Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment)

This enactment amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of that Act, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more is not eligible for a conditional sentence.

Criminal Code

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minority government across the way would like Canadians to believe, the current system with respect to dangerous offenders and long term offenders does work well.

Unfortunately, Bill C-27 seems to me to be more motivated by the Conservatives' partisan political agenda than by a real desire to better protect Canadians. It is unfortunate that this minority government thinks its partisan agenda is more important than the greater good of its citizens.

Even more importantly, Bill C-27 is a direct attack on a key concept in the Canadian justice system: the presumption of innocence.

In Canada, the presumption of innocence is guaranteed by section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that any person charged with an offence has the right “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”.

One wonders in that last term, with the spate of Conservative appointments to the judiciary, whether we could find an independent and impartial judge of recent appointment who has not been a major contributor to the Conservative Party or has fundamental Christian beliefs. All of the appointments have not been filled and I would not make that comment until they are. One hopes for impartiality and independence in the tribunals.

The real point in this legislation is whether the person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent. There are two parts to this: the part of the trial and the part of the mini-trial with respect to the designation of dangerous offender.

The reversal of the burden of proof set out in Bill C-27 is questionable.

Many legal experts have already said that the legislation could be challenged in court. Their arguments seem to me to be serious enough to warrant taking the time to examine this seriously.

In light of the provisions of the charter, Bill C-27 creates a problematic situation with regard to the reversal of onus. The burden shifts. In the past the Supreme Court of Canada has said that the presumption of innocence will be violated whenever a trier of fact may be led to convict an accused person, even though there is reasonable doubt as to some essential element of the offence. I think all parties are on the same page with respect to the conviction of the accused and the burden of proof.

Although the proposed legislation does reverse the onus, we must keep in mind that this reversal only comes into play once the offender has been found guilty of the designated, serious violent or sexual offence three times. Each time the offender is accused, he would have benefited already from the presumption of innocence. Thank God that has not been taken away. This essential principle will not be changed by Bill C-27 as it relates to the finding of guilt, but what about the effect of this guilt?

Under the proposed legislation, the offender who has been found guilty already three times of one of the listed offences in Bill C-27 will no longer be presumed innocent. As a matter of sentencing law and not constitutional law, the Supreme Court has previously held that on sentencing, any aggravating fact that is not admitted by the offender, must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. Let us keep that clear. On sentencing, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that we still have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt when it comes to the aggravating circumstances in that conviction. I would say it again if I thought the other side was listening or could understand.

This rule has since been codified under section 724(3)(e) of the Criminal Code, that big book the criminal law is in. In the context of dangerous offender applications, section 753 (1.1) would undo this long standing judicial principle and rule.

Furthermore, some could argue that not only does Bill C-27 deprive offenders of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as stated in section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is more telling and more appropriate to the argument before us today, it also allows for deprivation of liberty as stated in section 7 of the same charter. This creates the right not to be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, a key term.

It is not clear that transferring the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused, as set out in Bill C-27, respects the principles of fundamental justice. It is not at all clear. For a long time now, the concept of fundamental justice has been one of our justice system's guiding principles. This applies to the legal system in Moncton, in New Brunswick and in Canada, as well as to all countries whose legal system is based on British common law—the root of our own common law—including the United States.

I would even go so far as to say that the Crown's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of aggravating factors when determining the sentence is now a widely accepted concept. It is so widely accepted in our justice system that it can now be called a principle of fundamental justice, as it is written in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.

Under the current provision of the dangerous offender section of the Criminal Code, which is charter proof, 360 offenders have been designated as dangerous offenders and are currently behind bars. The system works.

Once again the minority government is all about sentences and law and order. My colleagues on the other side of the House might argue that these measures will protect innocent Canadians. As I have just said, section 7, the reasonable demands of having fundamental justice at any stage in the judicial determinations, puts in question whether this law, as presented and not yet amended at committee albeit, is in danger of falling like a house of cards on the dangerous offender designation system that already exists. It was put in place and monitored by Liberal governments. It was in the process of being improved because of the R. v. Johnson decision until the wrench was thrown in the problem.

The Conservatives have become the architects of disaster in suggesting we put in the reverse onus and the “three strikes you're out” because Arnold Schwarzenegger and those guys like it. What they are doing is possibly putting in jeopardy the whole system and that is not going to be good for victims.

Most of the justice legislation currently before the House will do little to protect Canadians and do very little for the victims. In fact, by cutting conditional sentences, sending more convicted individuals to the criminal schools of higher education, our jails, by building more jails and cramping the budget room for other needed programs, by putting longer sentences in place that will surely bring out a whole new round of graduated criminals determined to do more harm to victims and by cutting preventive and rehabilitation programs, we have no reason to think the crime rate is going to go down in Canada.

Furthermore, many studies, which is not germane to this discussion but very much germane to the discussions we have had at the justice committee, clearly indicate there is absolutely no link between harsher sentences and a lower crime rate.

It is quite telling at the committee level. When the proponents of the Conservative agenda on law and order are asked to bring witnesses who will prove empirically and objectively how these programs will work, they have very few names to present. On the other side, the people who suggest that harsher sentences do not lower crime rates have a plethora of witnesses available. That comes down to a determination by the Conservative minority government that most of those are criminal lawyers, professors and people who believe the criminal.

We have to ask ourselves this. If it is a truism that more sentences, harsher sentences and more people in jail will result in lower crime rates and a safer society, where is the proof? Canadians want the proof. Liberals want the proof. Liberals have been determined, with a justice program of over 13 years, to continually work with the outdated Criminal Code to modify the laws, as Canada grows, to protect society and victims.

In a non-partisan half second I say that is the same goal for the Bloc Québécois as well as the NDP. I know it is the same goal for the Conservatives because they keep saying it. However, they do not act in furtherance of that objective. They in fact act against that objective. They are not making the communities safer by locking everyone up. We ought to really take a non-partisan moment and say that if there is proof that these things work, show us. We are open to it.

In summary, Bill C-27 is no different than most justice bills recently tabled. It puts the political agenda of the Conservatives before the greater good of Canadians. The proof of that is they have overloaded the committee with so much work. Probably all the justice bills they keep tabling have no real intention of coming back to Parliament before what we perceive will be the next election.

Canadians have to ask, what was the objective in that? What was the objective in putting forward Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 separately? We now know that the list of witnesses is the very same and the hearings will take double the time. Why not propose them as one bill? The reason is simple. The Conservatives want to scare people into thinking we do not have a safe society. We do have a safe society. We support law and order. We support the victims in the community. We support the average Canadian who wants to be safe in his or her home.

Average Canadians are safe in their homes, even on Halloween when we have politicians masquerading as the proponents of law and order and when we have policy written on the back of a napkin dressed up as the law of the country.

We should take our duties more seriously. We should be earnest parliamentarians and pass good laws, not laws that are destined to be broken down by the loopholes contained in them by Conservative writers.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Recently this committee, on Bill C-9, conditional sentencing, reduced the scope.... I want to know, if conditional sentencing had not been available to some of these people who, say, take crystal meth or Ecstasy or heroin or crack, what impact that would have had on the drug treatment courts.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin today by talking a bit about the theory of criminal justice and how we get tough on crime, which is the slogan often used by those across the way.

We cannot get tough on crime without being smart on crime and that means not just descending into slogans, such as “getting tough on crime”, “war on crime” and “three strikes you're out”. We know where that rhetoric comes from and we know that it is based on false analysis. It is based on ideology and sloganism, not on criminological research, social research or demographics which all gives serious concern to knee-jerk, superficial stoking of the fears in society about a situation that may not exist. That is done for purposes that are ideological and polemical and they carry a real danger of being self-fulfilling.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak about how being tough on crime means being smart on crime first.

Let us just take the 12 bills dealing with criminal justice that are before this House and the one that is before the other place. The official opposition has offered this week to cooperate and fast track eight out of the eleven of those bills, and I will speak to the other two in a moment, but that is in no way doing anything but making this place work with sensible dialogue and debate over how to, without holding up any of these bills, ensure they are not more dangerous than what we are to believe they are to protect us against.

We have offered to fast track Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing bill. It has had serious debate and an appropriate amendment was moved by opposition parties so it can now go ahead. We will give it all the speed it needs.

We will fast track Bill C-18, the DNA identification act; Bill C-19, street racing; Bill C-23, criminal procedure improvements; and Bill C-26, payday loans. I would pause to say that five out of the six bills that I have just mentioned were actually initiated under the previous Liberal government. They will go forward with our support and with sensible amendments where necessary. We will fast track two other bills.

We opposed the judicial salaries bill because we opposed the suggestion by the government that it disregard the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which recommended appropriate increases for judges' salaries over the last four year period. While we opposed that, we allowed it to pass on division so there would be no slowing up of that process.

The 13th bill is Bill S-3, the military sex offender act, which is now before the other place. We will be supporting that bill and are willing to fast track it in every way we can.

In the context of discussing the dangerous offender legislation, it is important to underline the cooperation that is going on in the House to identify what is important, to carry on work that was done by the previous government and to get some of these things moved ahead.

However, Bill C-27 is of a different order. The dangerous offender legislation before us has some major flaws that I will speak about but I would first say that we need a reality check. Let us take a reality check first on the criminal conviction statistics in Canada which have been steadily coming down over the last 10 to 15 years. That is what the research tells us. The demographics themselves in society are leading through analysis to that decline in the crime rate. While we may raise the fears of the public to justify simplistic solutions through sloganeering and superficial claims to put fear in the hearts of Canadians, the crime rate comes down.

Let us take another reality check on the situation in the U.S. where these slogans come from and much of this legislation seems to be patterned after. The United States has the highest crime rates and incarceration rates. It also has the most dangerous communities and the most expensive criminal justice system.

If we are to follow any model in the world when we amend our criminal justice statutes, we certainly do not want to follow the so-called war on crime in the United States.

Let me pause to mention that the state of California spends more on criminal justice and corrections than it spends on education. That should be very edifying to all of us.

Let me give another example about the folly of pretending that just by putting people in jail on very restrictive terms without any adjustment for the context of a particular case can be more dangerous for society. Most convicted people, dangerous or not, will get out. We have the Bernardos and some of the most horrid criminals in our country's history who will be behind bars, blessedly, forever, but most criminals will get out.

Let us think of those people who go into a prison situation, which members opposite would like to see everyone go into. It is a bit of an irony to consider that prison life, if that is what we can call it, prison for life, is the place in society which should be the most protected but is in fact the place where one is most likely to be assaulted, raped, infected and injected, and these people will come out.

Therefore, we need to take particular care for the correctional services, the proper services within them and who we put behind bars and for how long.

Let me speak about the fact that 25% of the prison population in this country is made up of aboriginal people. This is a stunning statistic of despair. Can this be the result of a fair criminal justice system or is this a result of despair in aboriginal communities? Is it part of the despair of our prevention system and our criminal justice system of preventative crime? Is it a matter of racism in society? What is happening?

These are the underpinning questions that we must be asking ourselves in the House as we respond to the reality of the criminal justice system. This is 1% of the population and 25% of the prison population.

Let us ensure that when people do come out of prison, if they are going to be spending time there, that they have been rehabilitated and they are safe to society because the vast majority will come out.

We will not ensure that the context of the situation is properly taken into account in peculiar circumstances unless police officers, prosecutors, judges, correctional officers and parole officers have the discretion to identify where the dangers are and where someone may have a better response to a criminal justice sanction than simply putting someone in jail for an indefinite period.

Turning to Bill C-27, the dangerous offender legislation, the member opposite has mentioned that there is dangerous offender legislation on the books now and it is operating. It operates as a companion with long term offender legislation which can kick in. Prosecutors have the discretion to bring forward at sentencing applications before a judge for a long term offender or a dangerous offender designation. That works. It has been covered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lyons and Johnson cases in 1997 and 2002. It has been found to be constitutionally appropriate. I would suggest that it is working because it allows for all the proper discretions to be exercised.

The problem with what is being suggested in Bill C-27, and it has been referred to by numerous members of the House, is the reverse onus provision at sentencing after a third conviction of a certain type of very serious crime.

We have heard some people say that this offends the presumption of innocence, which is an historical criminal law principle in our legal system. However, the trouble is not with the presumption of innocence, which is subsection 11(d) of the charter. The question is about the reverse onus of the burden. This is not a conviction matter. It is not a presumption of innocence because the person has already been convicted for the third time.

What we are talking about is whether fundamental justice, in reversing the onus on such an extraordinary punishment, can meet the tests under section 7 of the charter for fundamental justice. There is strong authority that this simply cannot be done. This does not meet the tests of fundamental justice. It involves, for instance, the convicted person proving a negative into the future. Yes, it is on the balance of probabilities and, yes, as the member opposite said, there is judicial discretion to determine whether that onus is met or not, but there is still a reverse onus and, in many cases, it is an impossible burden to attempt to prove a negative into the future.

It is also a problem because it offends section 7 as being against the principles of fundamental justice and it is a problem under section 1 as to whether this is a justifiable limit on the rights under the charter. Is it a substantive need? Is it a rational connection? Is there minimal impairment? I would say that under all those cases this reverse onus does not meet the test. This is highly constitutionally suspect. Why, when we have a provision that is working well, would we want to throw ourselves into very likely years of constitutional charter litigation when we have charter compliant provisions now for dangerous and long term offenders?

We also have a problem that this will not be enforceable. This is ultra vires of the federal government to tell the provincial governments, which are responsible for the administration of criminal justice, who they should prosecute and what sentences they should ask for. That simply cannot be supported in our constitutional division of powers and, therefore, it is inappropriate for the government to put this forward.

There are also dangerous unintended consequences that could come to the fore here. We have long delays in our criminal justice system today. A report in the paper last week showed that in the province of Ontario 100,000 charges have gone beyond the nine months before they actually go to trial. This is bouncing very perilously close up against the Supreme Court of Canada Askov decision where all members will remember with regret that 30,000 criminal cases were dismissed because it took too long for people to get to trial.

If people are facing this so-called simplistic, superficial three strikes and they are out law, which has been so disastrously unsuccessful and dangerous in the United States, they will insist on going to trial more often. There will be less guilty pleas which will cause further delays in the courts and perhaps more cases will be thrown out because of charter violations.

The one side of it is that there will be more trials, longer delays and more costs to the prison system. I have not even begun to talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs that will be required to build the prisons that will hold these long term offenders.

Costs will be going up, delays will be longer and cases will be thrown out for charter violations because of delay. The other dynamic that may happen and where prosecutors, with long dockets and not wanting to have further delays in trials, may charge people with lesser offences than would otherwise justify a conviction for a more serious case that may give them a longer prison term, or the convicted person may plea bargain to a lesser offence.

Both of those dynamics are more likely to put dangerous people on the streets and put in danger the men and women the member opposite was just speaking about. We have to be very careful when we tinker with these laws, especially if we are doing it superficially and against the evidence of criminologists and social scientists as to what is effective and what is not.

Let us turn for a moment to what being tough on crime by being smart on crime really means. It means a national crime prevention strategy, such as the one the previous government put into place across this country over a period of 13 years, funded in a very targeted way, to help kids have things to do after school. If I may indulge myself in a short phrase, it is about shooting hoops, not drugs. There are sports programs across this country in the evening and even far into the night where kids who otherwise would have been getting in trouble are involved in healthy activity.

We have to watch for issues of poverty and cultural exclusion.

We have to look at the issue of legal aid, which is in underfunded disrepair across this country, thus involving people in perhaps building up criminal records when they should have been having trials and pleading not guilty. They are pleading guilty because they cannot defend themselves in the courts without assistance.

We have to look at issues of homelessness. We have to look at issues of mental illness. The Kirby-Keon Senate report was an extraordinary statement of sound thinking about how to deal with those with mental illnesses, who unfortunately fall into the ranks of the homeless as well as the ranks of the criminal justice system, which is the worst place for them to be. We have to rethink this and meet our social contract around the concept of deinstitutionalization, whereby governments emptied the mental hospitals but then did not provide services in the community to support people.

We have to look at drug courts. They are operating in Toronto and Vancouver and in numerous American states. That is one example of where the American criminal justice system has actually been a stunning success at diverting people out of the criminal system if they will go into detox and treatment.

We have to look at issues of harm reduction. Drugs, addiction and substance abuse are great parts of the despair that leads people into the criminal justice system. Harm reduction, of course, involves needle exchanges and safe injection sites, which the government has failed to guarantee would be extended in Vancouver, when it has been an example for literally the world to consider the effectiveness of harm reduction in that situation, to help motivate people into detox.

We need shelters for them. We need transitional housing. We need skills training. We need affordable housing. We need jobs. In fact, the social enterprise initiatives of the last Liberal government, which were ready to go across this country, certainly in my province of British Columbia, were cancelled by the current government in its last budget. Those are the things that can assist people to not fall into crime and into despair, which leads them to become dangerous for other members of society.

What are we going to do instead? We are going to dismantle the gun registry. It is amazing that any thought could be given to that at this stage after the tragedy at Dawson College in Montreal.

We have a Prime Minister who will not go to an international AIDS conference in Toronto. We have a Prime Minister who did not go to a world conference on harm reduction in Vancouver last April.

We are simply looking in the wrong direction. We have to be tough on crime, I agree with all members opposite, but we are going to be tough on crime by being smart on crime and not by being simply superficial and using slogans.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must ask my colleague to refrain from the ridiculous rhetoric he is increasingly prone to.

A case in point would be his reference to breaking and entering. What is the sentence for residential break and enter under the Criminal Code? In theory, it is life in prison. This is not the example to give when we are talking about conditional sentencing.

Conditional sentences are handed down in 5% of cases that end in conviction. In 95% of cases, justice is not meted out with a conditional sentence. Three times out of four, conditional sentencing is not used when an offence against people has been committed. Perhaps my colleague has not read the statistics we had at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

There is a limit to right-wing rhetoric that is meant to scare people and that is far from accurate. If there had been evidence that the judiciary had improperly used conditional sentencing, everyone in this House would have wanted to correct the situation. This is not the case, however. Bill C-9 is nothing but an ideological construct of the Conservative Party, and God willing, this government will never have a majority.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on a bill on dangerous offenders that seeks to create a different emphasis and direction from the approach we already have.

Before presenting the Bloc’s basic arguments and position on dangerous offenders, I would first like to emphasize just how seriously the Bloc takes community safety.

No member of Parliament would want to live in communities where there is a threat to public safety. Whether in Quebec or in any other province, no one would want older people, single parents, children, working people or our parents to find themselves in harm’s way as they go about their regular lives in the community.

I must say that I am a little tired of hearing the demagogic, simplistic rhetoric coming from the Conservatives. Their rhetoric implies that anyone who does not support their position is unscrupulous, lax and not very concerned about public safety. I hope this kind of talk will end. This subject is far too serious for them to indulge in such simple-mindedness.

The Bloc Québécois does not support this bill as worded. Does this mean that the Bloc feels that there is no need for the Criminal Code to contain provisions on dangerous offenders and long-term offenders? Of course not.

The Bloc is perfectly aware of the fact that there are some people who commit criminal acts and, unfortunately, have no self-control nor any control of their impulses and have certain personalities with a very high risk that they will re-offend. Is this genetic or acquired? Is it a question of the environment or their upbringing? Is it a matter of values? Is it a question of their families? I do not know. What I do know, though, is that it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to protect people against this kind of behaviour and these kinds of personalities.

The government’s rhetoric seems peculiar because it tends to imply that these provisions have not been used in the past and do not exist, or that crown attorneys are reluctant to use them.

I would have liked to see the Minister of Justice rise in this House and tell us that his government is introducing a bill on dangerous offenders because prosecutors and the justice system—under his administration—are not using these provisions.

We would then have asked ourselves what procedure must be followed to ensure that in cases where it has to be proved that a person presents a risk, that person must be found to be a dangerous offender, with everything that implies. A dangerous offender can be imprisoned for an indeterminate period.

Under sections 752 and 753 of the Criminal Code, certain individuals are considered dangerous offenders. We do not need the minister’s current bill; the courts and the prosecutors have done their jobs. There are, right now, people who are considered to be dangerous offenders and in some cases, they have been in prison for 20 years.

What is dangerous in the bill and in the approach taken by the Minister of Justice is the idea that we should do things automatically.

If an individual commits—in three instances—an offence on the list of primary offences, the burden of proof will automatically be reversed, and the person will have to prove that he or she is not a dangerous offender. Unfortunately, things cannot work this way in criminal law.

Perhaps this is something we need to complain about; perhaps there should be no Charter; perhaps there should be no trials; perhaps there should be no courts; perhaps we should send everyone to prison once they have committed a serious offence against a person.

Perhaps some people support that kind of justice system, but let them have the courage to say so clearly. Once again, the dividing line is not between people who care about the safety of victims and communities and the people who do not care about it. I am even tempted to say that it is not even the question of reverse onus that defines that line. Reversing the burden of proof is a benchmark, an important cornerstone of the justice system. It is an important principle, as is the presumption of innocence. The courts have offered guidance on what the presumption of innocence means, but that is not the gospel truth. We can agree that, in some circumstances, the burden of proof has to be reversed.

My former colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, a man who was respected by all parties in this House, once introduced a bill concerning property acquired through crime. It was directed particularly at organized crime. In 1997, I was in this House when we added sections 465, 466 and 467 to the Criminal Code to create what is called a criminal organization offence. New law had to be made. The Hell's Angels, the Rock Machine and the Bandidos presented a real danger to the community because they were engaging in open warfare within the community for control of the drug market. They plainly held the ordinary people in contempt.

I even recall having conversations with senior officials in the Department of Justice who said they wanted to break up organized crime using the conspiracy provisions. In the Bloc Québécois, we were convinced that we had to make new law and that what we needed was a new offence. When my colleague, the former member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, introduced that bill, we were convinced that this was what had to be done.

The difference with dangerous offenders is that the Crown has access to existing provisions. There are guidelines: a psychiatrist's report is required. Quebec, for example, has an arrangement with the Philippe Pinel Institute, which evaluates offender profiles. Why specify “after three times”? This is not about the number of times or the quantity. If an individual presents such a profile—if, after the first offence it is determined that the individual lacks self-control, is a risk to re-offend and a danger to society—nothing prevents the Crown from using sections 751, 752 and 753. The section is very clear, so clear that the courts have used it over 300 times.

Of course, there are exceptional circumstances. When an individual goes into a convenience store and commits robbery, that is unfortunate and deserves to be punished. It is reprehensible, and the justice system must act. Nobody has said otherwise. However, such a crime does not mean we are dealing with a dangerous offender who should spend 20 years in prison with no eligibility for parole and be jailed indeterminately. The government's approach is disappointing because it lacks nuance and perspective.

Earlier, I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. Apparently he is the youngest member of the House. The parliamentary secretary rose twice in this House to call the opposition member irresponsible. How did we suddenly become not responsible? Because in the committee, which included all of the opposition parties, we voted to amend Bill C-9. The opposition member said that we wanted to allow thieves to serve their sentences in the community.

He is a little young to be such a demagogue and to make such an argument, which is extremely simplistic.

The reality is the following: in 1996, we added something to the Criminal Code on the nearly unanimous recommendations of the justice ministers. I was in this House at the time and we realized that the prisons were populated, but that a third of the incarcerations had to do with unpaid fines. People were imprisoned for failing to pay a fine.

Of course, we are not encouraging people not to pay their fine, but should they be incarcerated for that? When Bill C-41 was passed, Canada had the third highest incarceration rate in the world. Only Russia and the United States had more prisoners than Canada.

I want to remind hon. members that the minister was unable to show a single scientific study to prove that there is a link between the harshness of the sentences and the rate of recidivism. We know full well that it is not by having stricter sentences or putting more people in prison that we will make our communities safer to live in.

Sometimes imprisonment cannot be avoided. But if the minister were right, the reality in the United States would certainly deserve a second look: they send seven times as many people to prison as Canada does. However, the homicide rate is four times lower in Canada—and I will mention just one type of offence. In a society that sends more people to prison, we would expect there to be less crime and recidivism, but that is not the case.

Could it be that it is not so much the harshness of the sentences but the real fear of the prospect of ending up behind bars that is the real deterrent preventing an individual from committing a crime?

We therefore agree on the need to include provisions concerning dangerous offenders in the Criminal Code. We agree on the crown prosecutor's responsibility, based on a psychiatrist's or psychologist's report. When an assessment shows that, after an initial offence, a person represents a threat to public safety, we agree that the Criminal Code provisions regarding sections 751, 752 and 753 must apply. We are not saying that the court has to wait for two to five offences, but we cannot support the idea of a list of 22 offences, even though we agree that they are serious. The proposed primary designated offences include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, exploitation, incest, attempted murder, sexual assault, attempted rape and indecent assault on female. These are serious offences, but we cannot support a legal system that operates automatically.

This is the main difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. We in the Bloc are concerned about public safety. It was the Bloc that first fought for a real anti-gang law. It was the Bloc that brought about the reversal of the burden of proof in cases of proceeds of crime, by introducing a bill that was passed unanimously.

We approve prison terms when necessary, because sometimes they are necessary. Sometimes prison can have a deterrent effect, but the main principle of the administration of justice is individualized sentencing. I repeat, this is the main difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. Every situation should be dealt with in light of what led to the crime, the crime that was committed, and the offender's profile.

Sentencing can never be automatic, because when we go in that direction we do not appreciate the facts. That is what justice is all about. Who wants to live in a society where we are on automatic pilot?

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is going in the wrong direction. It did so on the issue of conditional sentencing. The Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board have been talking about conditional sentencing. I repeat, the Bloc Québécois agrees—of course— that the right of the individual to serve the sentence in the community is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege. However, the Supreme Court also stated in the Proulx decision that it remained a sanction. The conditional sentence is a type of imprisonment. Of course we agree that all types of offences do not have the same degree of seriousness.

An 18 year old who draws graffitis on a wall three times is guilty of public mischief. It is reprehensible, sad and unacceptable. However, in the list proposed by the minister, this youth, whose graffiti caused $5,000 in damages in total, would not have been eligible for conditional sentencing. We believe that there are cases where an automatic approach—which precludes a conditional sentence—is not indicated.

We can—of course— understand that it may be less appropriate for individuals who have committed sexual assaults, rape, abuse— especially in the case of sexual offences—to serve their sentences in the community. We want to denounce these acts; we want to send a message about these types of offences.

We should remember that conditional sentences represent 5% of sentences, but the minister was unable to make this fine distinction.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois believes that dangerous offenders must be dealt with in a particular way, that dangerous offenders should not be released if they represent a risk to the community. However, we do not accept the logic of automatic process, a logic by which we are unable to assess a situation according to the offender's profile, his record, or the circumstances that led him to commit the crime.

That is the price to be paid for living in a society where the symbol of justice is a balance among rights; but also a balance among responsibilities. Yes, crown prosecutors must evaluate the situation. Yes, a judge must evaluate the situation. Yes, there are constitutional freedoms that must be protected. Yes, there are situations that call for imprisonment and enforcement.

The danger arises when the response becomes automatic. Every time the Conservative government wants to propose simple solutions to complex problems, we cannot accept that. However, we will never be soft on crime. We will never unconditionally defend criminals. We will certainly be able to say that there are situations where people deserve to be locked up; that they cannot be rehabilitated and deserve a firm sentence of 20 or 25 years in prison. We are able to make distinctions between cases. Once again, we do not accept the logic of an automatic response and we do not accept the contempt in which this government holds the work of the judiciary.

When we see the way in which the courts have interpreted conditional sentencing; when we see the way in which provisions for dangerous offenders have been used, we have no reason not to have confidence in the justice system. Does that mean to say that there are no judges who have gone astray? Yes, indeed it is possible.

This is a Conservative tactic.

In 2003, out of 257,000 cases where there was a conviction, 13,000 cases resulted in a conditional sentence. In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice, the minister gave five examples of cases where, a priori, without having studied the file in greater detail, it would seem that there was little reason for a conditional sentence. Does that mean to say that the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute? Does that mean that we should be thinking in terms of automatic responses? Certainly not.

That is why we are very uneasy about this government in connection with justice. Not to mention the blackmail it employs. We began this session in September; tomorrow we will be into November. The Standing Committee on Justice adopted two bills, reviewed budgetary allocations and is beginning review of a third bill. Members have had a respectable workload. However, it is clear that when bills are being examined, witnesses must be heard. Our work of legislative review; our work as members of parliament, which consists in considering the consequences of a bill, must always be done with the greatest attention.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good opportunity to talk about the prior Bill C-9 as well because it fits right into this discussion, and I will explain why.

The Liberals, with the Bill C-9 amendments, have made it an incredibly complex sentencing hearing, which will discourage Crown attorneys from contesting whether there should be a conditional sentence or not. The process that they brought in is a bureaucratic process similar to the kind of situation that the court created as a result of the Johnson decision. It is very complex and very onerous.

Essentially the Liberals have gutted Bill C-9 by making a very complex process, which will discourage the Crown attorneys from seeking appropriate sentences, and that is my concern. I do not know why they would choose to add that kind of burden on the Crown, even after the Crown has proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am speaking as a former Crown attorney. I would look at that situation and say, “Why is Parliament doing this to us? We are just trying to get the job done”. If they have convicted an individual beyond a reasonable who, let us say, pointed a knife at someone and committed a robbery, the Crown now has to prove, beyond simply the regular proof, that a conditional sentence is not appropriate. It is totally unworkable, and I believe the Liberals know that. I believe that is why they are doing it, and it is unfortunate.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the fact that they are willing to pass at least five of those bills, and they should do it immediately.

In respect of the sixth, what they did was gut the bill and allowed arsonists, break and enter artists and auto thieves to go back on house arrest. Canadians find that simply unacceptable. If they restore Bill C-9, we will pass all six.

Criminal Code

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22. I am also very aware that all the justice critics need to be in committee for clause by clause of another justice bill right after this, so I am going to truncate my remarks to help get all the right people in the room who need to be there shortly after question period.

I will say at the outset that our party will support the bill. In doing so, we are following up on work that has gone on over a number of years. The Speech from the Throne of October 5, 2004 committed the government to cracking down on child pornography. Similarly, in the previous Speech from the Throne, the former Liberal government committed to reinstating former Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

The bill was reinstated on February 12, 2004 as Bill C-12. It was awaiting second reading in the Senate at the time of that Parliament's dissolution for a federal election. In June 2004 the then prime minister reiterated support for reintroduction of the package as the first legislative item in the new Parliament. I know that the former minister of justice, the hon. member for Mount Royal, introduced in the former Parliament Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act. It received third reading on June 9, 2005, royal assent on July 20, 2005, and came into force in its entirety less than a year ago, on January 2, 2006. Bill C-2, then, is built on reforms previously proposed in the former Bill C-12 and proposed reforms in five key areas.

I might reiterate, too, that former Bill C-12, by a procedural motion, a hoist motion, from the then opposition Conservative Party, was prevented from going forward a couple of years earlier.

Be that as it may, when I hear the Minister of Justice incorrectly saying that nothing was done, I have to put on the record that we did strengthen prohibitions against child pornography.

We broadened the definition of child pornography to include audio formats as well as written material “that has, as its predominant characteristic, the description of prohibited sexual activity” with children “where that description is provided for a sexual purpose“. We prohibited advertising child pornography, increasing the maximum sentences and making a number of offences have more bite.

We wanted to protect young persons against sexual exploitation. One of the things that I like in Bill C-22 is that the government has not disposed of that section that was so important, the section that talked about the exploitation of children. It had prohibited sexual activity with young persons between 14 and 18. Under Bill C-2, a court would be directed to “infer that a relationship is exploitative of the young person based on its nature and circumstances, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person”.

Consistent with the existing criminal law treatment of sexual assault, that bill focused on the offending conduct of the accused rather than just on the young person's consent to that conduct. That was always the concern, that it was not just an age number, because the age of 14 has been in the Criminal Code and utilized since the late 1800s. It was the “exploitative” nature, and I am pleased that the bill keeps this, because that helps in our being able to come forward with our consent today.

We did increase the penalties for offences against children.

We facilitated testimony not only for child victims and witnesses under 18 years but for other vulnerable victims and witnesses. This is procedural, to help stop re-victimization in the court process.

We created a new voyeurism offence. Today we have those cameras that take pictures; that is why we needed this.

In 2002 we also created the offence of Internet luring under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. That prohibited the use of a computer system, including the Internet, to communicate with a young person for the purpose of committing a sexual assault against that person. It can and is being successfully charged, irrespective of whether a sexual assault actually took place. The fact of the offending conduct of trying to lure a child via a computer system is what we were getting at and it is there.

Also, just a few weeks back, a private member's bill on increasing sentences passed in the House.

Today's Bill C-22 is an improvement over former private members' bills, no matter how good the intention was. The fact is that now this bill has the five year close in age exception and that will go a long way, I think, in helping us to accept this bill and give our consent to it.

In fact, in our Liberal justice plan announced last week, this was one of the bills that we said would be put forward and given consent by our party, along with the other bills of conditional sentencing and imprisonment, as amended in committee, such as: Bill C-9; Bill C-18, an act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification; Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-23, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments); and Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), which was debated in the House last week under the topic of payday loans.

We on this side will add Bill C-22 to that list of bills. There are about 11 government justice bills. This one makes six that the Liberals are prepared to move forward in the Liberal justice plan, although we do not think that these bills are universally perfect. But we could find flaws with all pieces of legislation in the House. There are sections in this bill to do with unconstitutional areas of the Criminal Code, which we could have fixed. The justice minister has chosen not to do that, but at this stage I think the protection of children should be our utmost priority.

Listening in the chamber today was one of the good police officers who has to work in this area. He was kind enough to give some Liberal members a briefing. Unfortunately, his colleague from the federal police services was not allowed to do that, for reasons unknown.

On this side of the House, we as the official opposition are prepared to support this bill. I am prepared now to move on and give my time so that critics from the other parties can all be present in the justice committee for voting measures later this afternoon on another piece of legislation. There is unequivocal support here for Bill C-22.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what the government House leader said just a few moments ago, I wonder if you could see if there is unanimous consent in the House at this moment for the following motion: That Bill C-9 be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed; that Bills C-18, C-19 and C-23 be deemed to have been reported from committee, without amendments, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed; and that Bills,C-22 and C-26 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendments, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.

Justice

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we will pass any government bill, of course, in one day. We need the accord of all the opposition parties. We will not pass Bill C-9 today with the Liberal amendments which gutted that bill.

He says we have no legislative agenda. We have a bill to amend conditional sentencing, for a DNA data bank, to criminalize street racing, and to raise the age of protection. We have a payday loans bill, a bill to increase minimum sentencing, a bill to cut judicial compensation increases, and a bill to deal with dangerous offenders. Unlike the Liberals who talked about crime during the election, we are actually acting to fight crime.

Government Policies

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the environment committee, for instance, the government was trying to proceed with the important review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the opposition, instead, wanted to move the focus to an opposition private member's bill. That is all about politics, not about results. That is why Canadian voters decided to change government on January 23.

I want to know when the Liberals are going to bring back Bill C-9 to restore all of the offences they removed from that bill. Why is it that the Liberals, on eight criminal justice bills before this House, are so uncooperative in producing results to give us the tools to fight the--

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a quick follow up to my colleague's question in regard to getting tough on crime.

I have heard the member speak several times on this issue about problems that he has had in his own riding. He knows very well what I am talking about. I agree that the talk was out there during the election campaign. I heard it. I was on the platform with NDPers and Liberals, and even the Green Party was talking tough on crime.

What amazes me is what happens when we get here. We get to a committee and we have a bill before the committee, Bill C-9, which would get rid of house arrest, quit mollycoddling criminals and would get criminals to pay the penalties for the crimes they commit, which is called getting tough on crime, and yet the member and his party would not support that. They gutted that bill.

Those members listened to every soft on crime witness that came before the committee but they did not listen to the victims of crime or to the police forces. They did not listen to a number of witnesses who testified why we need to stop things like house arrest. What they call petty crimes, it is not a petty crime when someone breaks into a home. It is not a petty crime when there is a home invasion. These kinds of things need to be dealt with right on the ground. This government had a bill to do just what Canadians asked us all to do and something on which we all campaigned.

Could the member tell me why his party is not supporting getting rid of house arrest for certain crimes that should never be even considered?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by putting this budget we are debating today into context.

Much to everyone's astonishment, in the throne speech this year it contained only five items. It seemed like the Governor General had only begun to read it and before we knew it she rose and left. Everyone asked where the throne speech was. A quarter of a million employees work in the federal government and yet the Conservatives could only come up with five new things it felt needed to be done. We have over 40 federal agencies and departments. Did the government think 35 of them had no problems or no priorities? I am sure each of those organizations had a strategic plan. I am sure they did not say that nothing needed to be done. It was shocking. I was a bit disappointed by the fact that the Conservatives were not taken to task at the time. The previous Liberal plan had 77 priorities, and the Conservatives only had 5. Ninety-five per cent of Canada was left out of the budget.

Let me discuss wait times, which are now getting worse. A journalist caught the Prime Minister in a speech trying to put another priority in rather than his priority of wait times. He did not get away with it. The Prime Minister tried to say that it was not one of his government's five priorities because he realized he could not accomplish his goals with respect to wait times.

He said that Canada's place in the world would be his fifth priority but in the recent budget cuts he cut Canada's place in the world. He cut money to foreign embassies and he cut the student exchange program. Even the fifth priority that he added has now been downgraded.

I cannot remember exactly what the five priorities were. One might have been the GST cut. That was roundly criticized by all the major economists and analysts in Canada. They felt it would be more beneficial, more productive and more effective to give an income tax cut to Canadians.

One of the other priorities might have been defence. How many Canadians feel safer today than they did at the time that statement came out? A promise was made to provide three icebreakers for the north. Whether or not they believe in icebreakers, they should not have convinced northerners to vote for them and then break their promise and not go ahead with it. If we had increased our defence abilities, then we would be continuing Canada's place in the world in our traditional peacekeeping duties.

What have we done with this increased defence given the emerging situations in the world? Have we done anything in the Congo, in Zimbabwe, in Darfur or in Somalia? There is certainly nothing to show for that priority.

The government wants to get hard on crime. As was mentioned today in question period, we announced a smart crime proposal and plan. The government would not even expedite certain crime bills that we offered today.

However, the government's first major bill, Bill C-9, would not have made Canada much safer as witnesses stated before committee. Those witnesses convinced all parliamentarians except Conservative members that Canadians would be less safe. Major modifications had to be made to the bill to make Canada safer. For example, a committee member was told by a witness at the committee that prisoners had 47 days on average for treatment and rehabilitation in order to make them safe for society. Instead, with home arrest and the programs that go with that, they would have received 700 days of treatment. The 47 days would not make society safer because these offenders would have less chance of being rehabilitated or they would get a summary conviction or probation. That was a failure.

What is more important than its failure on the five priorities is that the government missed 95% of Canada in both the budget and throne speech. There was nothing for the most vulnerable, women, the poor and the elderly.

If governments have problems with their budgets it is usually that they cannot or do not implement them and they do not set aside money for all the things in the throne speech. However, I cannot say that the present government had that problem because if there is nothing in a throne speech it is pretty easy to fund it.

Let us look at the budget that we are talking about today. I am a positive person by nature but the government has made it very hard for me to be true to myself during the past year but I will mention some good things in the part of the budget addressed by Bill C-28.

In particular, there are two items in the budget that were former Liberal proposals. We are very happy to see the tax reduction on dividends and the $500,000 in capital gains being transferred to fishers.

Another thing that was good for my riding and something on which I lobbied for a long time was the excise tax reduction for brewers. We have a great micro brewery in Yukon that makes Yukon Gold and Arctic Red and it will certainly appreciate that particular cut.

I do not have any objections to other tax cuts for Canadians and businesses other than the fact that they were not applied equally. When the government has lots of money and it is in the best fiscal position in the history of surpluses with room to manoeuvre, why would it not extend the tax cuts equally to the most vulnerable?

The one example of that is the new textbook tax credit, which works out to $77. I talked to our college bookstore and I was told that a student could barely buy one book with that money. The Liberals were offering $3,000 toward the first year and $3,000 toward the last year of tuition, and for poor students that amount was for every year. What is the alternative choice? It is $77. The government really cannot be serious.

I will not go into the transit pass deduction except to say, as the member from the Bloc just pointed out, that all the experts in the government, the environment officials and the public servants, had respectfully recommended to the government that there were far more effective ways. They said that this deduction would primarily be a subsidy to people who were already using transit. There could have been all sorts of ways to get far more reductions in greenhouse gases and pollution than offering the credit.

Let us talk about the doubling of the pension income credit. It is great. I do not have an objection with that but when I asked the government the question earlier today about the seniors who do not get that income tax credit and who do not have the pension income to get the credit, there was no answer. In fact, for those seniors the government has increased income taxes. Why would it pick on seniors and increase their taxes from 12% to 12.5% unless they are very wealthy? Why would it reduce the basic exemption for everyone which means an increase in taxes for all Canadians?

I would not have a problem with the tax decreases had they been applied equally for everyone. Wealthy Canadians, by and large, are very generous. They donate to many social causes and do a lot of good work. They are not the type of people who would have asked for tax cuts and then said that we should not give it to the poorest in society, not give it to the single mother trying to feed her family and not increase her tax from 12% to 12.5% or reduce her basic exemption.

There would have been no problem in just giving everyone a tax cut. There is enough room in the budget to do that. The government has heard about it incessantly, especially because there were no items in the budget for those vulnerable groups as I outlined at the beginning of my speech.

If the member wants to put this in the context of the previous government, in the Liberal government's throne speeches and budgets there were all sorts of programs for aboriginal people, the disabled and students, and programs in regard to homelessness, which we were talking about today.

I will take the President of the Treasury Board at his word when he says the government will not cut the SCPI program. SCPI is a tremendous program that is very well used in my riding. There have been all sorts of successful projects. My party will fight to the end to make sure the program is maintained. I am delighted that the President of the Treasury Board said he would maintain that very important program. It is one of the many initiatives of the former government.

In foreign trade, we have seen the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil and an increased foreign presence in the world for Canada. In fact, in regard to the “responsibility to protect”, a year ago September I was very proud of the United Nations when Canada got that through. Yet now we have a government that recently cut the foreign presence in Canada.

Earlier in the House members talked about climate change and the initiatives the Liberals put in place. I will grant one thing to everyone: we were terrible about explaining what we had done. It was disastrous, because Canadians did not know about all the initiatives taken by the former government, although there is always more to be done.

Canadians did not know about our initiatives related to renewable energies, reducing fossil fuels, wind and solar energy, clean coal, carbon sequestration, ethanol and, as the Bloc member mentioned, of course there was our tremendous EnerGuide program. Thousands of Canadians across this country were using the EnerGuide program to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. The Conservative government has allowed the program to expire.

And what did we get from the government? We got a plan that could reduce the legal authority of Canada to prevent pollution. The plan asks for four more years of talk, but all that talking has been done for the last four years. The plan was put in place. This is a real insult to the excellent public servants of Canada, who did that talking for the last four years and came up with plans. Some of those experts in the biocap areas that we were supporting are world renowned. I do not think the government should be challenging them and telling them to go back and talk for another four years while our children continue to breathe smog.

In the north, where we find the most devastating impact of greenhouse gas, where the species are changing and the infrastructure is crumbling, where traditional lives are affected so dramatically, are we just going to talk for another four years? In fact, the government will put in targets that will be accomplished when I am 100 years old. I am not really worried about that, but what about our children today?

The programs initiated by the Liberal government were not perfect and may not have been enough, but certainly there were some kicking in that would have been tremendous. The deal the Liberal government had with the auto companies is one of the best in the world, unlike the government's plan. We cannot agree with the Conservatives. Because our deal was voluntary and because the auto industry complied with all the other voluntary initiatives, of course there would be a lot more buy-in and a lot more enthusiasm. That is a lot more effective than trying to force it, as the opposition parties are suggesting.

Of course in the Liberal budgets there were items for the north. For the north, what is in these budgets that the Liberal government has not already announced? As for the northern strategy money for the north, there is nothing new and nothing at all for my area of the country and, as northern critic, I would say there is nothing new for the other parts of the country, except of course the promise on the icebreakers that was reneged on.

The forestry industry is suffering from the softwood lumber deal, on which it is going to lose a billion dollars . We had a plan to help the communities, a plan worth close to a billion dollars, I believe, or at least over half a billion. We had a plan to help the communities and the workers. None of that was in this particular budget.

Of course all the infrastructure programs from the past government were new additions and were constantly increased in size.

There was also the new horizons program for seniors, which was well used in my area. And what about the pension increases?

In spite of all this, the Liberal government still had the largest tax break in Canadian history to that time, and we had two tremendous national deals. One was a deal on equalization, with tremendous increases for the provinces and territories of this country. Another was on health care, with huge increases for that by the last two prime ministers.

To get all the provinces and territories to sign on to those agreements and the early childhood agreement is an historic accomplishment. Everyone knows what it is like to try to get the federal government and 11 provinces and territories to agree. These deals were a tremendous accomplishment in those times.

How does that compare to the five items in the last throne speech that were funded in a budget? Even they were not successful.

Let us look at the historic Kelowna agreement. Since Confederation, trying to increase the quality of life of one segment of the Canadian population so it is at least equal to that of the rest of Canadians has been a sore spot in Canada. It can only be done with them, thinking of the solutions, being part of the solutions and in agreement with the solutions, and with the provinces.

It was a historic agreement. It is unimaginable that it even happened. The premiers, the first nations leaders and the federal government got together and came up with a plan,and with the largest amount of money in history for aboriginal people, but more important was the buy-in, which was almost impossible. Where are all these funds in the budget we are debating? Gone. Gone for something else and I am not sure what.

As I said, I was a bit disappointed that these points did not get wider condemnation earlier on as these two things came out, but perhaps people were giving the new government the benefit of the doubt. However, I think the government showed its true colours a couple of weeks ago with the cuts, the cuts that have resounded across the country and have groups up in arms.

We have had two emergency debates on the cuts. In each debate I did not have time to finish reading the input just from my riding, 1/1000th of Canada, and the farthest away from Ottawa, where people would not hear about their complaints. People were surprised, shocked and disappointed that on the day a $13 billion surplus was announced, $1 billion for the most vulnerable in society was be cut.

They were surprised that the court challenges program was cut. It has been used many times to ensure the integrity of our laws so they match our Constitution. As we are a constitutional government, what parliamentarian would not want that integrity for our country?

There was also the cut to the Law Commission, which has done excellent work, also in the area of the law. Parliamentarians are law makers. What parliamentarian would not want outside expertise in doing projects such as the one that was done on historical aboriginal law?I believe first nations people in my riding were part of that.

What about tourism? Maybe I have to speak louder than everyone else because I have the one riding in a province or territory where tourism is the biggest private sector employer. Tourism helps Canadians all across the country. How could the government cut marketing money from the Canadian Tourism Commission, especially when a province like Queensland in Australia probably already spends more than the entire country of Canada spends? Why would marketing money be cut when we need to sell Canada to the world in an ever more difficult time for tourism because of high gas prices and terrorism, et cetera? Not only did the government cut marketing, it cut the GST rebate, which makes it about 6% more difficult for tour operators to entice conventions to come to Canada.

Why would the government cut summer students? The tourism industry and museums use summer students. The museums in this country, which are so poorly funded, were apoplectic with all the cuts, including the summer students they lost, the heritage building program they lost, and the huge cut to MAP, the museum assistance program, one of their few programs.

I am almost out of time so in one minute I will briefly mention the other cuts. I was going to talk about the cuts to the Status of Women budget, cuts to volunteers, for goodness' sake, and cuts to youth employment and youth strategy. Why would funds be cut for youth? Why would there be cuts to CMHC? Why would there be cuts for aboriginal people on the aboriginal smoking strategy?

The very worst of all, which caused an outcry all across the country, is the cut to literacy. One constituent wrote to me and said he probably would be dead without literacy money. I read the letter for the House of Commons last time I spoke.

This is not a direction that we can go in. This is not the direction that Canadians believe in. This is not the kind of Canada that we want to support.

Government Legislation

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we would be delighted to pass all of those bills in this place forthwith and in the Liberal controlled Senate tonight. However, we doubt that the Liberals are serious about this because Bill C-9, regarding conditional sentencing, was before the justice committee and the Liberals cooperated with the other soft on crime opposition parties to gut that bill.

I do not know what it is they do not understand about the desire of Canadians to get tough on violent crime. Conservatives want to act. We will cooperate with any party to do it right here, right now.

Responses to Oral Questions

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ensure the record is corrected. I am sure the Minister of Justice did not intend to mislead the House when, in answer to a question in question period, he said that he believed his party had promised to get rid of house arrest.

I will let him answer to this, but Bill C-9 did not get rid of house arrest as presented by the other government. It did try to put a wide net around house arrest but, in the wisdom of all the opposition parties listening to evidence, we narrowed that down to appropriate areas.