Kyle Seeback

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to educate my friend on a couple of points that he has raised today.

First, I will deal with mandatory minimum sentences with respect to drug trafficking. My friend does not talk about that. The section is trafficking. It is the production of marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking.

Police chiefs came and spoke at our committee. They were begging us to get this legislation passed because they need to get these people off the street, and off the streets longer, so that they are not poisoning our children with their drugs.

The other fallacy that we have heard today is that we are somehow following the U.S. model. My friend opposite knows that the incarceration rates, even as they are reducing sentencing in the U.S., are nowhere near what they are in Canada. They are far higher because the American sentences are still far longer, for every single offence, than they are here in Canada. There is no comparison.

People on that side of the House who continue to stand up here and say that know that they are not telling the truth, and they should be ashamed.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question actually presents the opportunity to explain and contrast clearly the differences between the members opposite and the members on this side of the House.

I sat through every piece of testimony from every witness in committee. The people who are on side and support the bill, who say that it is necessary, are people like chiefs of police, victims organizations and victims themselves. Those are the people who think the legislation would make a difference and those are the people we are proud to stand with in presenting the bill.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to continue debate on Bill C-10.

It was my pleasure to be a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and extensively review this legislation in committee. I am pleased that it is now coming back to the House.

I want to point out that while the bill's provisions dealing with amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were amended only once in committee, there were a considerable number of motions by Liberal and NDP members that attempted to weaken sentences that we had targeted at organized crime.

I am pleased to say that members of our caucus in the committee worked very hard. I have to say that in the waning hours of the committee's discussions, government members treated us to some of the most cogent, informative and at times passionate debate that has been seen in our committee. In this regard, I want to congratulate all of my colleagues on the committee for their passionate debate.

The bill proposes a number of amendments to strengthen the provisions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding penalties for serious drug offences by ensuring that these types of offences are punished by an imposition of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment.

With these amendments we are demonstrating the government's commitment to improving the safety and security of our communities across Canada.

During the review of the bill, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard from the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety, government officials and a range of stakeholders, including many representatives of law enforcement who repeated over and over again to the committee how long they have been calling for these types of measures.

As I have mentioned before, our government recognizes that not all drug offenders and drug trades pose the same risk and danger of violence. That is why Bill C-10 provides a focused and targeted approach. Accordingly, the new proposed penalties would not apply to possession offences, nor would they apply to offences involving all types of drugs. That is contrary to what we hear from the members opposite.

What the bill does is focus on the most serious drug offences involving the most serious drugs.

Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences such as trafficking, importation, exportation and production.

It would operate as follows: for Schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine, the bill proposes a one-year minimum sentence for the offence of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in the presence of certain aggravating factors.

These aggravating factors would include the following: if the offence was committed for the benefit of or at the direction of or in association with organized crime; if the offence involved violence or the threat of violence, or weapons or the threat of the use of weapons; if the offence was committed by someone who was convicted in the previous 10 years of a designated drug offence or if youth were present. If the offence occurred in a prison, the minimum sentence would be increased to two years; in the case of importing, exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting, the minimum penalty would be one year if these offences were committed for the purposes of trafficking; moreover, the penalty would be be raised to two years if these offences involved more than one kilogram of a Schedule I drug. A minimum of two years would be provided for a production offence involving a Schedule I drug.

Again, we are talking about drugs such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.

The minimum sentence for the production of Schedule I drugs would increase to three years if aggravating factors relating to health and safety were present.

These factors would be as follows: if the person used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence; if the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed, or in the immediate area; if the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or if the person placed or set a trap.

For Schedule II drugs such as marijuana, cannabis resin, et cetera, the proposed mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking would be one year if certain aggravating factors were present, such as violence, recidivism or organized crime.

If factors such as trafficking to youth were present, the minimum would be increased to two years.

For offences of importing or exporting and for possession for the purpose of exporting marijuana, the minimum penalty would be one year of imprisonment if the offence was committed for the purpose of trafficking.

For the offence of marijuana production, the bill proposes mandatory penalties based on the number of plants involved. Production of six to 200 plants, again if the plants were cultivated for the purpose of trafficking, would carry a penalty of six months. For the production of 201 to 500 plants, it would be one year. For the production of more than 500 plants, it would be two years. For the production of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, the sentence would be one year.

I should mention that the government amended clause 41, which deals with a nine-month mandatory minimum penalty for the offence of producing one to 200 plants inclusively if the production was for the purpose of trafficking and certain aggravating factors were present. The adoption of this motion narrowed the offence such that the mandatory minimum penalty would now apply to instances in which more than five plants but fewer than 200 plants were produced, the production was for the purposes of trafficking, and certain aggravating factors were present. The minimum penalty would no longer apply to the production of five or fewer plants.

If there were aggravating factors relating to the health and safety of the production of schedule II drugs, the mandatory minimum sentences would increase by 50%. The maximum penalty for producing marijuana would be doubled from 7 to 14 years of imprisonment.

Amphetamines, as well as the date-rape drugs GHB and Rohypnol, would be transferred from schedule III to schedule I, thereby allowing the courts to impose higher maximum penalties for offences involving these drugs.

I am pleased that Bill C-10 has been thoroughly examined by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law.

Our government's message is clear: drug lords should pay with jail time. Canadians can count on us to continue to stand up for law-abiding citizens.

Finally, there are provisions in the legislation for it to be reviewed. I know that members opposite have been voting against this bill consistently. I would invite them to reconsider that position, based on the fact that there are review provisions in the legislation. I hope we have their support when we vote on this later.

[Justice, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that polygamy has no place in modern society. Polygamy inevitably leads to the exploitation of women, sometimes even young girls, who are given no other choice. This is unacceptable to Canadians and to our government.

We have already raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 and currently have legislation before this House that would crack down on a wide variety of child sexual offences.

Could the minister please update the House regarding the decision from the B.C. Supreme Court on this issue?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I did have the opportunity to spend a lot of time in my riding last week. I did hear, over and over again, how important these initiatives that are contained in the budget are.

I can specifically recall meeting with several people in the manufacturing community. They think the accelerated capital cost allowance in this budget is critical for them. It gives them the opportunity to reinvest in new equipment and machinery to make them more competitive in the global economy, and that is critical these days.

The economy is difficult. The global economy is very competitive. It is an important measure. I know it is supported in my constituency.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, reducing the subsidies for political parties is important, number one. I hear over and over again that Canadians do not want their taxpayer dollars being given to parties to support their activities. They think that parties should be able to raise the funds necessary to run their election campaigns.

I do take interest in my friend's suggestion that we should look at whether people making donations to charitable organizations should receive a better tax credit. Perhaps that is something she should speak to members on this side of the House about. I am certainly in favour of supporting charities with a system like that.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, here on this side of the House we certainly do not need to be given lectures on lowering taxes by members on that side of the House, who have repeatedly indicated in campaign after campaign that they would raise taxes. They have talked about increasing the GST. They have talked about increasing personal income taxes. We on this side of the House have cut taxes, as I said in my speech, over 120 times since 2006. It is a record we are proud of and that we are going to continue as long as we are the government in this country.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House, representing the people of Brampton West, especially to talk about today's subject.

The bill is a low tax plan for jobs and economic growth. It is the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, that will support Canada's economic recovery and promote job creation.

As we have all heard many times in the House, Canada's economic performance has won praise around the world. The World Economic Forum has declared Canada's financial system the soundest in the world for the fourth year in a row. We have also had the strongest job growth in the G7, creating nearly 600,000 jobs since July 2009.

We will have, according to the International Monetary Fund, the strongest economic growth of the G7 over the next two years. Forbes, the influential business magazine, has ranked Canada as the best country in the world for business.

While this is positive news, we must remain aware of the fragile economic conditions that exist in Europe and the United States. We are not isolated from the economic challenges outside our borders. That is why we must stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan so that we can maintain economic growth and job creation.

I would like to speak to a few of the many important features contained in the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, and discuss how they will benefit my constituents in Brampton West.

As everybody in the House knows, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and in the hands of businesses, like those in my riding.

I am proud to say that we have cut taxes in every way that government collects them. We have cut personal taxes. We have cut consumption taxes. We have cut business taxes, excise taxes and much more. We have cut taxes over 120 times since 2006, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in this country in over 50 years.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan builds on our government's low tax record and contains even more initiatives to promote job creation and economic growth. For example, the bill proposes to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance to help manufacturers and processors make new investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment.

I have heard first-hand from my constituents over and over again how important this will be to our local businesses. It is allowing Canadian businesses to invest in machinery and equipment that will allow them to be more competitive in the global economy.

There is also the temporary hiring credit for small businesses, which will allow small business owners to hire additional employees, creating more jobs and strengthening the economy of the country and the local economy of Brampton West.

The bill contains more support for my community. Bramptonians have already seen the benefits of our government's economic action plan. The City of Brampton has received millions of dollars through this plan for a number of infrastructure and transit projects.

For example, the government invested in the AcceleRide bus rapid transit system, which over time will help reduce traffic congestion, strengthen the economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the greater Toronto area. These initiatives have also created numerous jobs in Brampton, of further benefit to our local economy.

Included in the bill is the permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable, long-term financing for cities and towns. The mayor of Brampton has welcomed this initiative. She has said:

This budget reaffirms the federal government's belief that the best way to deliver high-quality infrastructure projects at the local level is to partner directly with municipalities. Like other cities across the country, the City of Brampton has seen first-hand how successful this approach can be.

Thanks to the gas tax fund, the City of Brampton has been able to undertake major infrastructure projects. The continuation of this fund will allow more necessary projects to get under way.

In addition, the bill includes the youth crime prevention initiative: $20 million will be dedicated to promote programs that will help youth resist or exit gangs. Community safety is a top priority in my riding, and this initiative will help make our streets safer.

This bill also contains continued support for our seniors. Our government recognizes that our seniors helped to build this great country and no other government has taken larger steps toward supporting our seniors than this government. This bill includes initiatives such as enhancing the GIS, where eligible low-income seniors would receive additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples. This would help more than 680,000 seniors across Canada.

Moreover, this bill includes improved financial assistance for students, with initiatives such as the extension on tax relief for skills certification exams. This would make all occupational, trade and professional exam fees eligible for tax relief through the tuition tax credit. These initiatives would allow more people from my riding to attend and graduate from post-secondary education.

The last specific feature I would like to discuss is the phase-out of the per-vote subsidy for political parties. Governments have a duty to use taxpayer dollars wisely and only in the public interest, especially in a time of fiscal restraint when families are struggling to make ends meet. Our government has always opposed the direct taxpayer subsidies that are paid to political parties and believes that the parties should rely primarily on their supporters for their financing. The vast majority of people I have talked to in Brampton West agree. Our government is following through on our campaign to gradually reduce the per-vote subsidy until it is completely eliminated by 2015-16, which would save $30 million. Phasing out this subsidy would allow the parties to adjust to their loss of income by stepping up their fundraising efforts. As such, they would find themselves in more contact with Canadians.

A number of colleagues have pointed out that this bill has been debated for a long time. Initially tabled in the House in March, we are now dealing with the implementation of the second phase of the bill. We are in the last part of the process that deals with the budget that was presented. Both the NDP and the Liberals turned that down in the spring and decided it was time for an election. During that election, Canadians decided it was time to get things done and they gave our government a strong mandate so that we could move the budget process forward. It is important to get this bill passed without delay.

Despite the challenges we face in the global economy, our government is successfully implementing the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. Our government continues to be focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs, promoting economic growth and lowering taxes. This bill, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, does just that.

As the member of Parliament for Brampton West, I am pleased to support this bill that provides continuous tax relief and support to my riding's businesses, seniors and families. This plan is working. We must continue to stay the course, as our Conservative government delivers on its strong mandate to help Canadian families and our economy.

[Fair Representation Act, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. That is exactly the road that we are not going to go down on this side of the House. We are not going to pick winners and losers. We are not going to pit one region of the country against another for political gain like the members of that party seem to be suggesting. We are not going to be taking away seats from Quebec or other provinces.

That is a flawed formula. We are not following it. We have the right formula and I hope the members on that side of the House will stand with us and vote in favour of it when the time comes.

[Fair Representation Act, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the current formula as proposed in the bill does allow for reductions in seats based on population decline. However, what we are not prepared to do on this side of the House, what we keep hearing from that side of the House, particularly in that corner, is to pit Canadians against each other. They want to pick winners and losers. They want to say this province should have more and therefore we are taking away from that province.

That is not how we are going to approach this issue. We want all Canadians to be together behind the bill so they have fairer representation. We are not going to follow the model proposed by members from that party.