House of Commons Hansard #33 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was harbour.

Topics

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:05 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order that was raised by the opposition House leader. I think that is a good suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the matter stand down, so that there is an opportunity for some discussions among the House leaders. I do not want to take the House by surprise by this motion and I think it is a better procedure if we try to tee these things up. I am all in favour of continuing with the debate on Bill C-9 and it will give us a few minutes to discuss this.

Certainly, we all want to move ahead on Bill C-15, the agriculture bill. That is very important to us. We introduced it. The minister is here. I appreciate hon. members who are finishing up debate on Bill C-9 and I think it is a good suggestion to have this stand down, otherwise at this point in time, we will say “no” until such time as we get a chance to sit down with the other House leaders and discuss it.

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think we can admire the government's argument about the sort of decision you just made.

However, with all due respect, Parliament has a formal tradition. It has always been this way, and it is even fundamental because it allows for debate and parliamentary decisions at the appropriate time, both for the official opposition and for other opposition parties. Since Parliament began, a request for unanimous consent has always been dealt with directly on the floor of the House, without delay.

Any other decision you might make would place you, as Speaker, in the thick of the political debate and political power game that is taking place with the request for unanimous consent. It would therefore be inadvisable for you to decide to call for the question of consent in 20 minutes. You must put the question immediately, in keeping with parliamentary tradition.

If the government House leader wants time for discussion, then when the question is called, he is free to rise and tell the Speaker that his party may be ready to consent but that he would like a few moments to consult.

However, with all due respect, the Speaker cannot make this sort of decision.

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The honourable members for Roberval, Wascana and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine have significantly more experience in this House than the current occupant of the chair.

However, the chair occupant did suggest something he considered to be reasonable, given that the request for unanimous consent on this item was a surprise. I would please ask all members of this House to avoid surprises insofar as possible so that we may have dialogue and avoid pointless debates.

If you insist on my asking for unanimous consent, I will do so. However, this will result in what I attempted to avoid, that is refusal.

The honourable member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the situation in which—

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Thank you.

Does the hon. member for Wascana have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out that the government certainly intends to call Bill C-15. We intend to deal with it in an expeditious manner. I thought we had an agreement among all four parties in the House to deal with it at a later time this very same day. That is certainly our intention. We only said no to this particular motion because we thought that was our understanding.

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, if I could seek further clarification from the chief government whip, this matter might be dealt with expeditiously. I believe I heard him say that there is agreement that, one way or another, Bill C-15 will be dealt with by the end of this day. I would prefer it be 2 o'clock, but it seems we have common agreement that, as somebody once said, come hell or high water, this legislation will be dealt with and sent off to the Senate so farmers can get their money by the end of the day.

The Senate is not sitting this afternoon, so we are not inconveniencing it by waiting until the end of the day as opposed to 2 o'clock. If we have common agreement in the House that this matter will one way or another be on its way to the Senate by the end of the day today, why do we not put that in the form of a House order, so we are all sure and clear of the result and just get it done?

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is our hope to have this done. Rather than trying to negotiate, I actually like the usual way. Perhaps the House leaders can sit down, involving their colleagues of the political parties, and get this thing hammered out. We all want to put this to bed. I will leave it at that.

I will get together with the representatives of the various political parties and see if we can put together something. We will come back to the House when everybody is on the same page and, quite frankly, when the members of all the political parties have an opportunity to comment on it.

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

We will now debate Bill C-9 and I recognize the hon. member for Yukon.

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am having to speak to a bill that has a lot of problems, but it has one small part, the remnants of the former Liberal Bill C-70, that we want to keep. To do that I am going to have to vote for a bill that has so many problems. However, we want to get it to committee, as I think the majority of speakers have said, so we can make the corrections.

Provisions in this particular bill regarding conditional sentences are covered under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. In fact, they were paraphrased by the justice minister on May 29 in his speech. In both place it says that the court is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.

Therefore, if individuals cannot get a conditional sentence when they would be endangering the community, then why do we need to reduce conditional sentences at all? It does not make any sense at all. In fact, they could get even more and better treatment and directions than they could in jail, because as part of conditional sentencing, they might have to pay back the victim, be ordered to perform community service, or attend various treatment programs that may not be available in jail.

There were a few, and let me ensure members that there were very few, unfortunate situations, compared to the many successes of conditional sentences. The Liberals tabled Bill C-70 which would have dealt with those. Unfortunately, it did not pass because of the election, so I am glad that those parts are back in this bill, but that bill basically would have removed, except for presumption of cases, conditional sentences for serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences, which is so cogent today, criminal organization offences and denunciation.

This is particularly important to me in the north because, as the critic representing the whole north, I have had women from Yukon and Nunavut who do not want to see these types of sexual assault and personal injury offences treated in such a way that the victim is victimized again or in any danger. That is why we had promoted this bill and that is why I am going to have to vote for a bill that has a lot of problems, to get the protection in those particular cases for women. Hopefully, we can take the many other problems out of the bill, or it just will not be acceptable to vote for it at further readings.

There is a problem because it will take 92 offences, many of which are not in the last bit violent, away from the very successful solution of being treated by conditional sentences. In fact, as the justice department has said, it would lead to the incarceration, using present statistics, of about 5,400 of the 15,000 people who previously had conditional sentences. To give an example, as the Minister of Justice said, there would have been 466 people sent to jail in B.C., over 1,000 in Quebec and over 603 in Saskatchewan, once again many for non-violent crimes. This is a huge change to the justice system that has had advances in sentencing and reducing crime in this country. In Saskatchewan, that would put 61% of the people in jail who otherwise would have had more logical treatment.

There is a famous saying that for every complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is wrong. That is basically a summary of this bill. By taking this catch-all phrase and catching the few instances that were a problem, we are creating many more problems and dangers for society. We are actually endangering Canadian citizens in a number of ways which I will outline at the end of my speech.

I would like to give some examples of offences that are not violent and where people would not be in danger if a person were to be given better treatment. There is perjury; refusing to deliver property; providing contradictory evidence with the intent to mislead; stopping mail with intent; fabricating evidence; obtaining things based on forged documents; possessing counterfeit money; possessing a noxious substance with intent to cause bodily harm; unauthorized possession of a firearm; certain types of intercourse and incest; abduction; contravening a custody order, and everyone has heard of a parent who has taken his or her child at an inappropriate time in a custody battle; being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and who has not gone into someone's house when they were not home, people they thought were friends, and not been there unlawfully; disguised with intent; theft of mail; forgery; and uttering forged documents.

In some situations it could be criminal to actually send someone to jail and it could make a seasoned criminal out of them when the success of conditional sentencing and other treatments would make more sense.

It is obviously prejudicial to aboriginal people because a higher percentage of the aboriginal population is incarcerated than the regular population. It is particularly cogent in Nunavut where the jails are so far from the home.

The Conservatives think family values are important and to be separated for a minor offence so far from one's family can create far more problems for the person and make that person ultimately far more dangerous to society than had the person had the option of a conditional sentence for these non-violent types of situations.

The bill reflects a lack of understanding of the whole concept of sentencing in Canada, the sentencing that has been so modernized and is now reducing crime rates. The judges, who are experts and trained in this field, listen to all the evidence, understand the person's situation, knows whether theses are repeat offences and the person's age and can then determine from a whole array of solutions the best treatment for the person and therefore make that person the safest in society and not endanger citizens. By totally eliminating the options for those 92 offences is a backward step in the criminal justice system.

It costs $95,000 to keep a young offender in jail for a year for a non-violent crime. For that money we could have taken that young person swimming twice a week for 30 weeks, skating once a week for 50 weeks, to play in a basketball league for 26 weeks, to play badminton for 30 weeks, golfing 20 times at a nine hole golf course, to participate in fencing or karate, to take an art course for 30 weeks, to act in a theatre production, to teach them computer skills, to take a boating course, to acquire leadership skills, to take a first aid course, to participate in a drop-in and buy the young person all the equipment for these activities and still return $93,000 to the Government of Canada that would not have been spent on simple incarceration that makes it less likely the person will be a positive addition to society.

I want to give the 10 reasons as to why the bill is endangering Canadian citizens and why it will be more dangerous for them if it were to pass. First, many of the crimes can also proceed by summary conviction and the judges will do that rather than give an inappropriate jail term.

Second, a suspended sentence with probation is another option. Once again, offenders will not receive a conditional sentence. It will just be a suspended sentence and it will be more dangerous on the streets.

Third, the judges will not convict. In fact, the bill may be cruel punishment and not be constitutional on a simple crime.

Fourth, there would be more conditional discharges which would make it more dangerous for Canadians.

Fifth, they would serve time where both quality and quantity of the treatment may not be nearly as effective.

Those are the first five of the reasons that the bill would make Canada more dangerous. I will do the other five if someone asks me the question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Yukon on a couple of examples that happened in my riding where my constituents believe the justice system fell apart.

A few years ago an individual in my riding, who was on his ninth impaired driving charge, drove down the highway and killed an 18 year old girl. At that time he received the maximum of eight years. He served two years and two months and then was off on parole, first a half-way house and then parole. This sentence thoroughly upset the community.

Now I understand that every case needs be taken on its individual merits, that everything cannot be blanket covered and that there are circumstances before each court room. However, my belief is that the justice system failed the family. It fails society when a person can have nine impaired charges and on the ninth one kill a young girl and take away her entire future. It casts a shadow or pall against the family for the rest of their lives.

How does the member believe we should be correcting the justice system to prevent this type of activity in the future?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, was the person on a conditional sentence? The particular case that the member is describing is not related exactly to the bill.

The purpose for which the previous government brought forward Bill C-70 and the reason that I am supporting some small parts of Bill C-9 is for the reason that the member said, that there are some situations where incarceration for the protection of the public is absolutely essential. However there are many success stories. I hope a number of those success stories will be told when the bill goes to committee.

The sixth reason that the bill would make Canada more dangerous is that it probably would take a quarter of a billion dollars from the justice system just to incarcerate the number of people the justice minister mentioned. This money could be used for police and for better treatment. There is not enough money for treatment to stop re-offenders, to treat substance abuse or anger management.

The seventh reason is that there would be more people in our jails. I have visited jails and there is not enough treatment for all the reasons I have mentioned. I believe criminals would come out even more dangerous.

The eighth reason is that a number of kids and first time offenders would go to jail and come out hardened criminals. Canadians know that is a fact.

The ninth reason is that there would be more aboriginal people in our jails. The system has already shown that it has failed.

The 10th reason is, as I mentioned earlier, that the northern people, in a place such as Nunavut, would be moved far from their families. Of the 475 crimes in Nunavut, 200 were given conditional sentences. These people would now spend time in jail. They were certainly not all violent crimes.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have one quick question for my hon. colleague given his remarks.

Am I led to understand that the member for Yukon is stating to not only his constituents, but to Canadians, that he believes that someone who commits murder, sexual assault, rape and pedophilia, those types of serious offences, and is convicted of those crimes should not go to jail?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened, I said that the Liberals had Bill C-70, which the Conservatives would not allow to come before the House because they forced an election, which would have covered those types of violent crimes. It would have covered terrorist crimes, organized crime and definitely people committing those types of crimes, as we said in Bill C-70, should go to jail.

It is a very small number of these 92 crimes. The number of non-violent crimes that the Conservatives are trying to put in Bill C-9 are totally unacceptable to the other three parties. We must remove those crimes from the bill in committee so as not to make Canada a more dangerous place.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated in the debate that this is a complex issue. I certainly agree that there is room for tightening the system, especially the parole system. However, on the other side of the equation, it is difficult to make a cookie-cutter approach because it does not do any good. A number of principles go into sentencing, whether it be retribution, rehabilitation or the protection of the public.

What I would like to see in the debate is empirical evidence of what, according to the research, works or what does not work. A number of studies have been cited by the Minister of Justice but when we read the studies they clearly indicate that this does not work.

Is my learned friend aware of any studies or empirical evidence that would help parliamentarians on this most difficult issue?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The evidence shows that in a broad number of cases involving non-violent crimes, increasing minimum sentences and taking away conditional sentences does not work. Research will show this overwhelmingly in committee and we will have to wonder why this archaic bill and Bill C-10 would propose such things.

To protect women in the north who have approached me about cases of sexual assault, we want prohibitions on these types of violent crimes.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is the House ready for the question?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.