Bill C-10 (Historical)

Safe Streets and Communities Act

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

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

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to talk about Bill C-10. Bill C-10 would have a very profound impact. I think, in good part, it would set the stage in terms of different ways in which we ought to be able to deal with crime in our country, not only for today but well into the future. It is nice to use this particular bill as a bill that clearly illustrates the difference between the Conservative government and the Liberal Party of Canada or even, to a certain degree, the New Democratic Party.

On the one hand, we have a government that is very determined to give the impression to Canadians that it will be tough on crime and that by supporting the Conservatives somehow the crime rate in Canada will go down. Over the years, the Conservatives have been going out of their way to give that impression.

For me, personally, and I believe for the Liberal Party, the real push should be on how we can prevent crimes from taking place in the first place.

I want to go back to what real people are saying on our streets and in our communities across Canada. I represent Winnipeg North, which is a beautiful area of Winnipeg. It has great attributes and characteristics. It has a great deal of history. It has a modern suburban area. I was touched by the comments made by one constituent living in and around the Selkirk-Pritchard-Arlington area. She told me that she did not feel that she was safe enough during the nighttime to be able to go to sleep, that she preferred to sleep during the daytime because she felt it was safer. One of her comments was that she was also scared to go outside her home at night, even into her own yard. In essence, she was saying that when the sun goes down she becomes confined to staying in her own home. I was very concerned about that particular constituent.

Throughout the campaign, whether it was the byelection of last year or the general election of this year, in the door knocking that I conducted, I found that the whole issue of crime and safety was one of those issues of concern. It did not matter which door I knocked on, if I were to raise the issue, the residents were more than happy to give an opinion on their concern about the issue of crime and safety.

We could talk about defence spending, health care or many other different issues that were out there but the only issue I found that was consistent, no matter what door I knocked on, was the issue of crime and safety. What that one elderly lady had raised with me was not the only instance where something really struck me. I remember talking with another senior gentleman who was living in an apartment unit. He told me about the two wallets he carried when he walks around. The reason he carried two wallets was that in case he was mugged he would give the empty wallet and then he could continue on his way.

That starts to cause a great deal of concern as the local member of Parliament as to why it is that people get these opinions and feel that insecure when they go out into our communities.

I could give many other examples that were raised. My overriding concern is that I want to be able to make a tangible difference in the community in which I live and the community I represent. I believe, for the most part, that other members of Parliament would like to do the same. They want to deliver for their constituents. They want to ensure that their constituents feel secure in their communities.

As I indicated, Winnipeg North is a wonderful area. I am proud of the fact that I come from Winnipeg North. I want seniors in my community to feel comfortable, and for the most part, they do. We recognize the richness of our community. However, a lot needs to be done to make our seniors and others feel safer in their environment.

I get a bit frustrated when I look at this legislation. The Conservatives' agenda on crime is not necessarily going to deal with the issues that concern my constituents. My constituents want the government of Canada to prevent crimes from happening. That is what they really want.

Naturally, they want to see a consequence for a crime. All of us recognize that there needs to be a consequence when someone commits a crime. We do not question that. My constituents want a government that is caring and compassionate and delivers. They want safer communities.

Let us take a look at Bill C-10 and what it purports to do.

Bill C-10 is a huge bill. It easily could have been broken into eight or nine other bills but the government has compiled everything. There are some good things in the legislation, but its overall tone is not good.

I would suggest, and I made reference to this when I was asking questions earlier, that the focus of the bill seems to be on building more jails, a superjail complex. A number of American states experimented with this concept years ago.

Some individuals in the late 1970s and mid-1980s discussed building more prisons and keeping prisoners in jail. They felt that crime on the streets would go down. Those very same states have now recognized that they were going in the wrong direction. They are now starting to recognize the greater value in programs that make a difference in preventing crimes. They are starting to recognize that individuals do not necessarily have to be kept in jail for 5, 15, 20 years.

I would challenge the government to talk about other jurisdictions that are moving in the same direction. Most modern western countries are moving toward rehabilitation and crime prevention. People are more proactive within their communities. The government quite often responds by saying people have to be kept in jail because of the victims.

Property crime is far more frequent than violent crime. There is a lot more interest in violent crime in terms of making sure there is some form of adequate jail time. Judges have done a good job in using that discretion.

The government needs to recognize that it is a balancing act. Our priorities need to be that we either create the additional jails or invest in ways to keep people out of jails. I think we would be much better off if we put the focus on the latter, because there is a finite amount of resources. When there is a finite amount of resources, it becomes an issue of prioritizing. I believe the priorities of the government on fighting crime are going in the wrong direction.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some of the community workers in my riding consistently gave me really interesting figures. For example, for every $5 invested in prevention, there is $95 spent incarcerating an individual.

There is nobody in this House who does not agree with stiff sentences for people who harm children. There is nobody who does not agree with stiff sentences for people who take people's lives. In my riding, a mother lost her son to three young individuals who beat him to death. My heart goes out to her. For her, justice needs to be served.

However, we are talking about people who grow a little pot and are thrown in prison for a year and a half. Prison can be a very scary place, but it can be a very educational place. After that year and a half when those young people get out, they are hurt, they are bitter, they are messed up and they will take that out on society.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on how this helps keep crime off the streets by creating better criminals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was a provincial justice critic for many years. One of the biggest things we wanted to establish was that the best way to fight crime and prevent crime was to invest money up front. Investing money up front in programs that will steer people away from committing crimes is far more effective. At the end of the day, we will have less crime on our streets and better and safer communities.

I appreciate the comments by the hon. member. I must say I also concur with his comments. Because I do not support the bill does not mean in any fashion whatsoever that I do not believe there needs to be a consequence for many of those crimes, such as pedophilia and so forth.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member opposite. I served as a police officer for a number of years and I recognize the reality of the balanced approach. We do have to have prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Like most Canadians, I certainly do not have difficulty with that.

However, we also have to recognize there is an element of society, unfortunately, that is dangerous. These people need to be isolated from the public as a matter of protection.

I am just hearing about money for jails. I am wondering how many opposition members have actually visited some of our penal institutions. Many of them, quite frankly, are archaic. They are barbaric. There is no possibility, or even facility, for rehabilitation and/or self-improvement. We have to bring things up to a level of accommodation where we can provide that balanced approach.

We do need protection and prevention, but it does take all. The bill obviously does not deal with the total scope. There are other bills that deal with prevention as well, but this deals with protection and victim protection.

I hope the opposition members would recognize that and in due course give the bill support, because of those principles.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Gary Kowalski was a wonderful police officer. He and I served in the Manitoba legislature. Gary Kowalski said that if we wanted to deal with youth, we should get involved in youth justice committees. That way, we would be able to deal with preventing crimes.

In the last number of years, especially in the province of Manitoba, the youth justice committees and the roles they have played have actually deteriorated.

It is an issue of priorities. If those were the government's priorities, then we would see better results at the end of the day and less crime on our streets.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague on his passion when he speaks in the House. He should win the award for the most passionate speaker on many issues, frankly.

A lot of us share concerns about wanting to have a balance in this bill. On the issue of the mentally ill and how they are treated, I wonder if there has been enough discussion and debate. Is there anything in Bill C-10 that is really going to speak to those who are mentally ill when it comes to crime?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up an exceptional point. Whether it is mental illness or disorders such as fetal alcohol syndrome, there are issues that have a profound impact on what individuals are doing in our communities. If we do not allocate the necessary resources to support better programming, at the end of the day we are going to end up spending more money on our jails and there will be more crime on the streets.

I know this is a point that I hammer home every time I speak, but for me it is all about reducing crime on our streets. That is one of the reasons why I find it so difficult to support this bill. If we invested a little more in things like the member just made reference to, trying to address mental illness, it would do far more than this bill would do in terms of reducing crime on the streets.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Safe Streets and Communites Act

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we are told that the safe streets and communities act will harden criminals and increase recidivism, yet experts agree that rehabilitation strategies work. Many of these programs occur within the correctional environment and the length of a sanction should be proportional to the offence, and must consider the victims of crime who are all too often ignored.

The bill has many facets designed to protect the rights of victims by enshrining a victim's right to participate in parole hearings and address inmate accountability. At the same time, the bill will allow judges to defer sanctions for offenders enrolled in drug and alcohol treatment programs. Our government continues to invest in prevention strategies which are critical in ensuring safe streets and communities.

A key pillar of our national anti-drug strategy is prevention and treatment for those with drug dependencies. Since 2007 the health portfolio has invested $577 million over five years for the strategy's prevention, treatment and enforcement activities.

Our government has made significant treatment investments to strengthen existing treatment programs through the treatment action plan. Communities can celebrate funded health promotion and prevention projects for youth through the drug strategy community initiatives fund with over 100 approved projects across Canada. This represents approximately $40 million in multi-year community based investments. The national crime prevention strategy's priorities include: addressing early risk factors among vulnerable children, youth and young adults; preventing recidivism among high risk offenders; fostering crime prevention in aboriginal and northern communities; and preventing youth gang and drug-related crime. It also includes the SNAP Girls Connection program.

All too often, the message of media fixates on the silos of government. When one looks across departments, there are tremendous and well-balanced approaches to safer streets and communities.

We continue to hear the NDP bring up Texas. I fundamentally disagree with any comparison between the Canadian correctional system and the Texas model. Texas has a population nearly equivalent to Canada in its state alone, yet it incarcerates its citizens at a rate five times higher than Canada.

The NDP quoted a recent article, but experts from Texas failed to mention that its relative crime rate has actually gone up for offences of murder, forceable rape, robbery and burglary, despite its enlightened approach to crime and sanctions. Texas still boasts the death penalty and has eliminated last meal rights for the condemned. Texas crime rates have fluctuated up and down since 1960 and will continue to do so. Texans will certainly be left scratching their cowboy hats when their rates continue to fluctuate over time. I encourage members opposite when discussing Canadian realities to remember these facts and to please not mess with Texas.

In respect to marijuana grow operations, there has been a tremendous amount of fearmongering and misinformation around this aspect of the bill. First, one must consider the volume and value six plants of marijuana can create. The proliferation of the idea that it is just six plants, meaning no harm can be caused, is both irresponsible and wrong. Once again, there is failure on the part of critics to consider victims and innocent people.

Take for example drug endangered children. Carbon dioxide enhances plant growth, but poses serious health risks to humans. High concentrations can displace oxygen in the air, resulting in oxygen deficiency, combined with effects of carbon dioxide toxicity. Grow operations contain high levels of humidity and are prone to build-up of various moulds which can damage human health, causing aggravating immunological diseases such as hay fever allergies, asthma, infections, and even cancer. The likelihood of a house fire is 24 times greater in a home with a grow operation compared to an ordinary household.

Drug endangered children are at greater risk of neglect, domestic violence, pre and postnatal alcohol abstinence syndrome, and sexual abuse. Grow operations are often linked to criminal activity and organized crime. The environment is also very high risk for physical assault, home invasions, gang violence and homicides. Increasing liberal attitudes toward marijuana has led to an increase in the number of child neglect and abuse cases that can be directly attributed to marijuana, according to Lori Moriarty at the Stafford conference.

There is also a misnomer that this bill creates new criminals, when in fact all of the offences dealt with are criminal, and our government is committed to dealing with the most reprehensible crimes in our society. One is protecting children from sexual predators.

One is protecting children from sexual predators. This point I find particularly positive considering the recent RCMP intelligence report, which stated, “The availability of child sexual exploitation material for purchase, over the Internet, remains a problem”.

Penalties for organized drug crime and protecting the public from violent and repeat young offenders are others. I emphasize the words “violent” and “repeat”.

Another is preventing trafficking abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants.

Corrections Canada applauds the bill's efforts to address inmate accountability, responsibility and management under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which protects and encourages inmates engaged in a rehabilitation program.

On the topic of new prisons, initial projections of population increases from past legislation has not been realized. There is no link between new prisons and this legislation. New prisons are required to reflect the rehabilitative and corrective model essential to achieving objectives of health, hope and healing of inmates.

The opposition criticizes new prisons yet presses for more programming and single cells for inmates. It fails to realize the intrinsic link between the building of new correctional facilities with cleaner, safer environments with more room and controls in order to allow staff and inmates the best possible environment to engage in rehabilitative programs.

The Yukon corrections model is an excellent example of moving from a close supervision model to a direct supervision model, which will be greatly enhanced with the move to its new correctional facility in 2012.

When one considers the cost of correctional facilities in housing offenders, it must be remembered that the tangible costs of crime on victims is much higher, 80% of which is borne by the victims themselves. The Canadian Bar Association stated:

This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs, but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse. It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.

If there are imaginary problems, then we will not see the contradictory message it is suggesting of an increased prison population as there will not be imaginary criminals, imaginary trials, and imaginary sentences that would have such a result.

We do know that the problems are real and I would invite the Canadian Bar Association to write to the community of Citadel, which was devastated when an illegal grow operation caught on fire and damaged seven neighbouring homes. It should also write to the province of Alberta, where the ALERT organization dismantled 200 grow operations in Calgary, seizing nearly 70,000 plants. Of those grow operation locations, 151 were unfit for human habitation. In 2011, almost 46,000 plants worth $56.3 million has been taken off the streets of that province. That is not imaginary.

According to a justice department study, only one in every six individuals convicted of running a grow operation in B.C., Alberta and Ontario, between 1997 and 2005 actually served time in prison.

The killer of RCMP officer Dennis Strongquill, Laurie Ann Bell, was an impulsive drug-addicted alcoholic whose contempt for the courts had shown little remorse or understanding for the impact of her crime. According to National Parole Board records, whose hands were tied under the current legislation, she was released after serving less than seven years. Corporal Brian Auger, Strongquill's former partner, was not told of Bell's impending release. “Nobody ever spoke to me”, he said. “They should maybe talk to the people that were involved and get a better idea or understanding as to what the victim goes through.”

Bill C-10 will do just that and enshrine victim participation in Parole Board hearings and keep victims better informed about the behaviour and handling of offenders.

Perhaps the Canadian Bar Association and the NDP would like to reaffirm their positions to Corporal Auger and Dennis Strongquill's family that our government is reacting to imaginary problems.

Under this government, we have another 1,000 RCMP officers on the front line and we have invested $400 million to help the provinces and territories recruit more police officers.

The 9/11 attacks claimed 3,000 people including Canadians. The 2002 Bali bombing attack was the deadliest attack in the history of Indonesia. That killed Canadians as well. Were these imaginary problems?

On a personal level, I have engaged youth in the communities to deliver teamwork, leadership, health and anti-bullying workshops which have engaged youth and community leaders, and increased self-esteem in both the boys and girls who have participated. This demonstrates what we can do as individuals to raise a respectful, healthy, law-abiding community.

Therefore, when we step outside the silos we create and see the bigger picture beyond the body of legislation, our government is achieving the right balance between victims' rights, crime prevention and rehabilitation for a better Canada.

Bill C-10--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the last election the Conservative Party received a mandate to take action with tougher sentences for child molesters, tougher sentences for drug dealers, and tougher sentences for organized criminals. All of those measures are included in Bill C-10, the bill the House is currently debating, which the government committed to passing within 100 sitting days.

With that in mind, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78.(1) or 78.(2), concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78.(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Report Stage

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Orders or usual practices of the House, proceedings at report stage of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be discharged and that the bill be immediately referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of more fully conducting clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and that it not be reported back to the House in fewer than 15 sitting days.

We are proposing this motion in order to ensure that this bill receives proper consideration. We saw at report stage this morning, half a dozen or more amendments by the government itself that were ruled out of order because they could have been, I think in the words of the Speaker, presented at committee. That is what the Speaker said in his ruling this morning.

It seems pretty obvious that the government itself now recognizes that there was not sufficient time at committee to give consideration to proper amendments, that the bill is flawed, and that the way to resolve this is to send it back to committee. So I am assuming that we will have unanimous consent from members opposite for this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of words about how spending on prisons is somehow going to help children. It was a little lost on me, but I noticed an interesting story from the member for Winnipeg North about two wallets. It seems to me the Conservatives do have two wallets. They have a bulging wallet of about $3 billion a year in burgeoning prison costs, but there seems to be little or nothing in the wallet for school nutrition programs, dental care for children, early childhood education, a national child care program, and elementary and post-secondary education.

I would like to ask the hon. member, if he really does care about children, why is there no investment in that wallet?