums because they may have just the opposite consequence of what the government intends.

However, it is more important to get that law into place. Therefore, I ask for the unanimous consent of this House to move the following motion: That the provisions of Bill C-10, an act to enact the justice for victims of terrorism act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other acts with respect to sexual offences against children, and consisting of clauses 10 to 31, 35 to 38 and 42-9, do compose Bill C-10B; that the remaining provisions in Bill C-10 do compose Bill C-10A; that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; that Bill C-10A and C-10B be reprinted; and that Bill C-10B be deemed to have been read the first time and be printed, deemed read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment and deemed read the third time and passed.

The effect of this is to get that part of the bill on sexual offences against children into legislation much faster so our police, prosecutors and judges can use it to protect our children, as opposed to having to wait for we do not know how many more months before Bill C-10, as a whole, comes back to the House for final debate and/or passage.

Our intent is entirely clear on this. We want this done now. We do not want to wait another number of months. The bill sat in the Senate for a while after it passed the House, a Senate that was controlled by the government. Then we had the election and it died. We do not want to waste any more time on this. We are quite supportive of getting this bill through today, tomorrow at the latest, and on to the Senate.

That is the intent of the motion, and I would seek unanimous consent of the House to pass it today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. for Windsor—Tecumseh on the justice committee.

He talked about his concern regarding minimum mandatory sentences, saying that they might actually have the opposite effect of what the government contemplated. The example he cited was that they might actually preclude the judges from giving higher sentences than what is in the minimum mandatory.

I am perplexed by that and I want to challenge him. The current Criminal Code has maximum penalties for every offence and the judges do not use as the benchmark. They tailor a sentence in the appropriate range.

Why is he fearful that the minimum mandatory might become a ceiling rather than a floor?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I disagree with his analysis of the law, at this point, and the sentencing practices in our courts. The maximum penalties in our code are very clearly seen quite rigidly by our judges as the maximum they will go to. They will not tailor it below, but they are very clearly saying, “Where does it fit in this range?”

For this kind of offence, if the legislature says that the minimum penalty at the low end should be six months, as a judge I think the low end should be a year. However, what has happened, and I say this, as well, from the perspective of legislation like this that has passed in the United States, the tendency has been that the judges there have tended to stick fairly rigidly to the mandatory minimums when it is at the low end.

I want to make this final point before we go on to other questions. We have excellent judges in our country. I am not saying many of them would do this, but I think some of them would fall into that trap.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in a question I referred to an article by Mr. Peter Blaikie, a very distinguished Canadian lawyer, founding partner of Heenan Blaikie and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I would like to quote from his article again and get the member's reaction to it. He said:

The [Prime Minister's] government wants to send more Canadian young offenders to jail and for longer periods of time, no doubt creating more recidivists. One twice-jailed young offender had the following comments on the legislation:

“For the most part, harsh sentences do not deter crime and actually work against rehabilitating offenders. My brief time in incarceration only ensconced me more deeply in the criminal culture.”

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that deterrence generally does not work with regard to young offenders.

Every study that we have ever seen, and the government has never been able to produce one to the contrary, has indicated that with regard to young offenders, because of their age, their immaturity, deterrence does not work at all. Everybody agrees, even most government members. Yet Bill C-10 contains provisions that would open the door, even if only a crack, and reintroduce the deterrent concept, which has been ruled against all the way up to the Supreme Court. If that part of the bill goes through, it will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work not only on the bill before us but on several others.

It is important to get his reflections on what has just taken place. My colleague offered a reasonable solution in an effort to advance the cause of protecting children in our society. He suggested that part of this legislation be moved to the Senate. It needs to be highlighted that the Conservatives have denied that consent, yet we have done this before in the past. There have been many times when unanimous consent moved issues through the House. Would he reflect on that?

We try to find some common ground here in the House. I cannot understand what excuse the government could provide for not protecting children sooner. That is exactly what would take place. Would he comment on that because it is a tactic that has been used in the House by all parties at different times? It is unsettling that we are not getting that movement right now.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually meant to mention this in my opening remarks.

We just did this in June in the House because of a decision in a Quebec court to turn loose, under a cloud, 30-plus Hells Angels because it was going to take too long. The government agreed with us at the time that we needed the megatrial bill immediately. It was not the government's suggestion; it was ours. The government came onside.

It is more important that we look at the experience we had in the Homolka pardon case in the spring of 2010. We had to fight tooth and nail to sever off part of the bill that would have prevented Ms. Homolka from getting a pardon. It was our work. The member for Welland in particular worked very hard on this. He spoke to the family. We managed to get that through.

I do not know why the government is refusing today to take those extra steps. It is quite simple. This is not an unusual procedure that I have proposed. It is quite easy to do this. We could get the bill in place in the next week or two and protect our children more adequately.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons this evening to speak on second reading of Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act.

I would like to add to the comments made by my friend, the hon. Minister of Justice, with respect to the provisions in Bill C-10 that would ensure individuals who sexually abuse children serve sentences that reflect the severity of their heinous crimes committed against the most vulnerable and defenceless members of society.

Over the duration of my almost 40 years of practical experience in law enforcement, I have played a leading role in helping protect victims of child abuse and exploitation.

Canadians have long supported this government's efforts to put the plight of victims ahead of the rights of criminals. The commitment was made in the June 1, 2004 document entitled “Demand Safer Communities”, the Conservative plan for Canada’s criminal justice system. wherein it stated:

--prohibit conditional sentences for child sex offences to ensure that all of those charged with these offences will serve prison time and be removed from the community.

Our government has listened to the plight of victims and law-abiding Canadians. Our government has received successive strengthened mandates from Canadians to pass these long-needed reforms to give law enforcement and victims the upper hand.

That is why I am honoured to rise as a member of this government today. We are delivering on the promise to Canadians by working to pass this important legislation without further delay.

One of the other objectives of our legislation to address child sexual exploitation is preventing the commission of a contact sexual offence against a child in the first place. It does so by proposing two new offences, and proposing to require courts to consider imposing two new specific conditions that would serve to prevent a suspected or convicted child sex offender from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their sexual offending.

These proposals remain as originally introduced in former Bill C-54. The first new offence would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that young person. This practice is often used by child sex offenders to groom their victims to make it easier to sexually exploit their victims.

This conduct is already prohibited where the material consists of child pornography, but if the material in question depicts adults engaged in explicit sexual activity, the Criminal Code does not currently prohibit this use of material. This does not meet the very high threshold of the legal definition of obscene material under section 163 of the Criminal Code.

This current definition only applies to depictions of explicit sexual activity coupled with violence or that are judicially determined to be degrading or dehumanizing. Clearly, this creates a gap in our criminal law, and Bill C-10 represents an appropriate and reasonable response to that gap.

This new offence would carry a penalty similar to that of the existing obscenity/corruption morals offence in section 163, namely a maximum of six months imprisonment on summary conviction and two years imprisonment on an indictable offence. It would impose a mandatory minimum of 30 days on summary conviction and 90 days on an indictable, more serious criminal offence.

The second new offence proposed by Bill C-10 would prohibit anyone from using telecommunications to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. Again, this new offence would fill a gap in the current law.

Currently, the offence of luring a child, section 172 of the Criminal Code, prohibits using a computer system to communicate directly with a child for the purposes of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child. This offence does not apply where the communication does not directly involve the child victim.

The new offence uses the term “telecommunications” which is defined by section 2 of the Federal Interpretation Act as the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system.

In my view, this broad definition and approach ensures that the new offence will apply to the same prohibited use of any new technology that may be created after this offence is enacted. This new offence would operate in a manner similar to the existing luring a child offence under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. For example, both contain the same provisions about presumed or reasonable but mistaken belief in the age of a child. Both preserve the common law defence of entrapment for an accused in the appropriate circumstances, and both would carry the same penalties, a mandatory minimum of 90 days and a maximum of 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction and a mandatory minimum of one year and a maximum of 10 years imprisonment on an indictable offence.

Bill C-10 proposes to add these two new offences to schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act. Individuals convicted of these new offences would be ineligible to apply for a record suspension, currently known as a pardon and which part 3 of Bill C-10 proposes to rename as a record suspension.

Bill C-10 also includes former Bill C-54's proposals to expand the powers of a court to prohibit a convicted child sex offender, under section 161, and a suspected child sex offender, under section 810.1, from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their commission of one of the enumerated child sexual or abduction offences.

Specifically, these proposals would broaden the list of offences for which these conditions may be imposed to include the four child procuring prostitution offences in section 212. These are described in the actual words in the Criminal Code. It would also direct a court to consider imposing a condition prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised access to a young person or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

The objective of these conditions is self-evident. If we deny a known or suspected child sex offender access to a child or from having access to a tool such as the Internet that can enable that person to sexually exploit a child, then hopefully we can prevent the victimization of yet other victims.

As chief of the London police force, I led an investigation into a network of individuals involved in child sexual abuse and exploitation. I believe that we must do better. In these circumstances, I can relate the statement of a 15-year old victim. In referring to his victimizer he said, “He preys on street kids. He'll feed them, give them drugs, money. He doesn't even care what he's done. He couldn't care less about any one of the kids, including myself”.

Bill C-10 proposes welcomed reforms to better protect Canadians, particularly to better protect vulnerable children and youth against sexual abuse and exploitation.

As I have noted, many of these proposals were previously debated and studied in the previous Parliament. Accordingly, I think all members should be able to work together to ensure the expeditious enactment of these long-needed reforms. If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

It has been stated that even in the most ungoverned kingdoms, animals protect their young. We collectively, as a responsible society, can do no less to protect our children from those who seek to sexually violate them.

There has been a lot of talk and discussion about the role of judges, and there are judges who really, I believe, have captured the significance of what it is that we are talking about in terms of the imperative need for us to rise to equip our police officers, the courts, and the system as a whole, to better protect vulnerable people, especially our children.

I wish to quote Mr. Justice Moldaver from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Adjudicating with his colleagues over a case, he stated:

While...the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation will always warrant consideration, the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and the need to separate sexual predators from society for society’s well-being and the well-being of our children must take precedence.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the government presents an omnibus bill which packs nine bills into one and then it limits debate. The moment an hon. member on our side presents a motion that would seek to expedite the passing of the very part of the legislation that the hon. member opposite is speaking to, the government decides to stall.

I want to ask the hon. member opposite, how can he justify that action?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the justification that all Canadians would very much appreciate is everybody getting their act together, quit all the back and forth, and pass this very important piece of legislation.

It is critically important to law enforcement officers if we want them to do the job that they are mandated to do. It is critical to the courts and it is critical to society, especially to vulnerable people.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. minister's speech today and congratulate him for many years of service in the OPP, the London police force and elsewhere, but I am surprised at the answer he gave to the previous question because it seems to me the point of the questions was that if there are parts of the bill which the opposition is prepared to support and expedite, why would the government not want to do that?

The minister said to get this moving, get it going, and get the measures that he is talking about today moving forward. That is what my hon. colleague who spoke a moment ago was talking about exactly.

I do not comprehend why the minister would not say yes, that is the right move. Why, when there are other issues in this bill that opposition members in both parties, enough that he is not concerned about, why not separate the bill? It is a huge, omnibus piece of legislation. Why not separate it and move forward quickly with so many of the measures on which there is agreement?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to realize that many of these things have been debated, up, down and sideways, certainly in the previous Parliament, namely Bill C-54.

We feel very strongly that what we have put together is a response to the mandate that has been given to us by the Canadian people. We campaigned on these issues. We are fulfilling our responsibility, our mandate, and our accountability to the people who sent us here.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Associate Minister of National Defence for his excellent contribution to the debate.

He mentioned his many years of law enforcement, for which he has been recognized.

I am quite certain he probably talks to some of his law enforcement friends from time to time and I am curious, through those informal consultations, what information he has been able to gather concerning the appropriateness and the effectiveness of this impending legislation?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the impact will be significant in terms of our ability to fill gaps that now exist. Our ability to better protect, especially, as I indicated, children, but more so dealing with the current and emerging threats that we all have to deal with and about which we all have to be concerned, including terrorism.

At the end of the day, and I know there is a lot of talk about the impact on offenders, one of the best forms of crime prevention is to ensure that recidivist criminals are locked up, and that is what we intend to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the minister.

My understanding is that if we compare a child predator, who is trying to get a child to do something such as watch pornographic movies, to someone who gets caught growing six marijuana plants, there is a stricter penalty or consequence for the individual who is growing the marijuana. Is that not correct? If so, would he agree that something is wrong there?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my friend's interpretation of what is intended here, first and foremost the growing of six plants is for the purpose of trafficking. It is vastly different from what the member is suggesting.

No one is looking at comparing crime in the context of the experience that I and my colleagues have had. We are talking about those who traffic in marijuana; six plants is the number that has been calculated, but I also know people who have trafficked one plant.

I do not see how one could ignore the fact that the criterion is that of trafficking, as opposed to just growing it for personal use, even though some people may frame it that way.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that the provisions of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts respecting support for victims and consisting of clauses 52, 55, 96 through 98, and clause 130, do compose Bill C-10B; that the remaining provisions in Bill C-10 do compose Bill C-10A; that the clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; that Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B be reprinted; and that Bill C-10B be deemed to have been read the first time and be printed, deemed read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment and deemed read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, we are proposing this motion to move forward those sections of the omnibus bill that would provide support for victims, including broadening the definition of a victim, allowing the inclusion of victim impact statements at parole hearings and providing enhanced notification to victims regarding parole board hearings as well as other measures that support victims.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do not think that is a point of order.

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this manner?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for York West

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been able to squeeze my name in among many others so that I can speak to Bill C-10 and talk about what is good about it as well as all the concerns we have about it. I am glad that I was able to get in, given the fact that we have closure before us.

Just over a week ago the Minister of Justice introduced his highly politicized Bill C-10. Now, after only a couple of hours of debate, the government has moved to shut down democratic discussion on the bill, in the very House of democracy.

This bill is actually nine previous bills jumbled together in a way that must make U.S. Republicans green with envy. Let us imagine nine bills going through with no debate. Yes, we are supportive of parts of those nine bills, but to put them forward in one huge bill and expect us to pass them in less than the two weeks that we have been in this House is a real insult to democracy and an insult to all of us as parliamentarians here to do a job. With some of it we have no problem, but to turn around and have it proceeding in such a short period of time without full debate and input from all of us is a true disservice.

If I were to listen to the government, it would seem that crime is rampant and out of control in the cities, towns, villages and hamlets of Canada. The government, perched on its white horse, says it is prepared to ride to our rescue. What does that actually mean in real legislation?

Despite the rhetoric and the fearmongering from our friends across the way, which is something we are all guilty of in this House on various pieces of legislation, Statistics Canada seems to have a different take when it comes to crime rates.

In a report released earlier this year, Statistics Canada stated that police-reported crime reached its lowest levels since the early 1970s. It goes on to say that the police-reported crime rate, which measures the overall volume of crime, continued to decline right up until last year. In fact, last year it was down 5%, reaching its lowest level since 1973, which is something we are all thrilled about. We are pleased that it has gone down to that extent.

Would we like to wipe it out altogether? Of course we would, but we also have to be practical. There are various issues here that have to be addressed as we all try to reduce crime in this country. It is as low as it is as a result of the many crime prevention programs introduced through the Liberal years that we were here.

That same Statistics Canada report says that violent crime is at its lowest since 1999. Last year both the volume and severity of violent crime fell 3% from the previous year, while the decline in the violent crime severity index was more notably down 6%.

This is the fourth straight year when there has been a decline in the violent crime severity index, and it is the largest drop in more than a decade.

Overall, violent crimes accounted for just one in five offences. Among the violence crimes that saw a significant decline were attempted murder, down 14%; homicide, down 10%; robbery, down 7%; and serious assault, down 5%.

That is where we all want to see it, going down, which is what raises the question of why we have Bill C-10 bundled up with nine pieces of legislation and then rushed through this parliamentary session.

We know that Bill C-10 is not on the table because of actual evidence. There has been no evidence presented to tell us exactly why it is important for us to cram this through and why we cannot have full debate through the House and through committee stages. The Conservatives want to scare people by painting a picture of crime that is clearly, in their opinion, out of control, because it fits the ideology of the Republicans and of the Conservative government.

I am prepared, as are many of my colleagues, to support measures that actually tackle real crime with balance and focus. Bill C-10 is not that.

For example, as my colleague just mentioned, this legislation suggests minimum penalties for certain drug crimes that are harsher than those for certain sexually driven crimes involving children. We have to look at both of those and try to see where there is a balance. I would suspect that any crime involving children and sexual activity would have the harshest of penalties applied.

Instead there seems to be a difference in how that would be applied. We do not support the idea of someone growing marijuana plants either, but it certainly should not have a stricter penalty, or at least both of them should be at the appropriate level. If we are truly talking about protecting the vulnerable, we have to do far more than what is written in Bill C-10.

The real challenge ahead of us is that the bill proposes to spend billions of dollars on a crime and punishment agenda that will do little or nothing to tackle crime and punishment. Despite the billions of dollars being spent on Bill C-10, it fails the real issues of tackling poverty, homelessness, financial illiteracy, income security, and education. Almost 99% of what we see in the crime agenda is a result of those issues. No job, no education, homelessness, drugs and mental illness are usually the key issues that get people into those crime situations. Experts tell us that any real effort to prevent crime must start with an effort to stamp out hopelessness and fear.

It appears as though Bill C-10 is covered with the fingerprints of U.S. Republicans. The Americans have one of the highest rates of incarceration on the planet, and they are starting to see that a system based only on punishment is a failure. As much as it might make us feel good to lock people up, the reality is that it does not appear to work in all of the cases.

Let me quote from a recent U.S. editorial with regard to crime and prisons. It states:

California spends more money on prisons than on higher education. The governor is right--we've got it backwards and it's time to reverse course.

Only 68% of our high school students are graduating. Yet we pay prison guards substantially more than teachers.

Fear of crime led us to vote for long prison terms and the three strikes law. We didn't intend to spend $4 billion more on prisons than colleges....

The less educated our workforce...the more we feed the prisons.

It's time to admit our mistakes and make tough decisions. By pumping so much money into prisons, we're starving education. We cannot afford the consequences.

That was a quote from an editorial in a newspaper in the United States, and it spells out exactly the direction we are going.

We are pleading with the government not to go down that route. Let us look at this. Let us take some time to make sure that Bill C-10 goes in the right direction. Let it go to committee and let it have full hearings and a full debate. We all want to ensure safety on our streets and in our communities. No one thinks any differently, but we really have our heads in the sand if we think that bundling it all up and pretending it is going to solve all the problems is really going to make that happen.

That is not what we want, and I am sure none of the other members in the House want it. Locking someone up forever does not eliminate crime. Locking someone up forever does not make us any safer. Locking someone up does not help those who have been victimized by criminals either. Locking someone up forever is an after-the-fact system that does little to address the root causes of crime.

I believe we can do better. We can tackle poverty, homelessness and joblessness. We can make our streets safer for our children and families. We can replace fear with hope, but Bill C-10 is not the way to do this.

The Conservatives cite their majority in the House as a justification for why the bill is worth passing. That is not a valid reason. On this side of the House we are willing to work with the government to pass a crime bill that strikes at the root causes of crime, helps victims get back on their feet and punishes offenders appropriately for their misdeeds.

Bill C-10 ignores evidence and does not produce any facts. It creates an illusion that crime is out of control and it fails to provide any information on the real costs of implementation. Bill C-10 does not reflect the values of Canadians as a smart, caring society, and it would do nothing to address crime in this country.

Bill C-10 is not an omnibus crime bill, it is an ominous crime bill, because it signals a shift toward an approach to crime that has failed in places like the United States. If we adopt Bill C-10 as it is, we are adopting a failed approach.

I, for one, have grave concerns with not only the financial impact, but the real agenda is to make our communities and our streets safer. Bill C-10 has some merit in some parts, and there are areas we would like to support, but clearly work has to be done.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank the hon. member for York West for her contribution in this debate.

I am always amazed when opponents of our safe streets and safe community agenda cherry-pick statistics to oppose our legislation. I say “cherry-pick” deliberately because if we pick 1970 as a reference point official crime statistics are down. However, if we pick 1960 as a reference point they are up and they are up considerably.

More relevantly, I wonder if the hon. member knows that in 2009 one in four Canadians reported being a victim of a crime and only 31% of those people reported those crimes to the police.

The real issue is not if crime is up or down. It is whether the level is tolerable. In 2010, even official police statistics showed two million crimes in Canada, 440,000 of which were violent.

Are those acceptable numbers?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my mind no crime is tolerable, period. Frankly, if I could wave a magic wand we would not have any crime. However, that does not work and we all know that. We live in a world where statistics matter and we need evidence to back up what we are moving forward.

I would rather see more money go into policing to provide support for the men and women who keep our streets and our country safe, crime prevention, and ensuring there is housing so that people are not living on the streets. A big important part is the whole issue of mental health. All of us who work daily in our communities know that a number of people who are out there causing part of this crime are seriously ill. That is an area the House has yet to tackle. We talk a lot about it but we have yet to put the investment into truly helping people who are suffering from mental health illness.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

In all of the research she has done, is there a single modern state, in North America or Europe, that has a tough on crime policy and that has seen crime rates decrease more quickly than in a neighbouring state? Or, on the contrary, are there not examples where the tough on crime policy slowed a decrease in the crime rate or even caused an increase?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. We should be very tough on crime. We all want those who are violent offenders or sexual predators to be dealt with as severely as the system allows.

The issue is what about all of the people who for whatever reason find themselves in a situation where they have no money and commit a robbery? Without question there should be an appropriate penalty for every crime, not just lock people in prison for two or three years.

I visited Mimico, a reformatory system in Toronto. It was filled with young people. I wondered what they would be like when they came out. From everything I hear, once they go into those kinds of facilities they always come out tougher, hardened and more disillusioned with life.

We have to spend more time figuring out how we can stay ahead of that. That means ensuring that our local police services have all the support they need, that we have crime prevention programs and that we invest in our communities.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague from York West to talk about the overall costs of this tough-on-crime approach which a previous member said a moment ago has been found elsewhere not to work. In fact, he found that crime had increased as a result of these policies. California is a good example of that.

I would like to hear her comments.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I alluded to the California issue. We need to look at exactly what went on there and why it probably has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It is out of control. California does not have any money to balance its budgets or to put into education.

Clearly, if we use what was done in California as an example, that is exactly the direction in which Bill C-10 appears to be taking us.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Bill C-10 is comprehensive legislation that addresses a number of serious issues that are in front of mind for this government and for all Canadians.

It proposes legislative reforms to strengthen our existing responses to: child sexual abuse and exploitation as well as serious drug, violent and property crimes found in part 2, clauses 10 to 51; terrorism, found in part 1, clauses 2 to 9; violent young offenders, part 4, clauses 167 to 204; offender accountability and management, part 3, clauses 52 to 166; and the protection of vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, part 5, clauses 205 to 207.

There can be no question that this is an important package of reforms. That is why we must take our task as lawmakers seriously, and study and pass these proposals to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

Bill C-10 compiles the reforms that were included in nine bills that were before the previous Parliament which died on the order paper with the dissolution of that Parliament for the general election. Former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders) is now in part 4 of Bill C-10. Former Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-16, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act is now in part 2. Former Bill C-23B, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act is now in part 2. Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act is now in part 5. Former Bill C-59, Abolition of Early Parole Act is now in part 3. Former Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act is now in part 1. Former Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act is now in part 2.

Many of these former bills were previously debated, studied and some were even passed by the House of Commons. Therefore, they should easily be supported again in this Parliament.

I would like to focus the balance of my remarks on the proposals in Bill C-10 to better protect children against sexual exploitation, that being those reforms now in part 2 of this legislation that were previously in Bill C-54 in the last session of Parliament.

The reforms build on the government's well-established commitment and track record in delivering concrete measures tackling violent crime, and in particular to safeguard children against violent sexual offenders. For example, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, 2008 raised the age of consent of sexual activity from 14 to 16 years to better protect Canadian youth against adult sexual predators. It also better protected all Canadians against dangerous offenders by providing police, crown prosecutors and the courts with much needed tools to more effectively manage the threat posed by individuals who were at high risk of reoffending sexually and violently.

While it is true that our existing criminal laws addressing child sexual abuse and exploitation are already comprehensive and robust, there is always room for improvement. We should never be complacent in ensuring that we are doing all we can to safeguard such a vulnerable segment of the Canadian population.

This point is underscored by Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Juristat article “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010”, released on July 21, 2011, which reported increases in the rates of child pornography offences as up 36% and sexual assault as up 5%.

The proposed reforms in Bill C-10 are both timely and welcome. They address clear gaps in our existing laws. The address the gap created by inconsistent penalties for sexual assault offences where the victim is a child and the gap that now exists because some of the preparatory conduct engaged in by child sex offenders is not criminalized. They fill a gap in our existing measures to help prevent known or suspected child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their sexual offences.

The proposals in Bill C-10 seek to ensure that all sexual offences involving a child are treated equally, seriously and consistently. They do so by: proposing to impose new mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving child victims that currently do not carry minimum penalties; increasing the mandatory minimum penalties for some child sex offences that are already imposed; and, by increasing the maximum penalties on some other offences. Once these reforms are enacted, there would be a consistent approach to sentencing in all sexual assault cases involving child victims.

Child sexual assault could be charged under any of the child-specific sexual offences or under the general sexual assault offences that also apply to adult victims. Currently, 12 but not all child-specific sexual offences impose mandatory minimum penalties and none of the general sexual assault offences impose mandatory minimum penalties.

In practice, this means that the overwhelming majority of child sexual assault cases do not carry mandatory minimum sentences. This is because the majority of child sexual offences are charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271, which does not currently impose a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. That is 80% of all child sex offences charged in 2008. The source of this information is Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, UCR2. It is very current data.

If we take as our starting point the universally shared view that all child sexual abuse must be strongly condemned and that mandatory minimum penalties are exceptional in the Criminal Code and are reserved for those crimes that Parliament determines must be strongly denounced and deterred, it should be obvious to all that the current use of mandatory minimum sentences for some but not all sexual offences involving child victims is just wrong. That sends a message to some victims that their experience of sexual assault is less serious than that of other child victims. It also sends a message to child sex offenders that they should try to plea bargain for charges under offences that do not impose mandatory minimum penalties.

Bill C-10 contains fundamental legislative safeguards for all Canadians. I call upon the opposition members to put an end to their attempts to obstruct the bill and to support our efforts to keep Canadians safe.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite invites us to take our job as lawmakers and parliamentarians seriously, which is why the limitation on debate of this huge omnibus bill is so egregious.

The member opposite listed all the reasons that the House should unanimously support the component around child exploitation and sexual assault. Perhaps the hon. member was not in the House when my hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh rose to say that we indeed do support that part of the legislation. In fact, it should be expedited. We could have that part of the bill passed in 48 hours if the government would stop stalling.

Could the member opposite explain why the government is stalling on that part of the legislation?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the elements in the bill and the laws in the bill were already debated in this House. Now we want to put them through so Canadians can be safe.

When we stand in this Parliament and look around at what Canadians expect us to do as lawmakers, we do need to take our jobs very seriously. In the past election, Canadians overwhelmingly gave us a mandate to push these bills forward, bills that we could not get through in the last Parliament.

Now, to enable that to happen, they have gone into one bill. They have been debated and some have even been passed in the House. Now it is time to get on with the job and get this done.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not claim, by any means, to be an expert in matters related to crime. I studied a little bit at law school and have not done much in relation to it since.

However, I respect the view of Mr. Peter Blaikie, who is a distinguished Canadian lawyer and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party. Earlier this year, he said:

Why is the tough-on-crime policy so appallingly bad?

Perhaps most bizarrely, it runs counter to all the statistical evidence of significantly falling crime rates over the past 25 years. It rejects not only the expert evidence of those involved in the criminal-justice system directly, including the Correctional Service of Canada, but also that of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and others.

What expertise does my hon. colleague have that she knows better than those folks?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, in my humble opinion, I am a parliamentarian and do not profess to know better than anybody else. What I do know is that for the better part of 10 years I have worked with victims of crime. As recently as two weeks ago in Toronto, I was talking to a young girl who was sexually assaulted. She was trafficked. She is hidden now. She said quite clearly that she would not report the crime because they will just get off anyway.

Nobody talks about that on the opposite side in this Parliament.

My experience, working with victims of crime for 10 years, touches my heart and it causes me to move forward. Apart from that, I worked very closely with ICE units and other police officers. My own son was in the ICE unit. He is part of the RCMP.

I do not expect that I could profess to be an expert or a lawyer. I do have nine years of university and I know a lot about mathematics and science because that is where my expertise is. However, as a human being, I do know that when a child is afraid to report a crime something is very wrong with the laws. We need to take our jobs seriously as lawmakers and move forward to get this job done.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I stand today in the House in opposition to the proposed Bill C-10, cleverly titled the safe streets and communities act. I say “cleverly titled” because there is certainly no consensus that the proposed changes to the Criminal Code would make Canada's streets and communities any safer than they already are. This is because this bill relies on the false pretense that increased incarceration rates necessarily lead to lower crime rates.

Sadly, when drafting this crime bill, the Conservatives have ignored the evidence. Crime rates in Canada are at a 20-year low and, despite the claim by Conservative colleagues that there has been a sharp rise in unreported crime, the reality does not reflect their over the top rhetoric.

The international examples of countries that employ a similar crime model demonstrate why such an approach is not one that Canada should be adopting. We can take, for instance, the United States. Since undertaking similar crime policies during Ronald Reagan's tenure as president, federal incarceration rates have skyrocketed with the prison population, nearly doubling over a 15-year period. Yet, in spite of the doubling of the prison population, the overall crime rate in the United Sates has remained relatively stagnant. This underscores the idea that deterrence through wide-scale incarceration is not an effective crime prevention strategy. If anything, it only exacerbates the problem.

In the California penal system, inmates are being double and sometimes even triple bunked, often in recreational areas of the prison, such as cafeterias and gyms. They also lack adequate access to rehabilitation and mental health treatment, something that h has a great effect on the rates of recidivism. Even notable Republican, Newt Gingrich, has recently reversed course and publicly criticized the U.S.'s tough on crime approach as being counterproductive to the real goal of reducing overall crime rates.

Why then are the Conservatives leading us down the path that other governments are beginning to abandon? Has the abject failure of this approach in the U.S. taught the government nothing?

Another aspect of Bill C-10 that worries me is who would be caught in the wide-ranging dragnet of this bill. Of particular concern is the effect this legislation would have on persons with mental health issues and serious drug abuse problems. Under the current system of drug sentencing, judges have discretion when issuing sentences. This means that judges can weigh all factors when determining the appropriate sentence, particularly whether the accused has a mental health issue or substance abuse problem. By removing this judicial discretion from the sentencing process, we would be stacking the deck against persons suffering from mental illness and substance abuse. Instead of giving these groups the treatment they need, we would be locking them up in an environment that often fosters and worsens their illness.

I have heard from many of my constituents in the riding of Sudbury who have singled out the effects that this bill would have on these vulnerable groups and they have asked me to oppose this bill for that very reason.

Furthermore, although my Conservative colleagues claim that this bill would target serious organized crime groups in Canada, I fear that, as is often the case in the United States, it will be the low hanging fruit that will be caught in the crosshairs. All indications suggest that the vast majority of the people who would be affected by the proposed changes are not the Hell's Angels, not groups like the Rizzutos and, ultimately, not the people who would generally be defined as “organized crime”. Instead, the vast majority are small-time, low threat, non-violent offenders. Should we really be expending finite budgetary resources to incarcerate people who represent very little threat to public safety in Canada? I and millions of Canadians believe not.

For instance, the inclusion of a mandatory minimum sentencing provision for persons caught cultivating more than five marijuana plants highlights the failure of this legislation to strike an appropriate balance between public safety and a rational model of crime prevention.

I agree that large scale, clandestine grow-op operations are a problem in Canada. It is unfair for homeowners who have unwittingly bought homes that were once used as grow-ops. They need to be protected. However, to create a regime where a teenager growing six plants in his or her parents' basement would face the same mandatory minimum jail sentence as organized crime groups involved with large scale operations, fails to properly differentiate between real and perceived threats to public safety.

Speaking of real versus perceived threats to public safety, the bill would see tougher sentences for persons caught cultivating marijuana than persons convicted of certain sexual offences against children.

I will quote Serj Tankian, who said:

All research and successful drug policy shows
That treatment should be increased,
And law enforcement decreased,
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences,

I also take particular issue with the approach of packaging such a large volume of legislative changes to the Criminal Code into one massive omnibus bill. There are aspects of the bill that I believe are legitimate and useful, but because of the way it has been presented, I am obliged to vote against it. It seems that the Minister of Justice has taken an all or nothing, take it or leave it approach with this legislation. Either Canadians take the bad with the good or we get nothing at all.

This is not the approach that Canadians expect their elected representatives to take. Canadians expect members of Parliament to have nuanced debates to deal with specific legislative issues. The packaging of nine pieces of legislation into one bill shortchanges Canadian democracy and makes it impossible for me to support specific changes to the Criminal Code, which I would support were they introduced individually.

A 10-minute speech barely allows me to scratch the surface of this legislation. That speaks to the fact that bundling so many unrelated changes into the Criminal Code shortchanges Canadians.

Something that deeply disturbs me is the fact that the minister responsible has failed to provide Canadians with adequate cost estimates relating to the implementation of the bill. Canadians are living in a time of great economic uncertainty and yet the minister is unable to answer even the most basic questions about how much this would cost to implement. It begs the question about how the Conservatives can be trusted to preside over Canada's overall economic prosperity when they cannot provide an accurate cost estimate of legislation that they have had in their back pocket for close to six years.

As an administrator in my past life, I understand the need for financial and budgetary transparency, so this leaves me asking a few very important questions. How many new prisons would be required to house the thousands of Canadians that would be criminalized by this legislation? What are the administrative costs associated with prosecuting thousands of additional criminal proceedings? How much of this burden would be borne on the backs of provinces already struggling with budgetary restrictions and tight fiscal situations? Those questions remain unanswered.

The fact that the minister cannot provide these basic details creates a broader credibility issue for the government. How are Canadians supposed to trust a government that cannot provide cost estimates for its own legislation? Does the minister really know the cost or is the government purposely withholding this information because it knows Canadians will overwhelmingly reject its approach if the real figures were made public? Canadians have a right to know the real costs of this legislation.

What I see in Bill C-10 is an accumulation of ineffective policies to solve a diminishing problem, all at an unknown cost to the taxpayer. What I do not see is how the bill would actually lower crime and recidivism rates and ultimately make Canada's streets and communities any safer.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, is the member opposite aware that the proposed legislation would allow the courts, including drug treatment courts, to exempt an offender from the mandatory minimum sentence that would otherwise be imposed where the offence involved no other aggravating factors other than a previous conviction for a serious drug offence and the offender's successfully completes a treatment program? This seems contrary to what the member has suggested.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but I think she was reading from her device.

The Conservatives are putting forward legislation which is bundled to ensure that they can--

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to answer the question, but it seems that another member is trying to ask a question.

We are seeing the Conservative agenda coming forward which does nothing to help individuals who have mental health issues or drug and substance abuse issues. We are hearing that from organizations such as the John Howard Society of Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and victims' associations. They would like to see policy put in place to ensure that criminals do not reoffend. What we are seeing from the government is an agenda based on ideology.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, someone who visited my constituency office to emphasize how important crime and safety is provided me with a copy of an article from the Winnipeg Free Press dated September 14, 2011. The very first line reads, “Family and friends of a slain 15-year-old gathered Tuesday evening at the spot where the boy was stabbed, while investigators continued to work to find his killer.”

I believe the constituents of Winnipeg North share the same concerns in regard to crime and safety and they want our streets to be safer.

Would the member agree that what we really need to do is to start investing in things such as community policing and after school programs? Looking at those programs and finding things for our young people to do as an alternative to participating in gangs, for example, is where the government needs to put more resources and more of its energy.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. We have seen the priorities flipped. We are spending money to build megaprisons, to double-bunk prisoners. We are looking at all the wrong things. We need to ensure that our youth and individuals with mental health or drug abuse issues or whatever their issues are provided the necessary supports so they do not commit crimes. When unfortunately they do commit crimes, we have to ensure that the necessary resources for their rehabilitation are in place when they serve their time.

The government is completely ignoring the point of rehabilitation. We should provide the necessary resources for more of the programs that my hon. colleague was talking about to help those individuals who go into the prison system.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives denied unanimous consent to move the child provisions of the bill. This is something that was done before when dealing with Karla Homolka as well as the Hell's Angels. I would like to hear the member's comments on that. We could have cracked down on this right away, but the Conservatives are refusing to do that. Once again they are protecting those who would abuse children.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, it could have easily been done. Our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, mentioned that we are spending four minutes per page to have a discussion on this omnibus bill. We still need to have more discussion on the bill, but everyone in the House has the same mandate in that we want to protect children. The Conservatives could have easily agreed to this. There is a precedent. We could have moved this forward. We could have stepped forward to protect our children as quickly as possible.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like unanimous consent to move the following motion, “That the provisions of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, respecting drug treatment court programs, and consisting of clause 43(2), do compose Bill C-10B; that the remaining provisions in Bill C-10 do compose Bill C-10A; that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; that Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B be reprinted; and that Bill C-10B be deemed to have been read the first time and be printed, deemed read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment and deemed read the third time and passed”.

The purpose of this would be to ensure that we could delay sentencing where someone is in a drug treatment program and it would remove the mandatory minimum if the person successfully completed the program.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

There is no unanimous consent.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

I want to start by talking about what the name of this bill actually means to Canadians. For a long time Canadians have watched the criminal justice system work in a way that was not making the safety and security of our streets a community priority. After all, if it had been a priority, how could previous governments stand by while dangerous criminals were released from prison after serving a third or even a sixth of their sentences?

In addition to all of this, Canadian victims, having already suffered so much, were not being listened to or included in the correction process of their offenders. This was not only worsening the feeling of victimization, but was also extremely insulting.

These are just some of the reasons that our government is so serious about delivering the right kind of changes that are found in the Safe Streets and Communities Act. It is important for the safety of law-abiding Canadian families. It is important for victims. It is important because we need to have a justice system in this country in which Canadian families can have confidence.

Since first taking office, we have worked to restore confidence in Canada's justice system and to fulfill our commitment to put law-abiding Canadians and victims first. We have taken direct action to fulfill that commitment through this legislation and by giving our law enforcement agencies the resources and tools they need to do their jobs effectively.

We have also moved forward in many areas to crack down on crime and to ensure that our neighbourhoods and communities are safe and secure.

Canadians have told us that they want a justice system that actually delivers justice and that protects our citizens without compromising the values that define our country. Again, I believe the legislation in front of us today does exactly that. It is yet another step forward in our commitment to keep Canadians safe.

There are a number of measures contained in Bill C-10, some of which my hon. colleagues have spoken about quite eloquently today.

Bill C-10 will help us build safer streets and communities by, for example, establishing new mandatory minimum penalties for certain existing offences related to child exploitation and increasing the maximum sentence to better reflect the reprehensible nature of these crimes.

The legislation before us today will also provide mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences when such offences are carried out for organized crime purposes or if they involve targeting our children.

One case where we repeatedly see this is with the targeting of areas around schools by drug dealers. I think all of us can agree there are few things worse than specifically targeting our children for criminal purposes. Deliberately trying to get kids hooked on drugs for financial gain is deplorable, which is why I am pleased to support the measures in Bill C-10 that provide mandatory minimum sentences for those who engage in this sort of illegal activity.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act also delivers real penalties for serious and repeat violent young offenders. Bill C-10 proposes amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that would highlight the protection of society as a fundamental principle for the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It will simplify pretrial detention rules to help ensure that, when necessary, violent and repeat young offenders are kept off the streets while awaiting trial. It will strengthen sentencing provisions and will reduce barriers to custody, where appropriate, for violent and repeat young offenders.

In terms of increasing offender accountability, Bill C-10 proposes very important reforms to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to modernize discipline in prisons, and to add a requirement in law that each offender completes his or her own correctional plan. This would include things such as behavioural expectations and the meeting of court-ordered obligations, such as child support and victim restitution.

Bill C-10, among other things, will also enshrine victim participation in parole board hearings and will keep victims better informed about the behaviour and handling of offenders.

As well, the Safe Streets and Communities Act proposes amendments to the Criminal Records Act that would make certain people ineligible to apply for criminal record suspension, including those convicted of sexual offences against children, or those convicted of more than three offences. I want to address this point, specifically.

With this provision we are saying there are some people who should never be eligible for a criminal record suspension. As I said earlier, targeting our children is one of the most despicable forms of crime, and sexual abuse of a child is among the most heinous.

By including these provisions in the Safe Streets and Communities Act, we are taking action to ensure that those who have committed this terrible crime will never be able to hide from the harm they have caused to the most vulnerable in our society, our children. We believe this is an appropriate form and fair measure in face of such despicable crimes.

New mandatory minimum penalties are provided for seven existing offences related to child sexual exploitation and abuse for children under 16 years of age, such as sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, incest, and luring a child through the use of a computer.

The addition of mandatory minimum penalties to these offences will also have the effect of eliminating the use of conditional sentences or house arrest for these crimes.

As a father I am concerned about predators who hunt our children online and prey on their innocence.

As a police officer, I have looked into the eyes of too many victims, trying to provide comfort, unsure if they would find the justice and protection that they both needed and deserved.

As a corrections manager, I have been part of the rehabilitative process, the programming, hope, help and healing that can come from these institutions, as well as the human potential that lies within.

As an investigator for the safer community and neighbourhoods unit in my riding, I saw the degradation of neighbourhoods and the citizens' sense of safety and pride. I heard the loud and resounding voices of our communities to take action. I witnessed first-hand the revitalization of full neighbourhoods, community spirit and pride, and the citizens' sense of safety and security.

I also watched Habitat for Humanity homes take the place of drug dens. I watched the long but successful struggles of those battling with addictions finally rise above them.

It was through action, bold and tough decisions, that the first, not the last, step to a better life for all occurred.

Our government has the courage and the resolve to learn from our past, improve our present and perfect our future.

In closing, I hope that my hon. colleagues on this side of the House will also demonstrate the courage and resolve needed to keep Canadian families safer, stand up for victims and hold criminals accountable by supporting this bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his introduction, the member referred to a justice system in which we can have confidence. Just to improve my knowledge and enlighten me, I wonder if he could tell us of any organizations working within the Canadian justice system that would be willing to support Bill C-10 in its entirety and in which he has confidence.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, we heard loud and clear from victims across Canada during the election campaign in the spring that Canadians' priorities were to support victims and hold criminals accountable. That is what this legislation will do. Victims' organizations across this country have spoken loud and clear that all too often their voices are not heard in the justice system from the moment they become victimized. They are forgotten from that point forward. This legislation will ensure that the victims are heard from the beginning to the end of the process, that the people who need our help the most will get it, and that the offenders, who made the choice to victimize people, are held accountable for that, and that victims are supported in this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a great deal about individuals who exploit our children. I agree in terms of just how serious a crime that is.

However, if we look at the legislation and follow it through, it is saying that if a pedophile forces a child to watch pornographic movies, as an example, there is a minimum sentence that is established. There is also a minimum sentence established for someone who is growing five or six marijuana plants in his or her basement. The minimum sentence is actually greater for the person growing the pot than it is for the person who is victimizing a child.

Would the member not say there is something wrong with that picture?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I think what the member is referring to is when the prosecution decides to go by way of summary conviction and not an indictable offence. It is comparing apples and oranges when we start comparing pot growers to people who are exploiting our children.

However, if we want to talk about the offence of growing five or six marijuana plants, the hon. member is making that seem as though, in this case, the offender innocently stumbled upon them.

There are aggravating circumstances outlined in the legislation that talk about when those minimum standards will kick in, and I will just note a couple of those. The aggravating factors include: for the benefit of organized crime; involving use or threat of violence; involving use or threat of weapons, by someone who has previously been convicted in the past 10 years of a serious drug offence; when they do it in prison; if they are in a position of authority and they abuse that. That is just to name a few.

This is a case where it is not just a hippy surfer growing a couple of pot plants in his basement. This is somebody who is making a criminal organization out of this.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, Yukon is finally getting good representation in the House. As chair of the public safety and national security committee, the hon. member is a very good contributor to our committee. He spoke about pardons and record suspension, and some of those issues. Can he tell this House why those who are convicted of a sexual offence in relation to a minor should not be able to receive a pardon?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, it is critical. Canadians have spoken loud and clear about this. We cannot allow somebody who has done that to our youth, to our children, victimized anybody in a sexual manner, to be pardoned for that. That is not what Canadians want. That is not what Canadians said to us during the campaign. They gave us a strong mandate to ensure that does not occur. Those offenders cannot have the opportunity to run and hide from that, and there is no clear indication from any science in those types of crimes that they will recover and not repeat those offences.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I rise today to speak against this omnibus legislation. I agree with the previous speaker that it is more like an ominous bill rather than an omnibus one.

The first area that makes me sad is that my colleagues across the floor did not agree to separate the bill and let go through a fast-track process the provisions that deal with the abuse of young children. Being a teacher, a mother and now a grandmother to three of the most beautiful grandchildren in the world, there is nothing that is more important than the protection of our children from sexual predators. It is an absolute shame that my colleagues have not agreed to fast-track that.

To put nine pieces of legislation into one bill, and then to keep hearing the rhetoric about how, because I happen to sit on this side of the House, I do not care about victims is offensive.

I have been a teacher and a counsellor most of my life. I have dealt with victims of child abuse and rape. I have dealt with families that have lost loved ones who were shot through gang violence. I have dealt with families who have dealt with violent crime. I know what it is like to be a victim. I know the kind of pain victims suffer.

I want to remind my colleagues across the floor that absolutely 39% of Canadians voted for them, but that leaves a high majority who did not give them a mandate to bring in sweeping legislation.

I am also hearing what they are hearing from victims everywhere they go.

I was back in my community of Newton-North Delta last weekend. For those who know Surrey, they know how it is often in the news as having the greatest number of gang-style killings and violence. Recently, a young woman was butchered at her workplace. She was not even safe at work. We dealt with the aftermath of that not only with her family, but with the whole community. We lost a young man who was shot. We dealt not only with the family but with the whole community.

As a community, we have dealt with the impact of these kinds of killings and these kinds of crimes. Our community deals with young people who are engaged in drug abuse and drug addiction. I do not have members in my community telling us to punish those who do the crimes. It actually made me cry just a few weeks ago to hear a mother who lost her child due to violent crime saying that all she wanted was justice. She did not want draconian punishment because she herself was a mother.

Last weekend I attended a forum held by the Surrey Board of Trade, and I learned something really amazing that I had not expected to learn at that meeting. The president of the Surrey Board of Trade said education is the single indicator toward building our economy, to making our communities safe, to making savings on health care, to protecting the environment, whichever aspect of our society that we value. That president did not say it is incarceration and punishment, and there is a huge difference between education and punishment.

As a counsellor and teacher, let me say that punishment by itself and the kind of punitive sentences, mandatory sentences, and actions we are seeing explicit in this bill will make very little difference to crime. The U.S. just to the south of us has tried incarceration and has tried the death penalty. It still has high drug abuse, high death rates due to the use of weapons, and a very high population in prison.

I know we think we can do things differently. If our business community, the president of the Surrey Board of Trade, can see education as a main driving force to building healthy, safe communities, then surely we as parliamentarians should be taking the time to debate those issues.

I have to express my dismay at this time that as an elected official I am being denied, and therefore, the people who voted for me and sent me here to represent them, a fair and in-depth debate of issues that are going to impact our families, our communities, our young people, and those who are the most vulnerable.

It is time that we stopped using the rhetoric of the victim to say we do not care or that the NDP members do not care. It is time we started to talk about what really works. I will tell the House what works, from my perspective of 30 years of experience in the school system and in my community.

What works is prevention programs. What works is better policing. What works is rehabilitation. There is not a doctor out there who is going to call drug abuse and drug addiction just something fancy that somebody gets up and does one morning. It has now been classified as a medical condition. So what do we do with people who have a medical condition? Do we put them in prisons or do we treat them? Canadians who are compassionate citizens want to see treatment.

In Surrey, the fastest-growing district in B.C., we have more students sitting in mouldy classrooms because our province keeps telling us it cannot afford to build schools. Yet, this legislation would force provinces to build prisons. Does that mean that young people in my area would have to sit even longer in mouldy classrooms day in and day out because the province would be forced to build prisons?

I also want to say to my colleagues that there are two ways to debate. I really like respectful debate. Yes, teachers deserve a decent wage. They absolutely do and they deserve it for the job they do everyday. However, let me get back to this. Are we as Canadians saying that we would rather put people in prisons rather than take steps to address the very issues and problems that lead people into crime, whether it be addiction, poverty or just family dysfunction, so therefore the need for some social programs?

I urge my colleagues across the floor to reconsider separating the child sexual exploitation bill. Let us work that one through and then send it to committee, and let us take a serious look, based on research and on good practice.

Those members can accuse the NDP of being out there, but the Canadian Bar Association has spoken and said that this is the wrong direction.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech, at least the last part, and I think her proposal fits in with what all members want, namely, to split up the bill. In any omnibus bill, there are always some good parts and some more debatable parts. I do not understand why the government insists on introducing omnibus bills that bury good proposals under bad ones. If the government were to split up the bill, there would be unanimous consent on several parts and we could at least improve the debatable parts.

The hon. member talked about prevention. I am referring to young offenders, to Quebec's Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is cited as an example around the world and whereby prevention is effective with 85% of young people. I think we could learn something from that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the information he shared with us. My experience as a councillor and teacher has taught me that when one is dealing with young offenders, prevention, rehabilitation and finding support for them goes a long way. All kinds of evidence show that when young people are incarcerated in prison, they come out on the other side as a more hardened criminals and lose the little fear they had when they went in.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to my colleague across the floor talk about having been a teacher. Some of us on this side have been police officers for a long time. We certainly have dealt with the issues of which she speaks and we certainly have dealt with victims.

I listened as she blamed society for most of the ills of those people who had committed crimes. Quite frankly, I have not found many people in my life who blame society. It is generally the individual at whom they look. We have done a lot of things to help young people, but sometimes they have to help themselves.

I heard her complaining about people going to jail. Could she tell me who it is that goes to jail? It has been my experience that the people who go to jail are the people who committed crimes. Does she know somebody else?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have spent some of time not only teaching in a regular school, but also working with juveniles who have been incarcerated in prison. My experience is that the people who have ended up in jail have committed crimes. I am not saying they were innocent when they went in there, but it is how we deal with people and at what level we deal with them. This legislation enforces mandatory sentencing. That is just plain wrong.

I would add one other point. I did not blame society for all the ills of whatever anybody has done. Absolutely, human beings make choices. However, we as a society cannot escape the fact that there are certain conditions, whether they be medical conditions that one is born with or societal issues, that lead to greater levels of crime.

Try working in an inner city school and see the pressures on the young kids. Try dealing with a young man who, at the age of 14 in order for his mother to make a living, has to go out in the evening to find customers for his mother who is a prostitute. They are living on the run and they cannot afford to stay in one place more than one night. Those kinds of conditions are created by communities.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have sat in the House today and enjoyed the speeches from all sides. Certainly it is a topic that gives the full sense of the word debate because there is a difference opinion here, and I can appreciate that.

It is my pleasure to rise and add my comments to the debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. As other speakers before me have, I would like to break it down. It is an omnibus bill. We have heard that. It is nine different bills that have been moved together into this one that will help make our streets and our communities safer. I would also like to focus on the legislation that proposes to strengthen the sentences for those who commit sexual offences against children. I am pleased to hear that those from the other side of the House would like to see this brought forward as well.

Bill C-10 proposes to add mandatory minimum penalties to seven offences that do not currently impose mandatory minimum penalties, including incest, under section 155, Internet luring a child, section 172.1 and section 271, and sexual assault where the victim is under the age of 16 years. It also proposes higher mandatory minimum penalties for nine existing child specific sexual offences, including sexual interference, section 151, sexual exploitation and making and distributing as well as possessing child pornography.

As well, in building on what was originally proposed in the former Bill C-54, Bill C-10 proposes to increase the maximum penalty for four child sex offences with a corresponding increase in their mandatory minimum sentences to better reflect the particularly heinous nature of those offences.

First is bestiality involving a child, section 160, when proceeded on summary conviction, it increases the maximum penalty from six months to two years less a day and imposes a mandatory minimum of six months imprisonment. Former Bill C-54 had proposed a mandatory minimum penalty of 30 days.

The second one is making and distributing child pornography, section 163.1(2) and (3). When proceeded on summary conviction, it increases the maximum penalty from 18 months to two years less a day and increases the current mandatory minimum penalty from 90 days to 6 months.

Also, the other offence is the indictable offence of a parent or a guardian procuring sexual activity, section 170, increasing the minimum penalty from 6 months to 1 year and the maximum penalty from 5 to 10 years when the victim is under the age of 16 and from 45 days to 6 months and 2 years to 5 years respectively when the victim is between the ages of 16 and 17 years.

As I said earlier, Bill C-10 also seeks to criminalize preparatory conduct; that is, to criminalize conduct that child sex offenders engage in to facilitate their ultimate objective of actually sexually assaulting a child. It does so by proposing to enact two new offences.

The first new offence would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that young person. Many sex offenders do this with a view to grooming their victims, for example, to lower their victim's sexual inhibitions with a view to making it easier to sexually exploit them a little later on. Currently, this conduct is only criminalized if the offender provides the child with material that constitutes child pornography.

Bill C-10 defines “sexually explicit material” as a representation that shows either a person engaged in explicit sexual activity or that shows the person's genital organs and does it in a way to lessen the child's resolve to fight against it. Although this is a new definition and a new offence, the definition incorporates terminology that is already used in the child pornography offence. Section 163.1 includes both aspects of this definition and the voyeurism offence incorporates both aspects of the definition.

The proposed new offence would also impose a mandatory minimum penalty consistent with those proposed elsewhere in the bill.

The second offence proposed by Bill C-10 will prohibit anyone from using telecommunications to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. It is modelled on the existing “luring a child” offence in section 172.1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits using a computer system to communicate directly with a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child.

However, as the luring offence only applies if the communication is with the specific child victim, this new offences closes the gap where the communication is between two other persons to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence against the child, in effect, where perhaps two adults come together on purpose to victimize a young child. This new offence would also impose a mandatory minimum penalty consistent with those proposed elsewhere in the bill.

These two new offences would also be added to schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act to ensure that persons convicted of these new offences would be ineligible to apply for a record suspension or pardon, as it is currently called, for the same period of time as for the other child sex offences.

Last, Bill C-10 proposes reforms to prevent child sex offenders from engaging in conduct or practices that can facilitate their sexual offending.

Currently a court can impose a condition on convicted child sex offenders, a prohibition order under section 161, or on suspected child sex offenders, a recognizance or peace bond under section 810.1, prohibiting them from engaging in specified conduct that would facilitate their commission of one of the enumerated child sex offences or even the abduction offences.

For example, these conditions can prohibit an offender from attending places that are normally frequented by children. The example that has been given many times is the offender who shows up on school grounds or shows up on a playground.

Also, an offender can be prohibited from obtaining a paid or volunteer position involving a position of trust or authority over children. That might be as a provider of day care or as a provider of education, some of those different examples.

Bill C-10 proposes to expand the list of offences for which these conditions may be imposed to include the four child procuring prostitution offences in section 212: subsection 212(1), procuring; 212(2), living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of 18; aggravated offence in relation to living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of 18 years; and subsection 212(4), prostitution of a person under the age of 18.

Bill C-10 also proposes to require the court to consider imposing two new conditions: prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised access to a young person; and prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

These types of conditions, to put it plainly, just make sense. If we prevent the offender from having the opportunity or the tools to commit a child sex offence, then we prevent new children from becoming victims.

I would also note that these preventive measures would be added to the existing provisions in sections 161 and 810.1, with the result that they will be subject to the same checks and balances that currently exist for these provisions, such as, for example, enabling the offender or the Crown to apply to vary the conditions where a court is satisfied that it is desirable due to a change in circumstances.

I have heard a little today that we are pushing the bill through. There have been over 200 speeches given on different sections of the bill in the previous Parliament and even the speeches today. I would urge the opposition to jump on board to support these measures that would help keep our community safe and our streets.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, like many of his colleagues, the hon. member who just spoke focused on pedophilia almost exclusively. I would like to say that if we are talking about distributing pornography to minors, I agree we need to be very strict on that. If we are talking about imposing harsher sentences for sexual abuse of minors, I support that too. I have three children. You have mixed up this aspect of the law, which is extremely important to any father, with other things that do not have to do with the same kind of crime. In addition, you refuse to split up the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I ask all members to address their comments to the Chair.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

How can you justify refusing to split up this bill to make it possible for a father to vote in favour of this without having to vote against other principles?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member is the father of three children and that he cares about these types of bills.

It is a methodology of opposition members to find that one little area that they support and say that we should just separate that one.

This bill was brought forward. I can guarantee that we will move forward on this quickly. All the nine bills that are in Bill C-10 are bills that we campaigned on. They are bills that the voters across this country recognized our party as standing strong for.

I would encourage members to support the entire bill, a good bill that would make our streets and communities safer.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member.

I have a letter here that was written to the Prime Minister by Jane Wright in Providence Bay. She states:

There are adequate measures presently in place to keep in prison the few who are truly dangerous. Your crime bill will further disadvantage young aboriginals and the mentally ill....

Does the member think that we should be stocking our prisons with aboriginals and the mentally ill as opposed to providing rehabilitative and proper services for them?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think our prisons should be full of those who have committed crimes against our society and who have been found guilty in a court of law. I think our prisons should be a place where we can try to rehabilitate people, but we should hold them, incarcerate them and tell them that the penalty for crime is prison in some cases.

The mandatory minimums that we are bringing forward, generally speaking, are on indictable offences where the Canadian public has said that they do not want them doing house arrest and that they do not believe those people should be living out their time in their homes while their victims are sometimes completely victimized.

We realize that there is a high percentage of aboriginals in our penitentiaries, and, yes, that must be addressed as well, but in many case there are many aboriginal victims who are standing right there while the offender is the locked in prison.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke on one aspect of Bill C-10. Other members will take another aspect of Bill C-10.

The point is that the government has taken a bunch of bills that should have been, in essence, separate bills and tied them into an omnibus bill.

The member made reference to the fact that this was an election issue. The government could probably take 30 or 40 election issues and say that now that it has a majority, that it has the most seats, it wants all of those bills to be included in an omnibus bill.

The concern, in part, that we have is—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to give the hon. member for Crowfoot the opportunity to respond. He has 30 seconds.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, 10 or 11 years ago when I was elected, I was actually surprised. During the election campaign, the Liberals would talk about law and order but then, as soon as soon as they were elected, we would never see any law and order bills coming forward in this House.

I would tell the fairly new member over there that there have been over 200 speeches made in this place in debate dealing with different aspects of this bill. The Liberals tried to stall it here in the House. They tried to stall in the committees. They tried to stall it in the Senate.

Now the member is saying that if they are given a little more time for debate—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup has the floor, but I will have to interrupt him.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, what we have here is a huge mistake that could potentially cost the Canadian treasury $5 billion. The repressive measures that were taken throughout the United States did not help lower the crime rate. In some cases, there was even an increase in serious crimes. The government wants to invest $5 billion of public funds in a solution that will worsen the problem. And that does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars that the provinces will have to spend to expand prisons and meet the demand that will be created, for no good reason, by the current government.

The current government is boasting that it has a majority, but it is forgetting to keep in mind that approximately six out of ten Canadians did not vote for extreme right-wing values, such as being tough on crime. So the government wants to drop $5 billion without even having a clear majority that agrees with the basic principle.

I want to come back to the so-called contempt for victims the bleeding hearts on the left here have, according to our Conservative friends across the way. There is a dynamic that escapes me. They are applying tough on crime policies, but there is ample evidence over a number of decades from a number of places in North America that such policies do not reduce crime. It does not work. There may even be an increase. I want to know how increasing the number of victims is a form of respect for victims.

Can we tell the woman who, statistically speaking, will be abused—and would not have been with a policy that reduced the crime rate—that she can take comfort in the fact that the person who abused her will spend an extra six months in prison thanks to the bill the Conservative government passed two years beforehand? Is that how we show respect for victims, by creating the necessary conditions to produce more victims in the coming decades?

We are entering a spiral of crime. This reminds me of A Clockwork Orange, a movie that was extremely popular a very long time ago, in which—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member. He can continue his comments when we resume this debate.

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to add a few more comments.

Yesterday, I closed by asking about a nonsensical contradiction: how do we show respect for victims, by creating the necessary conditions to produce more victims in the coming years? I would like to explain a few other things that do not make sense before leaving the House today—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. It seems that there are problems with the interpretation. Is it fixed now? Okay.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup may resume.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to address the communities that may be tempted to support this bill thinking that a prison expansion in their area would be a good thing. The expansion of our prisons should never be considered anything other than a collective failure. Let us not forget that. Having more citizens in prison must be considered a definite sign of the failure of our training programs and the failure of our economic system to create jobs. Prisoners are not a natural resource that help the development of a region in which there is a prison. Let us always keep this perspective in mind when making these collective choices.

Another thing related to this bill that does not make sense is the fact that it affects the right of judges to simply do their work, exercising their right to judge. This is an ideological blunder. It is something that leads us to a sort of limitation on what the law should be and deprives judges of their opportunity to think. What will happen if we tell a judge that the theft of an apple is punishable by a minimum sentence of one day in prison? A judge's job is to determine whether the apple was stolen simply as mischief or whether it was stolen to feed a starving child. Any judge who does his or her work properly would not impose the same sentence in these two cases.

The government's ideological leaning is a very bad thing and it is depriving judges of their right to simply do their job. That is why the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec are concerned about this bill and even blatantly opposed to it.

There is an important point here. This bill does not make any sense. How can judges work with a law that would lead them to impose sentences on small-time drug dealers that are twice as long as the sentences imposed on those who sexually abuse minors? That is what the bill before us is proposing.

Another thing that does not make sense is how Canadians' right to debate is being affected. By combining all these bills, the government is manipulating the public debate. The members opposite can be sure that Canadians will not be fooled. The right to a pardon is being questioned. If someone says that it is important to retain the right to a pardon, it does not mean that they support pedophilia. The two things are unrelated. The government is manipulating the debate and should apologize for insulting Canadians' intelligence.

Therefore, we have a very simple choice to make. The government is moving towards a very repressive system. I will go back to the example I began giving yesterday of the movie, A Clockwork Orange. In this very popular movie, young people who are discovering their leadership qualities live in such a repressive society that, to be noticed, they have no other choice but to become delinquents. The more repressive the society becomes, the more that is the choice facing these future potential young leaders: to be noticed, they must be delinquents in a repressive system.

At the other end of the spectrum, another very popular movie, Mr. Holland's Opus, is about a high school music teacher who fights cuts to his budget for clarinets, saxophones and drums, and helps young future leaders to develop.

This government is ramming a choice about our society down our throats. It does not want to use any part of the $5 billion of public money to ensure that a talented young 13-year-old girl somewhere in Canada has the clarinet that will help her to develop as a citizen, or that young people who are members of a theatre group have the money to go on a provincial tour. It has decided to invest such a huge amount in repression that there will not be enough money for education, extracurricular activities or rehabilitation that would simply lead to a lower crime rate this year, next year and for decades to come. This is a social choice that is being rammed down our throats. Canadians are not fooled and it is really a very bad choice.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member, I wonder if he had an opportunity to read part of the legislation. It would appear that he would have Canadians believe that an innocent 13 year old is growing five pot plants in his basement for his buddies whose parents will not let them smoke dope.

Has he read the parts in there where the aggravating circumstances actually kick in such as where violence has been used in selling drugs, where it is used in prisons, where it is used by abusive positions in authority, where weapons are involved? These are serious drug offences. Did the member read those aggravating circumstances?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, our colleagues form the government keep bringing up these extreme examples. Yet the bill sets out minimum sentences for minor crimes. In Quebec in particular, efforts are very focused on rehabilitating youth. In the 1980s, I had the misfortune of living in an area with a relatively high crime rate. The crime rate has dropped; rehabilitation works.

They always talk about horrific crimes like sexual abuse against a minor that involves a weapon. We completely agree that the law needs to crack down on serious crimes and sexual offences against children. We are not questioning that. It is the other part of Bill C-10, which sets out minimum sentences for minor crimes, that we do not agree with.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague will know, the inclusion of so many new mandatory minimum sentences in the act removes the incentive for defendants in our court systems to reach a plea of guilty.

Has my colleague seen anything in Bill C-10 that will relieve or even mitigate the added congestion and delays in our court system that will be caused by forcing so many defendants to trial?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have seen nothing in the bill that would relieve the congestion for those involved in the legal process. This is an important aspect to consider and it would be respectful of everyone, including victims. As long as this is not resolved, and the legal system cannot handle the overload, the victims also suffer as they wait for the outcome of legal proceedings. My colleague brought up an excellent point. The bill tabled by our colleagues on the other side makes absolutely no mention of this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member of Parliament posed a question, asking “Have you read?”

I have a similar “have you read” question. This came from the Winnipeg Free Press. It was actually a columnist from Vancouver who had written it. The headline reads: “The Prime Minister gets tougher on pot growers than child rapists”.

I would ask if the member has read this in the article:

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

I am not sure if the member read it. I believe it to be true. Would the member agree that this is a true assessment that was written not by a member of Parliament but a columnist from Vancouver?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not completely follow. I was asked to comment on this journalist's column. We are talking about a bill that sets out more severe penalties for certain minor drug production cases than some other cases. I want to make something clear. I am the father of three young children, and I would immediately agree to crack down more severely on any crime related to pedophilia. The rest of the bill is not balanced. The fact that a small producer would have a sentence twice that of someone who sexually abused a minor is simply unacceptable. I hope that is what my colleague was asking.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That the provisions of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts with respect to the youth criminal justice system, and consisting of clauses 169, 174 and 186, do compose Bill C-10B; that the remaining provisions of Bill C-10 do compose Bill C-10A; that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary. That Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B be reprinted; and that Bill C-10B be deemed to have been read the first time and be printed, deemed read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment and deemed read the third time and passed.

There are two parts to the bill. One is with regard to the young offenders part of the bill. It implements recommendations that we received from a number of the provinces as well as prohibiting the housing of young offenders with adults. That is one part.

The second part is with regard to the former Pardons Act, which would allow for the extension of the length of time that a person would have to wait to get a pardon. It is a principled stance on our part. It is a practical approach to resolving issues that are of unanimous consent, I believe, within the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to table this motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

There is no unanimous consent.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Brampton West.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

The bill would fulfill the government's commitment in the June 2011 Speech from the Throne to bundle and quickly reintroduce crime bills that died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved for the general election.

Integral to this commitment, as articulated in the Speech from the Throne, are two key statements that I want to quote because I think they give voice to what all Canadians firmly believe.

First:

The Government of Canada has no more fundamental duty than to protect the personal safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security.

Second:

Our government has always believed the interests of law-abiding citizens should be placed ahead of those of criminals. Canadians who are victimized or threatened by crime deserve their government's support and protection--

In my view, this precisely characterizes Bill C-10. It packages nine former bills that, collectively, recognize and seek to protect our vulnerabilities; for example, children's vulnerability to being preyed upon by adult sexual predators, foreign workers' vulnerability to being exploited by unscrupulous Canadian employers, and our collective vulnerability to suffering the harms that go hand in hand with serious drug crimes, such as drug trafficking, production and acts of terrorism.

Knowing this, and knowing as well that many of these reforms have been previously debated, studied and passed by at least one chamber, there is no reason not to support Bill C-10 in this Parliament.

Bill C-10 is divided into five parts.

Part 1 proposes to deter terrorism by supporting victims. It would create a new cause of action for victims of terrorism to enable them to sue not only the perpetrators of terrorism but all those who support terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism or omission committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985.

The State Immunity Act would be amended to remove immunity from those states that the government has listed as supporters of terrorism. These amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in the form of Bill S-7, justice for victims of terrorism act, in the previous session of Parliament. They are reintroduced in Bill C-10, with technical changes to correct grammatical and cross-reference errors.

Part 2 proposes to strengthen our existing responses to child exploitation and serious drug crimes, as well as serious violent and property crimes. It would better protect children against sexual abuse in several ways, including by uniformly and strongly condemning all forms of child sex abuse through the imposition of newer and higher mandatory minimum penalties, as well as creating new core powers to impose conditions to prevent suspected or convicted child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate or further their sexual offences against children.

These reforms are the same as they were in former Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators act, with the addition of proposed increases to the maximum penalty for four offences and corresponding increases in their mandatory minimum penalities to better reflect the particularly heinous nature of these offences.

Part 2 also proposes to specify that conditional sentences of imprisonment, often referred to as house arrest, are never available for offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life, for offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, trafficking and production of drugs or that involve the use of a weapon, or for listed serious property and violent offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that are prosecuted by indictment.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious violent offenders act which had received second reading in this House and was referred to the justice committee when it died on the order paper.

It is in the same form as before with, again, a few technical changes that are consistent with the objectives of the bill as was originally introduced.

Part 2 also proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences involving production and/or possession for the purposes of trafficking and/or importing and exporting and/or possession for the purpose of exporting Schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and Schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

These mandatory minimum penalties would be imposed where there is an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard, or the offence was committed in or near a school.

This is the fourth time that these amendments have been introduced. They are in the same form as they were the last time when they were passed by the Senate as former Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, in the previous Parliament.

Part 3 proposes numerous post-sentencing reforms to better support victims and to increase offender accountability and management. Specifically, it reintroduces reforms previously contained in three bills from the previous Parliament: Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act; and Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill C-10 reintroduces these reforms with some technical changes.

Part 4 reintroduces much needed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better deal with violent and repeat young offenders. Part 4 includes reforms that would ensure the protection of the public is always considered a principle in dealing with young offenders and that will make it easier to detain youth charged with serious offences pending trial.

These reforms were also previously proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

Part 5 proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to better protect foreign workers against abuse and exploitation. Their reintroduction in Bill C-10 reflects the fifth time that these reforms have been before Parliament, with the last version being former Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

In short, Bill C-10 proposes many needed and welcome reforms to safeguard Canadians. Many have already been supported in the previous Parliament and Canadians are again expecting us to support them in this Parliament.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, Mr. Peter Blaikie, who is a very distinguished Canadian lawyer and founder of the law firm Heenan Blaikie in Montreal and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, wrote an article earlier this year in August. He said:

More specifically, mandatory minimum sentences, by imposing a straitjacket on judges, limit their ability to differentiate as regards the same offence with respect to what might be completely different circumstances. Judges are human and might on occasion err; however, they are highly educated and highly trained, far better equipped to determine appropriate sentences than our members of Parliament.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he feels that he knows better than people who are trained in that way or better than Peter Blaikie.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that our justice initiatives are not in the best interests of Canadians. My friend can quote whoever he wants to quote but I will quote from people who matter. These are victims of crime. It reads:

The Prime Minister is to be lauded for following through on his 2008 and 2011 election platform promises to bring this measure forward. Having just marked the tenth anniversary of that terrible day, I believe this decennial year is a truly appropriate time to enact this measure which will help frame this government’s legacy as an unyielding foe to terror and a stalwart advocate of its victims.

This was said by C-CAT co-founder Maureen Basnicki, whose husband was murdered on 9/11. These are the people for whom we are enacting this legislation. We will stand up for victims of crime. I do not understand why the members opposite want to stand and quote people who have no interest in talking about this crime agenda.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting comment. I wonder if the member could actually speak up for the disproportionate numbers of aboriginal peoples who are incarcerated.

An article in the Toronto Star on February 20, indicated that there was a bleak link between poverty and incarceration. While aboriginals, many mired in poverty, represent 4% of Canada's population, they make up almost 20% of those in federal prisons.

I could, of course, quote from any number of articles that talk about the importance of preventive programs and working to keep people out of the prison population, and that includes adequate housing, health care, education, drinking water and the list goes on and on.

I wonder if the member could comment about his government's plans to do something about prevention.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question was not particularly what I was talking about. We are talking about introducing legislation to protect Canadians from crime and to support victims of crime.

We do have an aboriginal justice strategy in place that we are working on and working very hard to implement.

However, I want to talk to the people who support this legislation. I will give the House another quote:

Whether it is by keeping dealers and producers off the streets and out of business, or by serving as a deterrent to potential dealers, this proposed legislation will help our members in doing their jobs and keeping our communities safe. In simple terms, keep these criminals in jail longer, and you take away their opportunity to traffic in drugs.

Who said that? It was President Tom Stamatakis of the Canadian Police Association. That is who we are standing up for and we are thrilled to have his support.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's thoughts on the war on drugs. In the United States, cracking down on the traffickers is a total failure: there have never been more drugs around.

How can the hon. member claim that the way to deal with the traffickers is to impose harsher sentences, when that approach has failed everywhere else? I do not understand his logic.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend is talking about what has happened in the United States. It is interesting that whenever members opposite want to talk about our legislation, they just blindly suggest that we are following the American model.

I have another quote for the House:

Mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug crimes will help in our fight against organized crime in the trafficking and production of drugs.

...keep these criminals in jail longer, and you take away their opportunity to traffic in drugs.

Who said that? That was said Charles Morny, president of the Canadian Police Association October, 2010.

Those are the kinds of people whose support we are happy to have. The members opposite can quote whoever they want but we are standing up for Canadians and police forces.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to today's debate on Bill C-10, which deals with crime.

I will first look at the context in which this bill is being introduced.

I will look at the crime rates. What is happening with the crime rates? They are dropping, and they have been dropping for a long time, as a matter of fact.

What is happening with the violent crime rates? They are also dropping and they have been dropping for a long time.

What about the intensity of crime? That has also been dropping.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Unemployment rates are going up.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Meanwhile unemployment rates, as my colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, points out, have been going up.

On July 21 of this year, Statistics Canada released this information stating:

The national crime rate has been falling steadily for the past 20 years and is now at its lowest level since 1973.

In that circumstance, what might the government invest in? What would it decide to put its resources into? It could put its resources into health, but it is not doing that. It could put the money into education, but we are not seeing that. It could put an emphasis on putting funds into innovation to make our economy strong, but we do not see it. It could put funding into crime prevention.

However, what the government does instead is it puts a number in the window on a budget and says that it will spend this much on crime prevention and ends up spending far less in reality. That is where the government's priorities are.

We know the government is not interested in the crime rates in the same way that it is not interested in data or scientific information when it comes to the census, which we all saw what happened there, when it comes to climate change and in so many other areas. In fact. the government's attitude is that it wants Canadians to be very afraid and to believe they need this kind of an agenda.

Of course we should be striving to lower crime rates because that is a good thing, and it is good that it has been happening, but is building more prisons the answer? The government is already spending a lot more money on programs that do not work and a lot more money on prisons.

In fact, let us compare what has happened in the last few years. In 2005-06, the last year of the Liberal government, $1.6 billion were spent on the correctional service. By 2011-12, this year, that number has gone up from $1.6 billion to $2.98 billion, an increase of 86%. The forecast that we have already seen, and there is more coming because of this bill, is that by 2013-14, it will be $3.15 billion, an increase of over 100%. That is just based on the changes that have been made so far, not including what is in this bill.

This bill is an amalgamation of nine previous bills, many of which this party previously offered to fast-track and move forward. However, the government did not want to do that. It wanted to play games. In fact, some of the bills were brought in and then it prorogued Parliament and tried to blame the other parties for not moving the bills forward. What a ridiculous strategy.

Meanwhile, we have the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a person who was hand-picked by the Prime Minister, chosen by the government, selected to do the job, an important job, of assisting members of Parliament in assessing bills being brought forward, assessing what the government is telling us about finances, and telling us whether it is accurate or not.

The fact is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that just one of the government bills would add $5 billion to the taxpayers' burden. That is the one bill that he could information from the government about. It would not give him information about the other bills.

We need to remember that we are talking about this bill amalgamating nine bills entirely, not just one. We are hearing that will cost, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion, although it is difficult to say since the government will not share information.

This is, after all, the biggest spending government in Canadian history. This is the government that has increased spending since it came into office by 35%. It increased spending by 18% in its first three years. That was before the recession began.

Members on this side will recall that the recession did not start until the fall of 2008. However, in April and May 2008, the government was already in deficit because of its high spending.

That is an important point. The money was spent for gazeboes, steamboats and $90,000 a day consultants to do the jobs of highly paid, highly skilled civil servants.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, this debate is on Bill C-10. We have now had about four minutes on the state of our economy and what a great job the Liberal government was doing years ago. Could we get this back on track?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sure the hon. member will be making his point.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is very timely. I have finished the part of my speech regarding the context of this legislation, the finances of the country, and where the Conservative government chooses to spend money.

Yesterday, an article in the Globe and Mail stated:

Correctional Services Canada’s overall budget for the current fiscal year of 2011-12 is projected to be $514.2-million, or 20.8 per cent, higher than the year before.

It is clearly higher than the minister's estimates.

What do we have after six years of this kind of agenda from the government? We have overcrowded prisons. What is the result? The result is more crime in prisons. Corrections Canada officials who appeared before the government operations committee on which I was sitting last spring told us about the problems caused by double-bunking in their facilities and how it is creating a more dangerous work environment for them. We see this in places like the Dartmouth jail in my province of Nova Scotia. As we have seen in other places, the result of this is more reoffending.

The bills the government has already passed are imposing costs on the provinces as well. That is an important point. They have to build more correctional centres. They are seeing fewer plea bargains because of mandatory minimum sentences. Defence lawyers are not willing to bargain because there is nothing to bargain for. They cannot bargain down a minimum sentence. We are seeing more trials as a result, more backlogs and longer pretrial remands. Most of these costs are falling on the provinces.

For example, there is a section in Bill C-10 that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In that part of the bill, 16 minimum mandatory sentences have been created, and the maximum of two years less a day or less is left alone. In other words, that person stays in provincial custody. The cost of these additional sentences and the additional number of people who will be imprisoned is on the province.

Those are the facts. That is important data. However, the government is not interested in that kind of information.

Under this legislation, if a young person at university has a prescription for Tylenol 3 and he or she passes one of those pills to a sick friend, that young person could go to jail for two years.

Where is the evidence to show that shovelling billions of dollars into the prison system would make us safer? Safer streets are mentioned in the bill's title. Therefore, that should be the number one question. Would this legislation make our streets safer? All the evidence indicates no.

The philosopher George Santayana once said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it.

Let us look at what has happened elsewhere in the past.

The U.S. is the best example of a place with high incarceration rates. These methods have been tried and have proven to be disastrous there. Its prisons are collapsing under their own weight. The U.S. incarceration rate is now 700% higher per capita than Canada's. Its violent crime rates are far higher than Canada's. For every 100,000 Canadians, Canada has had two murders, whereas the U.S. has had five. For every 100,000 Canadians, Canada has had 89 robberies and the U.S. has had 145.

As my time is running out, I will wind up by urging members to vote against this legislation.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend with interest. The members on that side put a lot of stock on the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is fine.

However, a study came out today showing that out of 15 particular cases where the PBO had rendered an opinion, he was right four times. When the Minister of Finance or someone on this side of the House rendered an opinion they were right nine times. They agreed on two of them. I throw that out as an observation.

There was a lot of rhetoric from those members stating that anyone who grows six pot plants would be thrown into jail when in fact that is not what the legislation says. Would the member not admit that who we are really after are the people who grow it to traffic and export it? Would the member at least admit that is actually the intent of the bill?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, first let me speak about the challenges the Parliamentary Budget Officer faces. He was appointed by the government and given the job of reporting to Parliament and advising us as parliamentarians so we can do our constitutional job of voting on spending. However, the government refuses to give that person the tools and information he needs to do his job.

Now government members are complaining that he is not doing a good enough job when they will not give him the information to do it. I think it was Yeltsin who said that he wished he had just one economist instead of 10,000 because they all have different views. Because economists have different views, they will have different outcomes. However, I think we can recognize that when it comes to the cost of the bills the government has been wrong. The numbers show that already. The numbers are out to lunch. They are way over what had been projected.

When it comes to the government's intention, the fact is that members on this side of the House have offered a number of times to fast track the parts of the bill that we agree with. However, there are other parts that are very problematic and the government fails to recognize that.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's speech he spoke about the declining statistical trends in the crime rate. I take the point about the absurdity of this bill in the context of declining crime rates. However, it seems to me too that good policy is good policy and good legislation is good legislation.

I wonder if the member would feel any differently about the contents of this bill were crime rates actually rising.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is important to examine the context of what the government is doing in the situation and where it is putting its priorities. The member makes an excellent point as to whether we would feel differently if crime rates were rising. It makes sense to focus on and choose to invest particular attention in this area. We want to see a reduction in crime rates. However, that is happening already.

The question is not so much whether one would use these measures. One could invest in other ways. In fact, the measures in this bill are not well calculated toward reducing crime. In the U.S. it has resulted in an increase in crime and more victims. How do we improve the situation for victims if there are more of them due to more crime and a silly agenda that does not work?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, earlier the member for Halifax West put a question relating to Peter Blaikie in reference to Maureen Basnicki's gratitude for the bill. As a member of Parliament, I would also vote for the portion of this bill relating to terrorism if it were made separate. I wonder if the member for Halifax West feels the same way. Maureen Basnicki's quote had nothing to do with the question raised.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not recall quoting Madam Basnicki. It is not a name that I have read. Perhaps someone else did. I gather the Conservative side quoted her. I would have to review her words to determine whether I would agree. It sounds as though I might, but I would have to look at that.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act

Bill C-10 is a comprehensive bill that brings together reforms proposed from nine bills that were before the previous Parliament. The short title of the bill, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, reflects the overall intent of this comprehensive legislation. It seeks to safeguard Canadians and Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast. This is such a fundamental principle and objective. To my mind, this objective should be unanimously supported by all parliamentarians in all instances and in all cases. While I appreciate there are many issues on which we as lawmakers may reasonably disagree the safety and security of Canadians, including that of vulnerable children, should never be one such issue.

Let us consider this comprehensive bill is. It proposes amendments that generally seek to do the following:

First, Bill C-10, through part 2, proposes to better protect children and youth from sexual predators. These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-54 in the last Parliament, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act.

Specifically, these amendments would propose new and higher mandatory minimum penalties to ensure that all sexual offences involving child victims are consistently and strongly condemned. They would create two new offences to target preparatory conduct to the commission of a sexual offence against a child. They would also enable courts to impose conditions on suspected or convicted child sex offenders to prevent them from engaging in conduct that could lead to their committing another sexual offence against a child.

Second, through part 2, Bill C-10 proposes to increase penalties by imposing mandatory minimum penalties when specified aggravated factors are present for serious drug offences. Those offences would be the production, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, possession for the purpose of exporting of schedule 1 drugs such as heroine, cocaine, methamphetamine, and schedule 2 drugs such as marijuana.

These offences often involve organized crime, including gang warfare over turf, which in turn brings its own disastrous impact on Canadian communities. They also enable and feed drug abuse, the negative impact of which is not only felt by the addicted individual but also by the family of that addict, as well as by the Canadian health system and the economy.

These reforms were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.

Third, part 2 of the bill includes what was previously proposed in former Bill C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act to end house arrest for serious crimes.

Under these reforms offences carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years, as well as serious offences that are punishable by 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment, that result in bodily harm, or the import or export, trafficking and production of drugs, or that involve the use of a weapon, or that is specifically identified, would never be eligible to receive a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Fourth, Bill C-10, through part 4, proposes to protect the public from violent and repeat young offenders. These amendments include: recognizing the protection of society as a principle in the Youth Criminal Justice Act; making it easier to detain youths charged with serious offences pending trial; requiring the courts to consider adult sentences for the most serious and violent cases; and, requiring the police to keep records of extrajudicial measures.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's law and respond to the Supreme Court of Canada 2008 judgment in Regina v. D.B., and the 2006 Nova Scotia report of the Nunn commission of inquiry “Spiralling Out of Control, Lessons Learned From a Boy in Trouble”.

Fifth, Bill C-10, through part 3, includes proposals to replace the word "pardons" with "record suspensions". It would expand the period of ineligibility to apply for a record suspension and proposes to make record suspensions unavailable for certain offences, including child sexual offences, and for persons who have been convicted of more than three offences prosecuted by indictment and for each of which the individual received a sentence of two years or more.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-23B, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act.

Sixth, Bill C-10, also through part 3, proposes to codify some additional key factors in deciding whether a Canadian who has been convicted abroad would be granted a transfer back to Canada. These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Seventh, Bill C-10, through part 3, proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to recognize the rights of victims, increase offender accountability and responsibility, and modernize the disciplinary system for inmates. These proposals were previously proposed in former Bill C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act.

Eighth, Bill C-10, through part 1, seeks to deter terrorism by supporting victims of terrorism. Specifically, these reforms would enable victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that is incurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985. These amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Last, Bill C-10, through part 5, proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect vulnerable foreign nationals against abuse and exploitation. These amendments were previously proposed in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

I have briefly summarized the nine core elements of Bill C-10. All of these proposed amendments seek to better protect Canadians. That is something on which we should all be able to agree. Certainly, we know it is something on which Canadians agree. I call on all members to support the bill at second reading so it can be quickly referred to and studied by the justice committee.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I listen to the debate on Bill C-10, I am trying to understand the motivation.

I listened to the member speak and a question came to my mind regarding the protection of potential refugees against the smugglers. Human smuggling already has the highest penalty. The highest punishment is a life sentence. This bill does not increase that. How will this bill punish smugglers who are engaged in human smuggling?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill brings forward a lot of matters. Certainly the human smuggling issue has been troubling this country for a long time. It takes different forms in the exploitation of people smuggled into the country. In many cases it directly affects women who are then forced into the sex trade in Canada. There is a whole raft of issues that certainly dehumanize individuals who are brought here by smugglers. This bill is part of the package to improve the quality of life for people in this country and for those who legitimately come to this country.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the government's approach in this bill is similar to its approach if a roof is leaking: it would just put out more buckets. If there is crime in the streets, it will just build more jails. That is the government's approach, rather than trying to fix the roof or trying to address social problems. I certainly think that is a wrong-minded approach.

There are components of this bill that we absolutely agree with and we could support them and unanimously pass them through this House. I am sure they would get support from the NDP as well. Why would the government not allow breaking out from the bill those components that could receive unanimous support?

The contentious aspects, the ones that have not been costed, are the ones that scare the heck out of us. Let us go forward and see a fulsome debate on those particular aspects.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, the very first thing I would say to my good friend from Cape Breton—Canso is that his premise is dead wrong.

We believe that if the roof is leaking, we better fix it. His approach might very well be to analyze each drop of water as it comes through the roof.

With all due respect, this is about protecting Canadians. I do not know why members on the other side want to put a price on protecting victims. I recall talking with a victim of a serious crime. That victim was not concerned about the cost. That victim wanted to see justice.

Justice is not done through an open door. When I listen to members on the other side, their solution is to open the doors of all the prisons and that somehow will fix things. The other problem is they want to blame society for the acts of criminals. Quite frankly, there are criminal acts that should be dealt with.

We should move forward on the bill.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member opposite. It seems to us on this side of the House that the way to get at crime is to find the roots of crime. We should try to stop crime from happening on the ground floor so that the roof the hon. member mentioned does not leak.

Why does the government not want to look at the fundamental roots of crime: poverty, mental illness and addiction?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, quite frankly, part of the member's equation is to blame society. In my involvement in these areas, I have seen families where one child chooses a life of crime and the others do not. It is easy to blame society for these things, but at some point those who commit crimes are going to have to suffer the consequences. Many of them feel they should not suffer those consequences.

We should pass this bill. It is about protecting victims.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Veterans; the hon. member for Windsor West, Windsor-Detroit Border Crossing; the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Fisheries and Oceans.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-10, the government's so-called Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Indeed, of the many ways in which the Conservative government is moving Canada backward, few initiatives do more to achieve this than Bill C-10.

In my riding of Davenport over the last two years, this is one of the issues that has come up most often. There is concern over the government's obsession with spending billions of dollars, and by the way, compelling the provinces to do the same, on a crime bill that will largely not make our streets any safer and will not contribute to building stronger communities.

I live in a riding where in the last two years we have seen schools close, recreation centres close, daycare centres close. Programs to help settle new immigrants have been gutted. Bus routes, used primarily by folks doing shift work, have been cut. Senior services are in dire need of new investments. I live in a city where 70,000 people are on a waiting list for affordable housing.

While the essential services that are needed to create strong, vibrant, safe streets and communities are being choked, the government can find billions upon billions of dollars for an experiment on crime prevention which has failed in every jurisdiction where it has been attempted. It utterly failed, as we know, in the United States.

Members should not get me wrong. It is not that people in my riding are not concerned about crime. They are concerned about crime. Indeed they are, but I am reminded of a conversation I had with some residents who were concerned about drug dealers taking over the local park. I am concerned about that too. It was not that they were just concerned about the dealers. To a person, these residents complained not so much that there are not enough prisons to lock the dealers up, but that there are not enough programs for young people to get involved in. With nothing to do and few local job prospects, young people are vulnerable to falling into gang culture and criminal elements. Bill C-10 does not address this fundamental foundational issue around crime prevention.

While I listed all the closures in my riding, and I could list more, there are things that are being built and opened in my riding. In the riding of Davenport there are two brand new police stations being built as we speak. Many are hopeful, as am I, that these new police stations in our neighbourhoods will help with some of the crime issues that people are dealing with, but the problem underlined in my riding is writ large in Bill C-10: there is no balance.

In communities across the country investment in social infrastructure is desperately needed, yet we are told that we are heading into a period of austerity and that there is no money. Well, there is money for some things, but when ideology trumps common sense, we get nasty pieces of legislation like Bill C-10.

Instead of a national affordable housing strategy that would provide a framework to provide stable affordable housing, a key determinant to health and a primary building block for safe communities, the government will spend over $500 million this year alone on new prison construction. That is the housing strategy for Canada.

While the government squeezes middle and working class families and small businesses, it is happy to spend over $162,000 on average annually for each new prison cell in this country, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Instead of investing in getting at the roots of poverty, mental illness and addiction, instead of focusing on a comprehensive pan-Canadian job strategy--and rolling over for the oil and gas industry is not a cross-Canada jobs program--the government wants to spend close to $3 billion a year locking up more people, providing fewer programs to rehabilitate them, all the while draining our public coffers, our precious resources, that could truly create safer streets. Indeed, prison costs are up 86% since the Conservatives took power while the crime rate continues to fall to its lowest level since the 1970s.

The government has racked up the biggest fiscal deficit in the history of Canada. Instead of being smart with taxpayer money, it plays politics and lets its dated right-wing ideology continue to craft bad public policy.

For example, a single new low security cell is going to cost $260,000 to build. A medium security cell is going to cost $400,000. A maximum security cell is going to cost $600,000. For goodness sake, even the annual cost of an inmate in a community correctional centre is now over $85,000 a year. Does this make fiscal sense?

As the income gap gets wider and wider in our country, the government hectors Canadians about belt-tightening, while its spends and spends on a prison expansion scheme about which both the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, among many others, have serious concerns.

The government does not actually want to hear what Canadians think about this omnibus bill. If it did, it would not have limited debate on the bill. Bill C-10 packages up nine government bills from the previous Parliament and presents them to the House and to Canadians as one whopping bill. Then it says that it wants us to accept it all without any conversation or debate.

With the motion that passed yesterday morning, Canadians in the House will only be able to debate for a period of less than two hours for each of the nine bills. For a government that was elected to bring more transparency and more accountability to this place, it is in fact bringing less. The action of limiting debate on this huge and outrageously expensive bill is one more example of its lack of transparency.

It is too bad. Canadians deserve to have Bill C-10 aired to its fullest. Experts say that mandatory minimum sentences do not work for reducing drug use, tackling organized crime or making our communities safer. The measures contained in the bill, for example, will not make it easier for law enforcement agencies to get to the organized crime bosses who run the drug trade, who we need to bring in and incarcerate.

One of the most effective ways to promote public safety is the successful rehabilitation and reintegration back into society of offenders. Our federal prison system lacks the programs to deal with this effectively. This legislation does not deal with this issue in any kind of real way.

We do not oppose everything in the bill. As we saw yesterday in the House, my hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh tabled a motion that would have expedited the passing of elements of the bill that were in the last Parliament, known as Bill C-54. This section seeks to protect children from exploitation and sexual abuse. In fact, the government has adopted measures in this section of Bill C-10 put forward by the NDP in private member's bills.

It is too bad that the government would rather play politics than move quickly on parts of the bill that could get unanimous support in this House, like those measures to protect our children. In fact, immediately after voting down the motion that would have sent that part of the bill to the Senate within 48 hours, government members proceeded with statements on the importance of the very measure they had just voted against putting on the fast track.

As I said, there are things in the bill which we do agree with and which we could find common ground with the government on, but it is not really interested in doing that. The government's decision to limit debate heaps a measure of ideological cynicism on to what should be a very thorough, serious examination.

The bill is too costly and it will not make our streets and communities safer. We on the NDP side of the House have come prepared to work with the government to quickly pass the measures that will protect children and to fix measures that will not work. It is too bad the government wants to play politics and games with the safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague very carefully. This is what I heard in Calgary Northeast. I directly asked a couple of offenders who had been in jail a couple of times, for a few months each time, one specific question. When I asked them if they had to spend a minimum of two years in jail for the same offence instead of only two months, they both said that they would not have done it. That is the deterrence.

The member talked about the costs and about the debate. First, these bills have been debated in the House extensively in the past. It is so unfortunate that I have not heard a line about supporting the victims.

Why can those members not stop playing politics and do the right thing by standing up for the victims, supporting the bill and making a change for once?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that 77,000 fewer crimes were reported in 2010 than in 2009. The 2010 crime rates are the lowest since the 1970s, yet the cost of prisons are up 86% since the conservative government took over. This is the new math of this Parliament. Canadians are scratching their heads. We wonder why the government seeks to spend money in such a fashion without fulsome debate in the House on the bill before us.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada's prisons are home to an increasing number of offenders with mental health disorders, ranging from anti-social personality disorder through to schizophrenia, and offenders who may also be addicted to alcohol or drugs. We are seeing criminalization of the mentally ill.

A recent report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator shows that the number of people in federal prisons with mental illnesses has nearly doubled in the past decade, while the incarceration rate has barely budged.

What solutions would the hon. member suggest to treat people with mental illness who run into difficulty with the law, often because of a lack of a national mental health strategy and poorly-funded, disorganized and fragmented community mental health services?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and it is true. Law enforcement agencies across Canada have been saying for years that they need the resources to properly deal with the issue of mental health. We see this time and time again, anecdotally across Canada, that when law enforcement have that training, many situations that previously resulted in tragic outcomes now do not.

It is incumbent on us to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to learn more about mental health, to understand the issue and to understand that this is an illness and not criminal behaviour.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a father, it is completely unacceptable to me to watch a government that claims to be responsible hide behind pedophilia to say that some aspects of the bill are commendable and that we do not want to support it. That does not work.

Is it acceptable to hide behind one item in order to try to get others passed in such an irresponsible manner?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, in fact, this is one of the problems we have with the bill. It is a cynical move on the part of the government to hide the problematic parts of the bill inside an omnibus bill so we cannot, as parliamentarians, as representatives of the Canadian public, properly debate them. We all think this is a very serious problem.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I come from northern Alberta, a very beautiful part of Canada with lush wilderness and five rivers flowing into my community. It is a beautiful place. I have lived there 45 years. During that time I have seen a move from 1,500 people to approximately 100,000 today. That is quite a growth for any community, but during that period of time I also had the opportunity to practise law. I practised several different types of law, including criminal law.

My family has lived in that community in the centre of town for 45 years and during that time period we have seen a tremendous growth in one particular trade. That trade is obvious and seen daily on the streets of downtown Fort McMurray as the drug trade.

I get many calls from constituents in relation to this activity, which carries on during the day. That is why I am so pleased today to rise to speak in support of Bill C-10, which would help those beautiful communities across Canada that have turned into places where drugs are sold openly in public at all times of the day.

This must stop. This is Canada. This is not some third world country. This is Canada where we believe in the rule of law, where we believe in obeying the laws. I am glad to say that Bill C-10 is not just in relation to punishing drug dealers, but also to protect our youth, to protect our country and enact the justice for victims of terrorism act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other acts. We are getting a lot of work done here notwithstanding the NDP's position on the bill.

I have received tremendous support, not just from Fort McMurray but from small communities like Slave Lake and High Prairie, which are nestled in a different area of Alberta about five hours by vehicle further south. However, these communities have seen a tremendous increase in plain and obvious drug trafficking as well. They have spoken loudly and clearly that they want this off their streets.

The bill, the safe streets and communities act, responds to and reflects our commitment to reintroduce our law and order agenda legislation to combat crime and terrorism. We hear members on the other side say that we should study it some more. We have studied it and many of the positions that are found in these bills have been Conservative Party policy for many years. They have been thoroughly debated in the House before. Maybe some of the members are new, we understand that, but they have been debated. The people of Canada spoke in the last election. They gave us a clear mandate to move forward with this agenda because they knew that the Liberal Party, which is now pretty much gone except for a few members, had blocked our agenda.

I can hear those members over there talking about standing up—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I ask members who do not have the floor to wait until questions and comments.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, just like the Conservatives stand up for victims, you are standing up for me and I appreciate that.

As noted by the Minister of Justice in his speech to the House last week, this bill reflects the strong mandate that Canadians have given us to protect society and ultimately hold criminals responsible for their actions. That does not mean a slap on the wrist. It means time away for the crimes they have committed, proportional, of course, to the crimes they have committed.

Bringing these nine bills together, that died on the order paper in the last Parliament, sends a clear signal to Canadians that we have listened to them, that we are following the mandate they have given us, and we are following through with our commitment. Canadians know that they can count on this government to do exactly that.

We have, through a series of bills and legislative moves, sought to improve public safety and strengthen our justice system since we formed government in 2006. While we have enacted significant criminal law reforms, there is much more to be done. Moving forward on this particular piece of legislation will certainly be a step in the right direction.

However, our work is not done and we look forward to constructive criticism from the opposition. We are sure it will be constructive and we know there will be criticism, but we look for suggestions from them because nothing is perfect. We know that we have to go further to better reflect what Canadians want. That is clearly safety on their streets, to take drug dealers off the streets, and ensure their children can play on the streets.

The suggestion by the opposition that we should somehow cherry pick parts of the bill and fast-track them is not listening to what Canadians said in the last election. They clearly support our law and order agenda, and the NDP and Liberals should get on board and do exactly that, not just with this bill, as I know the Liberals have said they will support some parts of it, but other bills because clearly Canadians should be the final boss of this place and of us.

As I said, this debate is welcome because we have an opportunity to put in the forefront what we are trying to do for Canadians and that we are listening to them. It is also important to recognize that we have continued this debate time and time again with many of the same people across the way now complaining that we are not having proper discussion.

Clearly, we know that moving forward with this bill would ensure public safety. It would ensure offenders are held more accountable. There are minimum sentences to ensure that happens and so that judges have clear knowledge. I remember when I practised law that I would stand before judges who would say they did not have a clear indication from Parliament here or there, that they did not know which sentence to give, that an offender in a certain case went away for two years and in another case an offender got two months for the same offence, maybe drug trafficking in Vancouver versus Edmonton. That happens. I can assure everyone that happens.

This sends a clear message to judges that the minimal sentences we are passing, with the help of the Liberals, hopefully, and convincing some NDP members about what Canadians want, will actually happen. We are sending clear direction to judges across this country. We want to see this stopped. Judges have asked for direction and I hope they are listening today. They should recognize that Canadians speak to us by electing us and we speak to them through putting laws in place that judges will interpret. Judges will impose the sentences we ask them to because Canadians have clearly told us they want that.

I have heard a good overview of Bill C-10 by many members in the House. I know many have complained it is a bit too large and complicated. I have had an opportunity to sit in on special legislative committees, passing 15 bills in this place through committees, and I do not see any complication. It is plain language and is very clear. It has been before the House in some cases for years and years.

I would suggest it is not too large nor complex. However, if members on the other side have difficulties with particular clauses, I would be happy to go through them with them. I am sure many members in this place, at least on the Conservative side, would be happy to sit down and explain some of the more complex details. Clearly, we have to listen to Canadians and pass these laws, and I am looking for support from the opposition side to do exactly that.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find the government member's comments to the effect that new members may not be familiar with this omnibus bill somewhat condescending. On the contrary, we are very familiar with it; we are informed. We know that bills of this nature have been introduced in the past, although certain provisions were a little different and several minimum sentences have been added.

Accordingly, when we talk about offender accountability and responsibility regarding drugs, can the member across the floor explain to us on what basis they can say that measures are in place to help offenders? We know that only one in five offenders receives any help in terms of mental health and rehabilitation, and that few of these people get any meaningful help.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question regarding provincial jurisdiction.

I have seen in this place some constructive work by Liberal, Bloc and NDP members on some of our legislation. I can assure the member that we do not believe that this is perfect legislation. It is large and it has been around for a while, but it is not perfect. That is why there have been some changes over the summer. We would ask for her input, and the input of all members, to make it even more perfect. If they see places where we should impose minimum sentences or increase sentences for particularly violent offences or offences against children, I would suggest that the Minister of Justice would be more than happy to have that input and implement those changes.

If the member does have that, please come across and explain exactly why the punishment is not severe enough; how we could utilize it to rehabilitate or actually change the justice system; and, as to what has happened in this country over the last 20 or 30 years, how to make the streets safer for Canadians and respond better to what they want.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and I am delighted to know that he has practised criminal law. He would likely know that jurisdictions around the world, including jurisdictions here in North America, our own federal government and five provincial governments, are seeking ways to relieve congestion and delay in our court systems.

One of my many concerns about the bill is that it is, in fact, going to overwhelm our court system. It would do quite the opposite of its purported intention, which is to provide justice for victims and safer communities.

I wonder it the member could advise us as to what the bill does, or what the government is prepared to do, to relieve congestion and delays in our provincial and federal court systems.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct. It is a concern of mine as well having practised law in Fort McMurray, and it was a very busy criminal practice.

I would note some other statistics. I do not have them in front of me, but from memory I think only 6% to 8% of crimes are actually solved in this country. I also understand that somewhere around 70% or 80% of the offences committed in this country are done by someone who has committed them before and has been in jail before. These are startling and troubling statistics.

I have represented people who had 10 or 12 previous impaired driving convictions and those with four or five assaults. There were some people who had three or four pages to their record, which does not mean four or five assaults but probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 or 40 previous convictions, and it is difficult to get the convictions.

We clearly need to send a message, but to save a dime, the cost to taxpayers, the cost to the citizens of Canada, for not making sure people pay for the crimes they commit I would suggest far outweighs the opposite.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Justice told us that he would not govern on the basis of the most recent statistics, he was basically saying that he would not use facts or evidence to guide his decisions. That is very worrisome.

Are we going to be subject to governance without logic or reason for the next four years? Should we also expect the Conservative government to rule by fiat without recognizing that 61% of Canadians did not vote for them? The day after the May 2 election, when the Conservatives had only 39% of the votes, the Prime Minister admitted that the results of the election showed that Canadians wanted the parties to work together. Was this a false promise? I think that the whole government and, more specifically, all members of Parliament who are paid by taxpayers and represent the people in their ridings, have the duty to govern in a reasonable and thoughtful manner.

When the government stubbornly insists on passing a bill when it does not know the actual costs of that bill but does know that certain extremely costly measures will not address the actual problems and, worse, could very well create more problems, it is not logical, responsible or thoughtful. I would even go so far as to say that the government is acting in bad faith.

I find it hard to believe that all the Conservative members agree that the government should put the provinces further in debt when they do not have the slightest bit of evidence that the proposed measures will actually make our streets and communities safer. In fact, by taking just 15 minutes to read the news or the press releases issued by experts such as the Canadian Bar Association, we quickly learn that minimum sentences do not reduce crime rates; this could save us $90,000 a day. Minimum sentencing does not work and costs a fortune.

The government needs to tell taxpayers the truth by revealing the costs and by explaining the basis for its proposals, particularly those related to minimum sentencing. The government needs to ask taxpayers directly whether they would like it to pass a bill of unknown costs that threatens health and education or whether they would rather the government take the time to ensure that their money is invested responsibly and adopt measures that would truly make their streets and communities safer. Clearly, Canadians would chose the second option.

We all agree, even the members of the opposition, that criminals must be punished. I do not want to dwell too long on what has already been said, but there are measures that we are prepared to support right now, namely, all those related to violent crimes and sexual offences against children.

However, the government seems to forget that 95% of prisoners will eventually be released and that the correctional system is a dangerous environment, rife with drug trafficking and violence, which can lead to other kinds of crimes. Thus, it is possible that increasing the number of prisoners and taxing the prison system even further, without investing more judiciously in preventive measures that tackle the source of the problem, could have very negative, or even dangerous, consequences.

If the purpose of Bill C-10 really is to make our streets and communities safer, why does it not include more investment in rehabilitation and prevention programs? I know the government does not like statistics, but 80% of incarcerated women are in prison for crimes related to poverty, including 39% for unpaid fines. These figures released this morning by the National Council of Welfare point to a real problem. The council also noted that the cost to incarcerate a woman who fails to pay a $150 fine is $1,400.

I am sure the Minister of Finance will be pleased to hear—and free of charge too—that for every dollar invested in prevention and rehabilitation, the government would save far more in incarceration costs, addiction costs and the cost of crimes committed in prisons themselves. Front-line workers such as social workers, street outreach workers, school psychologists and counsellors are looking for an opportunity to become more involved on the ground to prevent crime by targeting at-risk groups—young people in distress, people with mental illness or substance abuse problems, and marginalized people. Their work allows would-be offenders to get help and referrals to the services they need. All studies and examples from elsewhere demonstrate that prevention is more effective than incarceration and punishment.

Prevention not only stops the crimes from being committed, but also contributes to the well-being of Canadian society. Therefore, fewer crimes mean fewer victims and less incarceration. Is that not a nicer social and economic picture? It appears that we are not all on the same page.

As members of Parliament, we are all paid to make difficult decisions, but we are also paid to make logical decisions and to undertake the necessary research to ensure that taxpayers' money is not being wasted but is being spent effectively.

Why is the government so anxious to pass a bill that includes measures that have failed in other countries?

With a government that so often takes a page from the United States government when developing new policies, it should learn from one of the United States' concrete examples, which shows that minimum sentences do not decrease drug trafficking crimes. Not only that, minimum sentences are expensive and can exacerbate a large number of issues such as overcrowded prisons and negative effects of repression on society.

Logic tells me that if the Conservatives truly want to improve public safety—and I have no doubt that that is what they want, as do the rest of us—why not ensure that the proposed measures truly target the root of the problem?

To do that, we simply need more time to do the necessary research and base the measures on facts, on concrete examples from other countries and on responsible reasoning.

With this very uncertain economic climate, it is not the time to act like reckless cowboys and pass laws with unknown price tags, which could be detrimental to the economic health of the country and the provinces, as well as public safety.

To justify the bill and evade our questions, the Minister of Justice, who says he does not rely on figures and statistics, often cites the price paid by victims, which runs to $99 billion. I hope that this is not an arbitrary amount.

But where is the evidence that this cost will decrease with implementation of this legislation? Taxpayers deserve answers. If there is clear and objective evidence that minimum sentences do not reduce drug-related crimes in the U.S., how will they lead to a reduction in the price paid by victims?

Why not vote for measures that are unanimously accepted in the House, continue a healthy and democratic debate on the contentious issues and find the right, intelligent and effective solutions to ensure the safety of Canadians?

And above all, why not show Canadians that the Conservatives are prepared to work with the opposition parties, which represent 61% of the population, and make considered decisions by splitting the bill and debating the laws one by one?

I can confirm—and this is more free advice—that the majority of Canadians will be pleased to see that the government is prepared to make good decisions and consult experts rather than hastily proposing repressive laws with unknown social, economic and legal consequences. This would bode well for the next four years.

Therefore, I do not support passage of this amalgamation of repressive and unjustified bills in Bill C-10. I invite the Conservatives to review this bill and allow a debate that is healthier and more democratic for everyone.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that the member who just spoke is quite new to this place and maybe does not know what has happened with this legislation in past years. Some parts of it have been debated in the House for many years. If she had looked at the record, she would have seen that there were actually 51 days of debate on this legislation in the Canadian Parliament. There has already been 85 hours of debate and 223 speeches on this legislation. The bill was in committee for 58 days, or 123 hours and it heard from 295 witnesses.

Maybe the member did not know that because, if she had, she would not be complaining that we grouped this legislation and are trying to get it through before Christmas. The member needs to look at what happened before in terms of debate.

If the member had been in the House longer, she would have known that getting unanimous support in this place is virtually impossible, rarely happens and, when it does, it is on a very narrow issue. It is simply not realistic.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I realize that there have been lengthy debates on a number of the bills included in Bill C-10, which is an omnibus bill. However, with all due respect to the member opposite, a number of provisions have been added, particularly those regarding minimum sentences, to which we are opposed given that a number of studies show that such sentences are ineffective in preventing crime. In fact, we are in favour of more prevention.

Earlier we were asked to make some suggestions for improving the bills. All we have been doing for the past few days is suggesting preventive measures, more help to prevent crimes from being committed and positive and effective help for people with mental health problems, the disadvantaged, the poor and those coping with unemployment and housing problems.

Those are all proposals we have made, but it seems that half the people in this room have a mental block and are not listening. Many things have been proposed. Just because we are new MPs or young, that does not mean we are not informed. We are here in good faith. We read the documents and try to find common ground. If we fundamentally disagree with the values being proposed to us, then we will obviously take an opposing stand and ask the other side to make changes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about prevention. I will share a story with her about some of the beautiful children with whom I have worked. They can be verbally and physically aggressive. They find it difficult to understand what people are saying to them. They have problems managing their money. It is all through no fault of their own. They are victims of fetal alcohol syndrome disorder.

As members know, exposure to too much alcohol can damage a developing baby's brain. The resulting symptoms including learning difficulties, problems processing information, poor judgment and a lack of emotional control. Many of these victims end up in difficulty with the law.

I wonder what the member thinks Canada should be doing for these children, these adults, and to address FAS in prisons.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the Liberal Party for her question. We have a lot in common. I used to work in the school system as a teacher.

Many children are pleased to get help at school, whether it comes from social workers or remedial teachers. With that help, they can finally manage, after several treatments, to control their anger, express in a non-violent manner what they are feeling and discuss the problems they are experiencing. They end up working through their problems in a more positive way.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

We all know that the safe streets and communities act proposes a wide range of reforms to strengthen the law's response to several things: child sexual abuse and exploitation, serious drug and violent property crimes, terrorism, violent young offenders, offender accountability and management, and the protection of vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation.

As many hon. members have noted, the bill brings together in one comprehensive package reforms that were included in nine bills that were put before the previous Parliament and that died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament for the general election.

I will itemize these. These former bills are: Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders); Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act; Bill C-16, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act; Bill C-23B, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act; Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act; Bill C-59, Abolition of Early Parole Act; Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act; and finally Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.

Many hon. members have participated in several hours of debate today and ongoing debate from the last Parliament to now. It is clear that some do not share the same views as the government about the need to address crime in our society, the need to increase public safety, the need to better balance the role of victims in the justice system and the need to make offenders more accountable.

My remarks here today need not repeat what some of my hon. colleagues have already noted about the key features of Bill C-10 and the importance of these reforms. I propose to briefly comment on the important reforms proposed in Bill C-10 as they relate to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act came into effect in April 2003. The reforms now proposed in Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act, have been shaped by consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. After five years of experience with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a review was launched by the Minister of Justice in 2008. This began with discussions with provincial and territorial attorneys general to identify the issues that they considered most important.

In May 2008, the Minister of Justice began a series of cross-country round tables, often co-chaired by provincial and territorial ministers, in order to hear from youth justice professionals, front-line youth justice stakeholders and others about areas of concern and possible improvements regarding the provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Input from individuals and organizations was also provided through the Department of Justice website, in letters and in in-person meetings. The results showed clearly that most provinces, territories and stakeholders believe the current youth legislation works well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes. However, there were concerns about the small number of youth who commit serious, violent offences or who are repeat offenders who may need a more focused approach to ensure the public is protected.

Clearly, the message was to build upon the good foundation of the law and make much needed improvements and the reforms proposed in Bill C-10 reflect this. Although the Youth Criminal Justice Act is working well for most youth, particular elements of the act need to be strengthened to ensure that youth who commit serious, violent or repeat offences are held accountable with sentences and other measures that are proportionate to the severity of the crime and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.

There have been concerns voiced from many sources and this government has responded. The reforms included in Bill C-10, previously included in Bill C-4, known as Sébastien's law, would enhance our fair and effective youth justice system and result in a system that holds youth accountable for their criminal misconduct and promotes their rehabilitation and re-integration into society in order to promote the protection of the public.

In addressing amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is important to note that the act's preamble specifically references that Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Youth Criminal Justice Act also recognizes that young persons have rights and freedoms, including those stated in the charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights. Nothing in Bill C-10 will impair these rights of young persons.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act provides for a range of responses that relate to the seriousness of the crime. These sentences also address the needs and circumstances of the youth and promote rehabilitation.

Amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act will ensure that young people under 18 who are serving a custody sentence will serve it in a youth custody facility. It will no longer be possible to put young people in adult prisons or penitentiaries, where the correctional regime is more suited to adults and where young people could all too easily become vulnerable to older, more hardened criminals. It is in the interests of the protection of society that young people become rehabilitated, and this amendment is aimed to ensure that this takes place.

While a sound legislative base is an essential part of ensuring that Canada has a fair and effective youth justice system, it is also essential to address the conditions that underlie criminal behaviour if we are to achieve any long-term or meaningful solution to the problem. Conditions such as addiction, difficult childhoods, mental health, fetal alcohol syndrome, or longer-term marginalization will continue to pose challenges to solving the problems of youth offending.

Our government has implemented various programs to assist in addressing these issues. The national anti-drug strategy has a significant youth focus. On the prevention front, the government has launched a national public awareness program and campaign to discourage our youth from using illicit drugs. The government has made funding available under the youth justice fund for pilot treatment programs that will assist with the rehabilitation of youth who have drug problems and are in the justice system, and for programs that are working toward preventing youth from becoming involved with guns, gangs and drugs.

Partnering with health, education, employment and other service providers beyond the traditional system, we can all work together. For example, through the youth justice fund the Department of Justice provided funding to a pilot program called Career Path, which offers a comprehensive specialized service for youth in the justice system who are at risk or are involved in gang activities. The program offers youth educational training and employment opportunities by connecting them with an employer who will also act as a mentor to facilitate making smart choices, foster pro-social attitudes, build leadership skills and gain valuable employability skills as a viable option to gang membership.

The reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are essential and responsive and should be supported as a key part of a broader effort on the part of the government to prevent and respond to youth involved in the justice system.

I would like to bring it a little closer to home, if I may.

This is the story of Ann Tavares, of London, who suffered a huge loss in November of 2004 when Stephan Lee stabbed her son 28 times. Steven Tavares was an innocent victim who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His death irreparably scarred the lives of those who loved him forever. That loss is what happened.

To compound her tragedy, her son's killer was found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder and sent to an Alberta hospital the following year. He was conditionally released in May 2008 and is now living in Alberta. All of this happened without notification to the victim's family or the public at large.

Suffering such a loss might have destroyed an individual. However, this became an impetus for Ann's quest to make others aware of what happened to her son and the lack of justice for this heinous crime. She has lobbied tirelessly against the inequities of the system, a system the government is trying to fix.

Ann strongly felt that there needs to be a connection between mental illness and crime. Specifically, she felt that the insanity defence needs to be banned. She felt that to say a perpetrator is not criminally responsible is too subjective. Mental impairment is a defence that anyone can claim. If someone commits a crime, that person should be punished.

She believes mental illness should not absolve someone from the crime they committed. The punishment needs to be based on the severity of the crime, and a fixed minimum time needs to be served before they are put back into the community. However, Ann did want good to come of her tragic situation. In addition to the punishment, she felt that the perpetrator should get mental health treatment, and that to protect innocent victims like her son and the community at large, such criminals should not be released into the community until they have been certified as not a risk to others.

I would like to expand on that through the questions and answers, if I might, Madam Speaker.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

I met with workers from the Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines penitentiary, which is in my riding. They told me that sending more people to prison will make their jobs more difficult and more dangerous. I would like to know what my colleague has to say about how this bill would affect these workers. I would also like to know what the government is going to do for them.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague's question is thoughtful and fair. At the same time, I think we need to always recall that this is about protecting the victims in society and I want to honour the guards and administrators in our system who are responsible for ensuring that those people who need to be kept away from the general public are in fact kept away. I think they do an excellent job in my colleague's riding and in all ridings across this country, and I would like to salute them, .

I would like to bring this a bit closer to home. I am very concerned about issues relating crime and the things we can do on behalf of youth. One of the things I do is a polling question every week. I send it to some 15,000 people as my question of the week. It is from people right across my community, but particularly in the great riding of London West. I would like to provide some responses in the hope they will give some clarity to why Bill C-10 is so important. I know we all care in this House, but this is critical.

When London West residents were asked if publishing the names of young offenders publicly after criminal conviction would hurt their chances of rehabilitation, 65% said it would not.

When my constituents were asked online if those convicted of sex-related crimes, including pedophilia, should be eligible to apply to have their criminal records pardoned, 95% responded “no”.

This was the final question: when I asked my constituents if opposition parties should support the Conservative government's efforts to limit the ability of serious criminals and sex offenders to obtain a pardon, 94% said “no”.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, my question relates to the intended or unintended consequences on the budgets of provincial jurisdictions. My colleague would know full well that his government supports money for police and for prisons, but between police and prisons there is a system under stress. Much of that system under stress is paid for by the provinces. I am referring to the prosecutors and the places in provincial institutions, which are presently full. I realize that the bulk of his speech focused on youth criminal justice; this applies both to youth criminal justice and to adults.

I would ask for his comments on what measures are going to be put in place to allow the provinces to tackle this financial burden that is being downloaded to them as a result of this legislation.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and I think the member will be very pleased with the answer.

He may not be aware, but I certainly want to let all colleagues in the House and all Canadians know that in this past year this government put $2.4 billion back into the system to ensure that we could provide the kind of protection and support that our provinces need. I am pleased to say we have done that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member, but he made reference to one aspect of the bill. I think we need to recognize that the government is bringing forward a bill that is a series of bills that should have been bills on their own. As a result of doing that, the Conservatives have further complicated the matter by saying that we now have a limited amount of time to debate a bill that encompasses many other bills.

Would he not agree that what Conservatives are really doing is a disservice, and is disrespectful to the proceedings of the House in not allowing members to deal with bills on an individual basis? In essence--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

I must give the hon. member 30 seconds to respond.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Chair, it is rather interesting that when all these bills were put forward to this House, our colleagues opposite had the opportunity to support them on an individual basis and chose not to, so I find it very curious that now, when we try to pull it together as one comprehensive bill, the member takes a separate view.

My Cape Breton mom once said about politicians, “After it's all said and done, there's a lot more said than done”.

It is now going to stop.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join the debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. I have been very glad to see the vigorous debate that has taken place in this House over the past few days and, of course, over 79 hours of debate in the previous Parliament.

As we know, the safe streets and communities act is a piece of comprehensive legislation, a piece of comprehensive legislation that is made up of nine separate bills. I have heard my hon. colleagues from the opposition question the rationale of bundling this important piece of legislation together, so I would like to speak to that point.

Since taking office, our government has made no secret of the fact that we will stand up for the safety and security of Canadian families. We have been clear that we will ensure that victims are heard and that victims are respected. We have been clear that dangerous criminals belong behind bars and not in the streets, where they can harm law-abiding Canadians.

The safe streets and communities act, and every piece of legislation within it, is about fulfilling those commitments to Canadians.

This is not the first piece of comprehensive legislation that our government has introduced. We were proud to have delivered the Tackling Violent Crime Act back in 2008, an act that has now been law for some period of time.

Members will recall that the Tackling Violent Crime Act strengthened the Criminal Code in a number of ways. It delivered tougher mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes; it established new bail provisions, which require those accused of serious gun crimes to show why they should not be kept in jail while they are waiting for trial; it protected youth from adult sexual predators by increasing the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age; and it ensured more effective sentencing and monitoring to prevent dangerous, high-risk offenders from offending again and again and again. It also made new ways to detect and investigate drug-impaired driving, as well as stronger penalties for impaired driving.

Much like the safe streets and communities act, all of the provisions had been pieces of previous legislation that had been blocked in political games by the oppositions prior to 2008. However, our party and our government believed so strongly in this action that we did what was in the best interests of Canadians: we bundled them into a comprehensive package known as the Tackling Violent Crime Act. On top of that, we made that act an issue of confidence in this House.

Now we find ourselves, after the May 2 general election, in a similar position with Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

As we know, this past spring Canadians gave us a strong mandate to move forward with our law and order agenda. As part of the Conservative election platform, we made a commitment to move quickly to reintroduce legislation that had been blocked or opposed by the opposition.

It has always been a point of pride that this government delivers on the promises we make to Canadians. That is why we have done as we have promised and why we are here today debating the safe streets and communities act.

Now I would like to talk a bit about the principle of protection of society.

What exactly does that mean? In short, it means that when courts and government officials are making decisions, the first thing they would now consider is how those decisions would affect the greater society.

It may come as a surprise to many Canadians that when it comes to the transfer of offenders, the protection of society is not currently the principle of consideration. We are currently in a situation in which the Minister of Public Safety is compelled to look at a number of factors when considering whether a prisoner should be transferred back to Canada. In fact, currently, the minister is restricted in the considerations that can be taken into account when he is looking to transfer offenders.

Bill C-10 would change that. This bill provides additional factors that the Minister of Public Safety may consider when determining whether to grant an offender's request to serve his or her sentence back in Canada. In doing so, it clarifies one of the key purposes of the International Transfer of Offenders Act, which that is to protect the safety of all Canadians. This would ensure that Canadians and their families are safe and secure in their communities and that offenders are held accountable for their actions. Canadian families expect no less.

Let me give members a few additional examples of what the minister could consider when considering whether an offender should be transferred back to Canada.

As examples, he could consider whether the offender is likely to endanger public safety, he could consider whether the offender is going to keep engaging in criminal activities, and he could consider whether the criminal would endanger the safety of Canadian children.

This legislation would also allow the minister to consider, among other things, whether the offender was co-operating with rehabilitation and local law enforcement, and whether the offender accepted responsibility for his or her actions. This means that when a minister makes a decision as to whether an offender is transferred back to Canada, he or she has the ability to look at a broad range of factors that go beyond what is simply in the best interests of the offender to ensure that protection of Canadian society comes first.

These proposed changes to the International Transfer of Offenders Act are among important changes contained within the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Others include better protection for our children and youth from sexual predators, increasing penalties for organized drug crime, and preventing serious criminals from serving their sentences in the comfort of their own living rooms by ending house arrest for serious crimes. It also would protect the public from violent young offenders and would eliminate pardons for serious crimes. It would increase offender accountability. It would support the victims of crime and would protect vulnerable foreign nationals from abuse and exploitation.

These are all measures in which our government strongly believes. We promised Canadians we would bring them forward swiftly after the election. That is why we have introduced the Safe Streets and Communities Act. It is also why we are hopeful that members of the opposition will do the right thing and support this important legislation.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member addressed the part of the bill that deals with the international transfer of prisoners. However, I know that the international community, particularly the United States, has spoken out against these measures since they give the minister too much power to determine whether a prisoner can be transferred. I would like the hon. member to comment on the international community's reaction in this regard.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we can always listen to people across the world who comment on the laws and legislation we pass here in Canada, but the member might have noticed today that Canada was selected as the top nation in the world. People have a positive feeling about our country.

We can listen to what people around the world say, or we can listen to the victims of crime in this country. That is whom our government listens to. We are going to stand and fight to protect the families of this country.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court has declared that overcrowding in United States prisons to the extent of 137% results in conditions within the prisons that are cruel and unusual punishment. The overcrowding rate in prisons in British Columbia is now at 200%. This legislation is going to pack provincial institutions to a greater degree. Undoubtedly there are going to be charter challenges.

What measures does the government plan to take to deal with overcrowding in provincial institutions as a result of bringing in this law?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that our government is investing in the expansion of federal prisons. We are also supporting our provinces with investments in their justice systems. No previous government in this country has done as much to invest and support the provinces in the area of justice as the Conservative Party of Canada has done.

We will continue to do that. We will continue to work with our provincial partners and ministers of justice across the country to make sure our communities and our people are safe.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently came across a report from the Department of Justice of the Government of Canada from January 2002. This expert report pans the idea of mandatory minimum sentences and concludes that it could be “a colossal waste of justice system resources”.

I know the government members always throw back at us that they are listening to the victims of crime and not all the experts, but surely they should listen to their own Department of Justice.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we also listen to front-line law enforcement officials across this country, officials like union president Tom Stamatakis, who said:

Whether it is by keeping dealers and producers off the streets and out of business, or by serving as a deterrent to potential dealers, this proposed legislation will help our members in doing their jobs and keeping our communities safe. In simple terms, keep these criminals in jail longer, and you take away their opportunity to traffic in drugs.

We are going to continue to listen to our front-line law enforcement officers. They are the ones who are dealing with this every day. We are going to stand and support our police across the country.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of overcrowding and double-bunking, I want to read something from Lyle Stewart of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers:

It raises the tensions in institutions where the tension levels are already very high. There's no question that it increases inmate-on-inmate violence, but it also increases the risk when correctional officers open the cell door. Often times that's when an inmate will choose to attack an officer, but now you've got two inmates in there.

Why does the government want to put correctional service officers at risk and in danger?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to those people who work in our prisons day in and day out rehabilitating criminals who are in there and protecting our people and keeping them safe.

I share the member's concern about making sure that we protect these very brave Canadians who work in our jail system. That is why our government is investing in an expansion of jails. I have two in my riding, one in my hometown of Truro and one in Springhill. We are investing in an expansion of both those prisons, making sure that we have enough personnel in those buildings and the physical space to make sure those people can conduct their jobs safely.

We are going to continue to invest in our prison system. We are going to continue to invest in the human resources, the people who work in the prison system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on a couple of aspects of Bill C-10.

Why has the government decided to bring in this bill at this time? It has a lot to do with propaganda. It has a lot to do with the government wanting to give the appearance to Canadians that it wants to be tough on crime. If the Conservatives really want to do Canadians a favour, they should get tough on the causes of crime or they should get tough on fighting crime. Bill C-10 would not result in less crime being committed on our streets or in our communities.

The government is trying to send a dated message to Canadians. It is a message that was tried many years ago in the United States. It was that right-wing conservative thinking which ultimately said that to beat crime, people had to be thrown in jail and kept there for a long period of time.

The jurisdictions that bought that argument built the jails and the jails exceeded capacity. Did it cause the crime rate to go down? No. If we compared some of the states in the deep south of the U.S. where megaprisons were built with states in the north, such as New York, we would find that the crime rate did not go down in the deep south. The jails did not help.

The Conservative government is convinced that the way to appease Canadians and to make Canadians think that their streets will be safer, is to bring in legislation that would foster more and bigger jails. The government would do far better in trying to make our streets safer so Canadians can sleep better at night by taking action to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place.

For a number of years I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. I have a good sense in terms of what works and what does not work. I have also served on youth justice committees as chair and as a layperson. I know there are many other things we could be doing that would have a far greater impact on preventing crime.

When I knock on doors in my constituency of Winnipeg North, I tell people that there should be consequences for crime. There is no doubt about that. If we are going to start getting tough, then let us start getting tough on fighting crime, on preventing some crimes from occurring in the first place.

How do we do that? In good part we do it by thinking outside the box. We do not even have to think outside the box; we could support some of the things that are out there right now.

How do we get young people, for example, to shy away from getting involved in gang activities? This is a serious problem in most of Canada's urban centres. It is a concern in the city of Winnipeg. Winnipeg is a beautiful city; I love it to death. There are all sorts of wonderful opportunities in Winnipeg. A vast majority of young people in Winnipeg are outstanding, but there is a certain percentage of youth who are being lured into activities that are not what I would classify as being of benefit to the community as a whole. There are some things we could do as legislators to improve the likelihood that those youth will not fall into the trap of prostitution, selling drugs, or getting involved in gangs.

I am interested in making sure that government policy allows us to deal with the issue at hand. The issue at hand is how to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place.

I have no love for pedophiles who commit these heinous crimes. I believe in consequences for those severe crimes. However, I do not necessarily buy-in to what the Americans were trying back 15 or 20 years ago. We will find that many of those strong Conservatives who advocated for the big jail concept no longer do. They have tried that experiment and it did not work. Now they are talking about how to get people back into communities and trying to develop other programs in order to prevent crimes in the first place.

One could talk about some of the bizarreness of the legislation. We have members who were officers of the law on the Conservative side who talked about the teeth in the legislation. Also, earlier today I made reference to a Winnipeg Free Press story on September 26. It is from Ethan Baron, a Vancouver columnist. He is not a member of Parliament and would be unbiased. I believe he is someone who would not likely have a party membership. The article states:

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

For the member who canvasses his constituents and poses questions to them, I wonder what his constituents would have to say about that quote.

I do not question the fact that some aspects of Bill C-10 are positive. However, let us look at what is being proposed. It is a piece of legislation that I have never experienced in my many years inside the Manitoba legislature. There are many bills of substance in this one omnibus bill, but the Conservatives have told this chamber that we have a limited time to debate all of the bills. Their argument is that they have a mandate.

Of the 39% of Canadians who voted for them, yes, that is a mandate, and I know the Conservatives won the most seats. However, there is a thing called respect.

It is a privilege for all of us to be in this parliamentary precinct, the House of Commons. We should be respecting the fact that there is a responsibility for us to go through legislation in a timely fashion. However, this is not as if we are just putting the word “the” or “a” into these bills. These are all bills of great substance within Bill C-10. It is a lack of respect for this chamber for the Conservatives to try to force through Bill C-10 and then put a time limit on debate.

In this bill, the government has a grouping, but what is next? Are we going to see another bill making reference to 25 bills from the Conservative brochures in the last election? Would the Conservatives now have the support of Canadians and the mandate to have an omnibus bill that would include those 25 bills? Would they want us to pass those bills all in one omnibus bill?

The Conservative government needs to respect what is taking place today. For many of those backbenchers, this is the first time they have been elected to the House. As well, for many of the New Democrats, it is the their first time as members of Parliament. To what degree have they been afforded the opportunity to speak on what should have been separate bills?

The principle of this legislature is supposed to be all about that. We are supposed to be here to thoroughly debate and ensure there is accountability from the different ministers who would be responsible for those bills. Shame on the government for not recognizing the importance of democracy and not respecting the importance of this chamber in allowing members to have dialogue on this. If members want to sit 24 hours, 7 days a week, I am game if that is what they want to do. Why put in the limits? Why force members of Parliament to speak only ten minutes, which is barely enough time to address one bill?

I suggest the government would be best advised to break up the bill. It needs to look in the mirror and wonder if it has gone too far.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points I want to raise.

The first is the member opposite says that the government does not have a mandate to bring in this legislation because only 39% of Canadians voted for our Conservative government. When I look at the results of the last election in his riding, he got 35% of the vote in his riding. What mandate does he have to tell the House what we can or cannot bring forward?

We won 166 seats in the House specifically on a mandate to bring forward this legislation. Thirty-nine per cent of Canadians voted for this government. We have 166 seats and a majority government. Liberals have 34 seats. He got 35% of the votes in his riding. What mandate does he have to stand in the House and say that his constituents do not want this bill? He does not have that mandate. He has 35%.

There is another thing in his speech with which I take offence. He has suggested that somehow we can either be law and order, support the police, have prisons and tough laws or we can help kids on the other side and have some preventive justice. It is such a nonsensical, laughable argument that he makes, that it is a this or that proposition. The fact is we have put forward all kinds of proposals, policies and programs to support those who are at risk.

I will tell him about a project in my riding called S.U.C.C.E.S.S., which helps kids who are the most at risk, the most troubled kids in our society who live in my community and need some support and structure. These are kids who have a last opportunity to get some structure in their lives, some discipline and opportunity for growth. We funded that program, we built that program, and those kids are now moving forward in their lives.

It is not a this or that proposition, it is both, and we are getting it done with 39% of the vote, not 35%.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when a government sits in power a little too long. Having a majority now, it believes, in an arrogant way, that it can do whatever it is it wants. There is a moral, if not ethical, and some would suggest legal obligation, to respect the legislature and parliamentary law. There is the need to acknowledge that. Just because the Conservative government has the most seats does not mean that it is a little dictator. There is an issue of respect in allowing legitimate debate on important issues facing Canadians. Just because it has a majority does not mean it gets to dictate everything that happens in the country over the next four years, in a dictatorship way.

He posed a question with regard to programs. Believe it or not, the government has a finite amount of money and it has a choice. It can put x number of dollars here or x number of dollars there. If it puts more money over here, it means less money over there. We are suggesting—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The member for Winnipeg North will come to order. I am sure other hon. members want the opportunity to put a question or comment to the hon. member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on a number of issues. One of those issues is that Parliament has not had the time to have the kind of debate it requires. I heard my other colleague say that we had debated this last year, the year before and the year before that, but those bills did not pass. Those bills are before this Parliament and I believe Parliament should be given the time to debate them.

What kind of prevention programs could you see this bill addressing instead of the interrogation route, which members across the aisle seem to be pushing?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to put their comments and questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment. I, for one, would ultimately argue that all members should have been afforded the opportunity at some point to provide comment on all nine of the bills that have been bundled together in this one bill.

With regard to programs, there is a litany of programs. Some programs are currently in place in which we could enhance programs that would prevent youth from getting involved in gangs. Members will recall one of the first questions I ever asked in Parliament dealt with programs like O.A.S.I.S. on which the government was looking at cutting back. There are programs that take youth who have a higher risk of going into gangs and preventing them from doing so. There is community policing. There are many programs we could have looked at as alternatives.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in the House to add my voice to those of my hon. colleagues who have spoken so passionately in favour of this legislation.

Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act represents sweeping change to laws that we believe are no longer acceptable as they stand. It enacts common sense measures that are long overdue.

On May 2, Canadians gave us a strong mandate to keep our streets and communities safe. Part of that means delivering on our promise to strengthen victims' rights, to protect our most vulnerable and to ensure serious criminals serve serious sentences. The legislation before us will go a long way to helping us fulfill our pledge to Canadians.

As we have heard during the debate, the safe streets and communities act contains many important components. These include measures that protect our children from violent sexual offenders, that restrict house arrest and conditional sentences and that target organized crime by imposing tougher sentences on drug dealers.

Today I will focus on the reforms to our correctional system. Specifically, these proposed amendments enshrine in law a victim's right to participate in parole hearings and address inmate accountability, responsibility and management under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Allow me to give hon. members a brief background to this measure. In 2007 our government undertook an important review process of Correctional Service Canada. This was done through an independent panel, which studied the business plans, priorities and strategies of the agency.

The panel released its final report in December 2007. It was entitled, “A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety”. It included no fewer than 109 recommendations that fell under five themes: offender accountability; eliminating drugs from prisons; physical infrastructure; employabilty/employment; and moving to earn parole.

This report represented a road map that would help us improve rehabilitation, provide a safer environment for employees and, most important, enhance public safety.

Our government has already made important progress on two key areas laid out by that independent panel, those drug use in our prison system and addressing the problems of offenders dealing with mental illness.

The legislation before us today proposes reforms in four more key areas that were proposed by that independent panel some four years ago. These areas include providing better support for victims of crime, enhancing the accountability and responsibility of offenders, strengthening the management of offender re-integration and modernizing prison discipline.

Let us start with the first item, providing better support for victims of crime. Canadians have told us that victims of crime deserve to have their interests and concerns brought to the forefront. For me, that is certainly the priority.

The amendments we have proposed are in direct response to what we have heard from victims and victims' rights groups across our country. They have asked our government to give them a stronger voice, and we are proud to deliver.

Victims often have to travel from far distances to be in attendance at parole hearings. The problem is that under the existing legislation, offenders can withdraw their participation in the hearing at the last minute, effectively cancelling the parole hearing.

We believe this is fundamentally unfair to victims of crime and we propose to fix this. The bill proposes that if an offender withdraws his or her participation 14 days or less before a hearing date, the Parole Board may still go ahead with the scheduled meeting regardless. It also gives victims the right to find out why the offender has withdrawn his or her attendance at the parole hearing.

These two measures would go a long way to ensuring victims minimize further financial and emotional hardship. Bill C-10 will also ensure that victims have a legal right to attend and make statements at parole hearings.

The safe streets and communities act will also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to allow victims and their families to obtain more information about an offender through Correctional Service Canada and from the Parole Board of Canada. This includes information about the reasons for temporary absences from custody as well as updates on the offender's participation in his or her correctional plan.

Victims would also have the right to request information on why an offender is being transferred between institutions and particularly, whenever possible, advance notice when the offender is being transferred to a minimum security institution. They would also be allowed to obtain information on any serious disciplinary offences that offenders commit while serving their sentence.

Just as importantly, guardians and caregivers of dependents of victims who are deceased, ill or otherwise incapacitated, will have access to the same information that victims can receive. This is important because these guardians and caregivers play an important role in the ongoing care of victims and their dependents.

In terms of providing victims more of a voice, this legislation is an important step forward that will help put victims rights at the forefront of the corrections and parole system. I think that should be the prime concern of all members of this House.

The second change focuses on the offenders themselves. As I mentioned earlier, a key recommendation from the independent panel was to make offenders more accountable. As such, Bill C-10 contains amendments that will ensure that rehabilitation, as well as reintegration into the community, is a shared responsibility between offenders and Correctional Service Canada.

The question is, what does this mean practically? It means that offenders will be required to conduct themselves in a manner that is respectful of other people and their property. It means that offenders must obey the rules set out by the institution where they are serving their sentence, as well as heed all conditions that govern release.

Above all, it means restoring common sense. Offenders will simply not receive benefits for bad behaviour. Offenders will also be responsible to actively participate in their correctional plan.

As part of these amendments, the legislation allows for the establishment of incentive measures that will promote offender participation in their correctional plan. We firmly believe that with appropriate programs and active participation from both the offender and the corrections system that many individuals can become law-abiding citizens.

The successful rehabilitation and reintegration of an offender into a community is a shared responsibility. We are committed to providing appropriate programs to offenders, but it is only fair to expect offenders to do their part.

That is the message that we have heard consistently from Canadians, from victims, from advocacy groups and from our corrections officers. By enshrining in law the importance of correctional plans, we are sending a message that engaging offenders in their own reintegration into the community is an important part of our correctional system.

Both the offender and Correctional Service Canada have a part to plan in meeting that objective. These reforms will also take particular note of offenders with mental health issues, and ensure that their correctional plans are developed properly. This is reasonable and fair.

The correctional plan will play an important role in the lives of each offender, setting out the expected behaviours, the need to participate in rehabilitation programs, and also the requirement to fulfill all court-ordered financial obligations.

The third part of these reforms involves how offenders are managed in the community. For example, the amendments will give police the power to arrest an offender without a warrant if it appears that he or she is in violation of their release conditions. It will automatically suspend the parole or conditional release of an offender if that individual receives a new custodial sentence.

We come now to the final area of reform related to this component of Bill C-10. This covers amendments to modernize the system of prison discipline. Specifically, two new disciplinary offences will be created: first, knowingly making a false claim for compensation from the Crown; and second, throwing a bodily substance at another person. The reforms will also address disrespectful and abusive behaviour.

We also propose to allow the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada to designate sub-populations. By this I mean moving beyond the traditional designations of minimum, medium and maximum. This will better reflect the diversity of the inmate population and the challenges of managing subgroups that are often incompatible.

These measures will go a long way toward our commitment to transform our corrections system and to put victims first. We believe these changes are needed, and they are needed now.

I urge the NDP to finally stop putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding Canadians and support this legislation.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened and I do not understand the bill on many levels. The problem that we have right now is that the hon. member seems to think that she knows what she is talking about when she talks about correctional services. I have eight and a half years under my belt and I know what I am talking about when I talk about victims and correctional services.

The question that I have is, all this being said, how will this bill impact the federal institution? What about the provinces that right now are absolutely incapable of handling what is going on with the surplus of criminals? What is her plan? Because apparently the government has said that it does not intend to give any money whatsoever to the provinces for this bill.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we just provided $2.4 billion very recently. More to the point though, I think the fundamental issue here is that we are just expressing far too much sympathy for the criminals when in fact most Canadians would want us to express our sympathy for the victims. That is what this bill does.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question comes from the perspective of a new member of Parliament. I am, quite frankly, having some difficulty as a new member of Parliament wrestling with my obligation as a parliamentarian to be able to debate this bill in and abbreviated fashion when the costs to the Canadian taxpayer, both from a federal perspective and a provincial perspective, have not been made clear.

I know my colleague is also newly elected and not overly partisan. I wonder whether she shares my difficulty in fulfilling her role as a parliamentarian in debating a bill that has not been costed at either the provincial or the federal level.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to take a question from my critic on veterans affairs, so I thank him for the opportunity to respond.

In fact, as I mentioned in my speech, an independent panel was commissioned some four years ago to look at the situation in our prisons and it came out with over a hundred individual recommendations. The bill, in its component parts, has been before the House a number of times over a number of years. It has been studied, it has been debated, it has been discussed. At some point I think Canadians want us to act in the best interests of victims.

This report has been gathering dust on bookshelves for over four years. Only two of its recommendations were implemented. We propose, through this comprehensive legislation, to finally implement many of the additional recommendations.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary aware that Bill C-10 is absolutely unacceptable to Quebec? I have in my hands a unanimous motion from the National Assembly of Quebec that was submitted when the Conservative government introduced these omnibus justice bills, as it is doing now. The motion states that these bills do not protect Quebec's philosophy of rehabilitation and social reintegration in matters of youth criminal justice.

Youth centres in Quebec have all also spoken out against this type of bill, as has the Barreau du Québec, of course. If the parliamentary secretary is not already aware of this, I am letting her know now and I will forward her the documents. However, if she is already aware of this, can she tell me why the government does not agree to split the bill since it does have some good measures but it also has many measures that, as I said, are not acceptable to Quebec?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

I reject the premise of the question. I sincerely doubt that Quebecers as a whole would somehow not support allowing victims to show up at parole hearings. I cannot imagine that Quebecers, as an entire group and province, would not want their victims notified when a criminal decides to withdraw his or her participation in a parole hearing at the last minute. Do Quebecers truly want victims to have to show up, go to great expense to get to a parole hearing just to have nobody show up and then have to go all the way back home at great emotional and financial cost to themselves? That is ludicrous. I do not believe that for an instant.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I call on the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for resuming debate, I will inform her that we only have two minutes remaining for the time allotted for this debate.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking and this debate is closing far too soon for those of us who believe that we are on the verge of a very large, serious mistake that future parliamentarians will have to struggle to correct.

First, let me say to the hon. government benches and the members here where we agree. I would happily vote for the victim of terrorism act, and I would vote to change the Criminal Records Act to replace the word “pardon” with “record suspension”. However, I will be forced to vote against this legislation if it comes packaged with sections that would cause this country nothing but grief.

I wish to say to all hon. members on the government side whose talking points have repeatedly forced them to say that those who question the flawed premise of mandatory minimum sentences have somehow sided with criminals against victims. Nothing could be further from the truth. Members of my family are involved in law enforcement. People close to me have been murdered. It is not as though we side with criminals when we recognize a piece of legislation is so egregiously flawed that this place should say no.

We look at all the evidence from criminologists, not just one or two, but all of them. We look at evidence from our own Department of Justice that studied this matter in 2002. We look at what is happening in the U.S., not only at the fact that its prisons are full of people but its prisons are full of people who are disproportionately low-income and Black. We also look at what could happen in this country. We have seen the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the report on the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. We know that with this legislation, without many changes, we would disproportionately fill our jails with people who should not be in jail.

We also know that this legislation would cost us billions, which has not been fully costed.

Yet, at the end of the day, it may actually result in weaker sentences for those who deserve higher sentences because we would ruin the opportunity for judicial discretion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, September 27, 2011, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.