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.

Justice

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to talk about the cost of prisons.

With unbelievable cynicism, on October 14, 2011, the Minister of Justice invited the provinces to dip into the Canada social transfer to pay for the increased prison costs resulting from the passing of Bill C-10. In general, what is the Canada social transfer used for? It is used to fund social assistance, health care, social services and higher education, not to pay for this government's bills that have absolutely nothing to do with the Canada social transfer.

The minister even said this: “I note, in the last budget, an over $2.4 billion increase in transfers,” said Mr. Nicholson in Montreal, “and I know this will be very helpful to the provinces who have for the most part the responsibility of the administration of justice.” It is as though he was telling the provinces that they had $2 billion and that they should make do. It is as though the provinces do not have education or health care systems or anything else to manage.

In a detailed study, the Institut de recherche et d'informations socio-économiques estimated that it would cost over $18.8 billion to build prisons and that there would be $3.8 billion in ongoing operating costs. The provinces will have to pay for three-quarters of the cost of the construction alone.

The Government of Quebec must therefore face the fact that 18 of its prisons are full. In practical terms, this means 565 to 1,048 additional beds in Quebec prisons. The cost of building new cells is estimated at approximately $750 million and the ongoing costs associated with the arrival of additional inmates is estimated at approximately $80 million.

Quebec was not the only one to protest. The other provinces also appealed to the government. Ontario even said that it would have to spend billions of dollars.

In order to save money, Quebec asked Ottawa to transfer ownership of the Leclerc Institution, which Ottawa wants to shut down. The federal government has invested $3 million to renovate this penitentiary. It is unbelievable. Furthermore, we have already paid for it. The Correctional Service of Canada spent $3 million on all kinds of renovations over two years, hundreds of thousands of dollars to install surveillance cameras, $5,000 to renovate a supervisor's office, $15,000 for painting, $1 million for roofing, and much more.

What was the Minister of Public Safety's response to a question I asked yesterday about transferring ownership of the Leclerc Institution?

I certainly will look at the request.

We will wait and see. The government may do something.

The request was made in a letter from the former Quebec minister of public security dated May 8, 2012. The letter was reported by the media and stated that, in three years' time, the three new prisons in Quebec would not meet demand and that Quebec wanted the Leclerc Institution. The minister must have received the letter dated May 8, 2012.

The Conservative government has never fully costed its justice initiatives. The Conservatives are closing prisons even though they want to jail more people. That does not make sense. If they want to jail more people, they have to build prisons. Instead of closing prisons, they should be giving money to the provinces so they can cover the extra costs.

Opposition Motion—Omnibus Legislation

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, each time my colleague delivers a speech in the House people usually take note, and today is no exception. He has nailed a couple of very important points, the reflection on and the comparison with what took place with Bill C-10. The member proposed amendments that were voted down by the Conservative majority in committee. The minister tried to put them back into the legislation at the last minute, which did not happen, but at least the amendments did get in through the Senate. Those improvements, because it was at odds with the charter, made sense.

Eight hundred amendments were proposed to the omnibus bill through debate here in the House and through votes in the House, and the government supported none of them. Was the member somewhat surprised that there was not one suggestion or amendment brought forward that might have been able to improve the omnibus bill? Was he surprised that the government rejected all 800 amendments?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, when the Prime Minister was a member of the opposition, he addressed the question of process in particular and expressed his concern that omnibus-type legislating was undermining the parliamentary process. As I said, this has been undermining the integrity of Parliament itself because process is inextricably bound up with parliamentary procedure, inextricably bound up with our constitutional responsibilities for public oversight, for seeking cost disclosure and the like.

When legislation is bundled together and rushed through Parliament, it has adverse consequences on both process and substance. The legislation itself may be flawed but may never get properly examined. The committee process that is used does not allow for adequate review and the calling of appropriate witnesses, particularly when we have time allocation. The use of such time allocation may compound matters to exclude stakeholders, not only us here in this Parliament but even in a federation it may exclude provinces' input, as we saw with Bill C-10 and the omnibus crime bill.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this debate on omnibus legislation. Like my colleagues, and particularly now my colleague from Etobicoke North, I agree with what the current Prime Minister stated in this place in 1994 when, as an opposition member, he criticized the use of omnibus legislation asking:

How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

He continued:

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

The complaint of the Prime Minister, then speaking as an opposition member in 1994, about the use of omnibus bills ought now to underpin his work as Prime Minister. Rather, he is forcing legislation through this place as he himself regaled against. Indeed, it is time that the House took action to study and restrict the use of sweeping omnibus legislation that, among other things, deprives MPs of the opportunity to undertake the requisite detailed and differentiated analysis of the diverse constituent elements in a given omnibus bill, deprives the members of the House of the necessary public oversight with respect to these bills and undermines public participation in the political process as well as the public right to know.

I am not suggesting that the government somehow does not have a right to pursue its policy objectives. What must be debated, however, is the integrity of the process used and the merits of the means chosen. The purpose of Parliament is not to serve as a rubber stamp of the government, to be disconnected from the people and our constituents, even in a majority Parliament. Indeed, the government has yet to explain how Canadians are worse off when this body does take the necessary time to study subject matter items in detail, to separate out disparate legislative proposals and thereby, as a result, to produce the appropriate high-quality legislation deserving of our Parliament and our people. Indeed, it would seem by his own acknowledgement in this place that the member for Calgary Southwest at the time acknowledged these same views in 1994.

Accordingly, my brief remarks will be organized around the discussion of two particular pieces of legislation, the recent federal budget implementation bill, and Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill. While those are the two latest and most blatant examples of the use and abuse of the omnibus process, the government has a pattern of bundling perfectly acceptable items with utterly untenable legislation, and does so not only to its peril but to the peril of its own case and cause.

The recent federal budget legislation, Bill C-38, is what I have referred to elsewhere as the hydra-headed Trojan Horse omnibus budget implementation bill, for it was as stealth-like in its scope as it will be and has been prejudicial in its impact, the whole constituting an assault on the integrity of Parliament and its members, as well as on the democratic process. That is putting it modestly and mildly.

Simply put, while this 400-plus page piece of legislation was supposed to be anchored in the budget, in reality it had very little to do with the budget. Rather, in its sweeping scope it introduced, amended or repealed more than 70 federal statutes with the omnibus Trojan Horse providing political cover for pervasive and prejudicial impacts on everything from Canadian retirement plans to environmental protection, from immigration to food safety. All of this was accomplished through sleight-of-hand omnibus legislation where, for example, one provision undermined the whole of our environmental protection safeguards.

This enormous hodgepodge, this disconnected bundling together of variegated legislative proposals, did not and does not allow for the requisite differentiated discussion and debate, let alone the necessary oversight of the legislation. It imbued the executive with arbitrary authority to the exclusion of Parliament thereby serving as a standing abuse to the canons of good governance, transparency, accountability, public oversight, cost disclosure and the like. Indeed, this alone should have been cause for its defeat.

As Andrew Coyne put it at the time, “The scale and scope is on a level not previously seen, or tolerated”. He noted that the bill made “a mockery of the confidence convention” and that there was no “common thread” or “overarching principle” between the legislative items therein, let alone its standing contempt for Parliament in matters of process and procedure.

Moreover, and again on the crucial issues of parliamentary process and procedure, this bill was sent to the finance committee. Accordingly, the review of the environmental regulations therein, which overhauled, weakened and undermined the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and environmental protection as a whole, were thus not reviewed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development where it belonged.

Similarly, the provisions that changed the First Nations Land Management Act were not the subject of examination and study by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as my colleague from Etobicoke North identified, where they ought to have been deliberated. I could go on with numerous examples in this regard.

Moreover, if circumventing proper and thorough parliamentary review were not enough, the government invoked time allocation to limit discussion on the bill at every stage of the legislative process.

I am not suggesting that invoking time allocation, as the government has done again and again, violates the rules of this place. What I am suggesting, as many commentators have said, is that this use of it, particularly in the context of omnibus legislation, is unnecessary, prejudicial, surprisingly undemocratic, in effect, unparliamentary, and otherwise unsubstantiated, unwarranted and, frankly, is a contempt of Parliament and the people.

Surely if Parliament had to debate something like going to war, it would be easy to see why we might have time allocation to ensure that we get to the most pressing debate first. Or, if there were court decisions that affected many statutes, we might easily welcome an omnibus bill that could make the same change to many statutes at once, and that has been done by this House.

What is so disconcerting with the budget implementation bill is that the government need not have been in such a rush. There was no coherent or compelling theme, as commentators and experts have pointed out, to the omnibus proposals contained in the bill. Frankly, it could have used more study and, as we see with the current tainted beef scandal, the provisions on food inspectors perhaps warranted a more thorough review.

There are many issues that remain with the budget implement bill, not the least of which is the question of cost disclosure and the remaining possibility of a lawsuit from the PBO over the government's failure to be open and transparent about the extent of the budget cuts proposed and its cost impact.

In the matter of the omnibus crime legislation, Bill C-10, the problem with omnibus legislation is illustrated no less compellingly. While the same generic omnibus critiques operate in this context, namely, what Richard Poplak in a Globe and Mail piece termed “Chinese disease...hollowing out democracy”, for which Canadians are increasingly bearing the burden of this onslaught, I would refer to one case study of the government's omnibus failure: the amendments to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, JVTA.

The JVTA was one of nine constituent bills of Bill C-10, one which received little attention. This landmark legislation, however, allowed, for the first time, Canadian victims of terror to sue their terrorist perpetrators in Canadian courts.

I supported the principles of the JVTA and had even introduced similar legislation in a previous session for that purpose. However, the government's version of this bill warranted improvement, which it did not allow for. Accordingly, I proposed a series of amendments at the legislative committee, explaining that I sought only to strengthen the government's bill. All of my amendments were summarily rejected by the Conservatives, as were all opposition amendments. Indeed, all 50 of my proposed amendments to Bill C-10 were summarily rejected. There was no debate or consideration given. In fact, I was accused of obstruction and delay for merely suggesting these changes. At the next meeting, the government moved to shut down debate entirely, a flagrant abuse of the parliamentary and legislative process.

Certainly a majority government has the procedural right to use its majority as it pleases. However, it ignores the opposition at its peril. Indeed, the government eventually realized the merit of my amendments and proposed them later as its own. Therefore, these amendments became part of the legislation in a dilatory fashion, prejudicing the outcome and even the improvement that could have been warranted in that legislation.

Simply put, legislation has to be examined on the merits and, when so examined, the Conservatives' omnibus crime bill revealed that it would result in more crime, less justice, at greater cost, with fewer rehabilitation opportunities for offenders, less protection and voice for the victims, and less protection for society. We are now slowly seeing the consequences of the legislation being that which we predicted at the time. In fact, we have situations and problems with regard with prison overcrowding, mandatory minimum penalties and the like, that are likely to be struck down by the courts. I could go on.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to address the House.

On May 17, 2012, the government introduced Bill C-37, which amends the Criminal Code provisions on victim surcharges as currently set out in section 737.

I have listened to many of the speeches given by my colleagues on both sides of the House, but mainly on this side, since few government members have spoken about this bill. I trust the judgment of my hon. colleague from Gatineau, who was the first to say that we would be supporting this bill at second reading. I also respect her legal experience. For my part, I worked for quite some time as a special constable, for I have always had a special interest in saving lives and keeping the people in my community safe.

At the beginning of this Parliament, I was our party's public safety critic. I care deeply about the safety of my fellow citizens. Now while debating this bill, it is our duty as legislators to ensure that victims of crime have the support they need.

Many people here have pointed out the lack of funding for programs and services offered to victims, and like my colleague, I am very concerned about this. That is why I will vote in favour of this bill, for we in the NDP support many of the recommendations made by the ombudsman for victims of crime, many of which are addressed in this bill. Furthermore, we have always supported increased funding for programs and services offered to victims of crime.

Bill C-37 amends the Criminal Code sections dealing with victim surcharges. A victim surcharge is an additional penalty imposed on offenders at the time of sentencing after they have been convicted of an indictable offence. This bill doubles the amount of victim surcharges and makes them mandatory for all offenders.

The surcharge would be the equivalent of 30% of any fine imposed on the offender at sentencing. Currently, the surcharge is 15%. If a judge does not impose a fine with the sentence or if no fine applies, then the surcharge would be $100 for summary offences and $200 for indictable offences.

Judges will be able to impose a higher victim surcharge if circumstances warrant and if the offender has the means to pay it. This provision is interesting because it leaves room to adjust the fine, but especially because it gives judges discretionary power in cases where this might apply. These fines will be collected by the provincial and territorial governments and allotted to the programs and services for victims of crime. These fines are not supposed to end up in the consolidated fund of any province or territory. We must ensure that this will indeed be the case.

A number of my colleagues have also mentioned that the programs and services are severely underfunded and that the precarious finances of these organizations often jeopardize the success of their mission. Crimes have considerable socio-economic repercussions on victims, including funeral costs, the need for psychological counselling and lost revenue. There are many repercussions for the families of victims of crime.

The statistics say it all. In 2003, crime cost roughly $70 billion, $47 billion of which was assumed by the victims. In other words, the victims assumed 70% of the cost. In 2004, a study estimated that the pain and suffering of the victims was in the neighbourhood of $36 billion. That is huge and, unfortunately, the victim surcharge is not going to fully cover this cost, but it will help.

Did the government do its homework and use the best possible tool for maximizing the funding for these organizations? That remains to be seen, and I hope we can determine that when we study the bill in committee.

This bill could contribute to funding these organizations and if that is the case, then I am most pleased. If it also—although I have my doubts—helps make an offender accountable and prevents recidivism, then just like the government, I will be very happy. But make no mistake, this is not a magic solution. The provisions in Bill C-37 will not solve all the problems, but they will be another good tool to help provide funding to the organizations.

We should not, however, expect that the impact of this bill will be significant enough to dissuade a person from committing a crime, as some members mentioned in their remarks.

This is where policies and programs on crime prevention and offender accountability come into play. Since the beginning of this parliament, the Conservatives have introduced many justice bills involving mandatory minimum sentences. Yet, they have done very little in the way of crime prevention and offender rehabilitation.

That is why, when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, I endorsed a balanced approach to crime and rehabilitation, as did my other colleagues. It is important to invest in prevention and rehabilitation in order to minimize the chances of people committing a first offence or reoffending. We must not focus all our efforts on punishment. The Conservative Party's vision of this concept is rather shameful.

For the Conservatives, punishment solves all problems. There are so many factors that lead to crime that we must take a multi-faceted approach to dealing with it. Poverty, unemployment, inadequate housing and low levels of education are all factors that contribute to a rise in crime. A preventive approach must address all these problems in order to achieve effective results.

It is also important to have intelligent corrections legislation and policies accompanied by rehabilitation programs that help to reduce recidivism. It is everyone's duty, as a community, to help victims of crime and to do everything possible to prevent people from becoming victims of crime.

The bill also contains provisions regarding offenders who are unable to pay the fine. Under Bill C-37, these people can participate in a provincial fine option program. These programs allow offenders to pay their debts by earning credits for work done in the province or territory where they committed their crime. I think this is a worthwhile approach because it could get offenders involved in their communities and make them feel accountable, which will greatly contribute to their rehabilitation.

However, the government will have to regulate these programs, since they must be fair and equitable, in light of the sentence, and must be standardized across Canada. I hope the government has done its homework, and we will be able to check that once the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We must not blindly rush into this, since these programs do not currently exist in all the provinces and territories. What happens when a program does not exist? This is a legitimate question that my colleague raised during the first debate.

If a province must create a new program, it will require funding to do so, and once again, like with Bill C-10, the government may end up passing the bill on to the provinces. Has the government consulted the provinces about this? Will the provinces once again be on the hook for financing the government's crime agenda? I would like a clear answer to that question.

The bill will eliminate the court's ability to exempt the mandatory surcharge if undue hardship to the offender or the dependants of the offender would result from payment of the surcharge. I have some concerns about this provision. The bill indicates, in order of priority, the debts that the offender will have to pay, and support payments are at the top of the list.

In conclusion, like my colleagues, I have a number of concerns about Bill C-37, but I support the spirit of the bill and some provisions that deserve to be studied more carefully in committee. A number of the questions we asked the government have not yet been answered, and we think that they deserve to be discussed in committee. We must talk about the proposed elimination of the judge's discretionary power to decide whether paying a surcharge would cause undue hardship to the offender or dependants of the offender. I think that discretionary powers for judges are very important and that we must protect their autonomy.

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

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

Mr. Speaker, with not just some but a lot of concern and mixed feelings, I will support sending the bill to committee. However, as I am not a member of that committee, I reserve the right I have as the member representing the Green Party and Saanich—Gulf Islands to submit amendments at report stage if I am not satisfied that the bill has been re-balanced appropriately to reflect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and respect for it.

The member's question about war criminals is a good one. It sounds pretty much like a no-brainer. If someone is a war criminal, we do not want the person in Canada, nor do we want people who have defied their government, committed crimes and spent time in jail. However, every now and then a person like that gets honorary Canadian citizenship, like Nelson Mandela.

The move under this proposed legislation and other legislation, such as the mandatory minimums under Bill C-10, is toward an authoritarian automatic discipline, which is unforgiving forever and lacks any compassion, humanitarian or even a thought process. That I will always oppose.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-43, which proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As my colleagues before me indicated, we will support the bill at second reading, but this support is far from being a blank cheque. Bill C-43 has a number of significant shortcomings that will need to be addressed in committee. On this side of the House, we want to co-operate with the government to make Bill C-43 a fairer and more balanced bill.

Canadians expect us to be capable of reaching compromises. Compromises are at the core of a democratic system such as Canada's. Refusing to compromise is tantamount to failing to fulfill one's democratic obligations. Since the last election, our colleagues opposite have too often shown themselves to be closed off to dialogue and compromise. This is very regrettable. I sincerely hope that that will change.

Canadians want us to impose tough penalties on non-Canadians who commit serious crimes in Canada. I am certain that law-abiding newcomers to Canada—and it is important to say that they are almost all law-abiding—share our opinion.

What people in this country are asking for is a guarantee that our judicial system is efficient and sufficiently flexible when it comes time to return criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship to their countries of origin. Canadians especially want the government to invest more energy in ensuring that applications by newcomers are processed more quickly and more efficiently. The Conservatives should go to greater lengths to ensure, for example, that these people can be reunited with members of their family as quickly as possible.

As I said earlier, I have several reservations concerning the content of this bill. For example, I have trouble understanding the reasons for the new discretionary powers being given to the minister. If Bill C-43 were to come into force tomorrow morning, the minister would have the power to declare that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident if he considers that it is justified by public policy considerations. However, one of the problems with this proposal is that the concept of public policy considerations is not defined. This opens the door to very different interpretations of what may constitute public policy considerations. This must be addressed.

I also have a lot of trouble understanding the presence of a clause that relieves the minister of his responsibility to examine the humanitarian circumstances associated with the application of a foreign national deemed inadmissible. I would like someone to explain the reason for this measure to me. I do not understand why humanitarian and compassionate grounds would not be taken to consideration in a review. Is that really the Canada that we want?

One of the biggest problems with this bill is that it severely limits access to the appeals process. We all agree that our appeal system must not be exploited in order to deliberately delay the removal of a non-resident to his country of origin, but the measures contained in Bill C-43 should not limit human rights.

The Conservatives have promoted their bill by speaking almost exclusively about the fact that it will speed up the deportation of dangerous offenders. However, Bill C-43 casts a far wider net than that. Among other things, it redefines serious crimes.

Under the present system, an individual who has committed a crime punishable by two years or more has no access to the appeal process. Bill C-43 wants to lower the bar to crimes punishable by six months or more. As a result, a lot more people will be denied the opportunity to appeal a decision made in their case.

Let us be clear. I am not fundamentally opposed to tightening the definition of “serious criminality”.

One benefit would be to take in crimes like sexual assault and robbery, which in itself is a good thing. However, I think we have to be vigilant and make sure the new definition does not lead to poorly thought out decisions.

One thing I am concerned about is what effects the new system of minimum sentences provided in Bill C-10 might have on decisions to be made in removal cases.

Some crimes covered by that new system are non-violent crimes. So we have to be careful when it comes to limiting access to the appeal process. The restriction in the legislation must not be extended too far by Bill C-43. Yes, we have to stop non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. But we also have to be sure that we take an intelligent approach to all of this. We really have to preserve a balance. Most importantly, we have to be able to guarantee that the right decision will be made in each removal case.

The appeal mechanism is a useful tool for that purpose. Why would we take it away? We will have to pay particular attention to this issue once it gets to committee.

So far, we have heard the Conservatives telling us over and over that it is easy for non-citizens to avoid deportation: all they have to do is not commit serious crimes. I would hope so, but honestly, in real life, things are not necessarily black and white. We all know that reality is more complex than that. Bill C-43 should be constructed in a way that reflects that complexity.

For example, what do we do with offenders who came to Canada at a very young age and who know nothing about the country they are to be deported to? Some organizations have raised concerns on this point, but that is not a factor to be considered under Bill C-43.

In the NDP, we want to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. However, we do not want the mechanisms that make it possible for our system to deal with extraordinary circumstances in a flexible manner to be eliminated.

Like the government, we want our judicial system to be effective and to make it possible for non-citizens who have committed serious crimes to be removed as soon as possible, but we do not want to have botched, unbalanced processes that do not take special situations into account. Wanting to expedite the removal of foreign criminals is a laudable objective in itself, but we have to make sure the process leading to removal does not violate the person’s rights. In our society, we have a duty to make decisions that are just and that recognize everyone’s rights.

Bill C-43 is a bill on which we can and must build. As I said earlier, we will support it at second reading, but we have to rework it. We will all benefit from being able to hear what the experts and representatives of organizations that specialize in these issues have to say.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was saying to the other member before the question.

There are so many cases. I worry that with all the work that was done on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, new minimum sentences were created for some offences which, even the members opposite will admit, are not as serious as robbery with violence, armed robbery or major fraud.

Situations may arise like the one the hon. member for Winnipeg North just described. They are not rare. Many people have not applied for citizenship but, after making some mistakes and serving their sentences, become model citizens. They just have not made it official.

So all kinds of situations can happen. Once again, I want to ask the government a question. How many cases is this based on? Exactly who are the targets?

We must be able to make decisions based on the evidence. This government, which was elected on a promise of transparency, continues to show a lack of transparency. How ironic.

Helping Families in Need Act

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have introduced several bills which, in their opinion, will help victims. On this side of the House, we have trouble believing that these bills will help victims, especially Bill C-10. Of course, the bill contained a number of measures, but it did not seem to directly help victims. Finally, we have a bill that is going to do exactly that.

What distinction does my colleague see in the way that the Conservatives have tried to make people believe that they are really helping victims and what is actually going to help victims? Can the member do a better job of explaining this contrast?

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House that I am going to share my time with the member for Rivière-du-Nord. We will each speak for 10 minutes.

I would like to start by saying that the title of the bill, quite obviously, is something that should give us pause. The reference to foreign criminals is something that seeps throughout the entire bill. It could, if we are not careful, help construct society's understanding of the contexts that are being discussed in the bill in a way that would separate those of us who are lucky to have full citizenship from those among us who are merely landed immigrants or permanent residents.

I would like to come back to that point when I discuss, a bit later, the cutting of appeal options in new categories of cases. However, I do want to put on record that one of the biggest problems is almost a discursive problem by the reference to foreign criminals in this undifferentiated way in the title.

The second big problem with the bill is that, in some ways, it combines two extremes in terms of the exercise of state power in this context.

One extreme is that it would give a full, at least in terms of the text, and unfettered discretion to the minister with the new section 22.1, which would allow him or her to refuse temporary residence visas on his or her own opinion of what are public policy considerations. There is nothing in the bill that talks about any constraints on that.

We had an answer earlier in the House when the parliamentary secretary suggested that the government might be open to giving a bit more substance to that, but at the moment it is not in the bill.

On the other hand, we have no discretion at all on other fronts in the bill in a way that adds to the repressive dimensions of its structure. Within section 64, which would change the threshold for no appeal rights after being determined to be inadmissible from two years to six months, removing the appeal as of right, there would be nothing in between. There would be no procedure for a leave to appeal. It would be all or nothing. If people have been convicted for an offence that has involved imprisonment of six months, then they have no right of appeal from the decision on admissibility to the Immigration Appeal Division.

On the other hand, in terms of no discretion, there is a new section 25 wording that would remove not just the right of the minister but the power of the minister to consider humanitarian and compassionate considerations in a category of cases.

Now, I want to be careful here when I add this in as a problem because those categories of cases are worded very broadly and they seem like the kind of cases when one would never want to exercise discretion to allow somebody to stay. “Security”, “organized criminality” and “violating human or international rights” are the words used.

However, even within those categories, they are so generally worded, “organized criminality” and “security”, that it is not difficult to imagine some circumstances in which there may be reason to lighten the severity of the law and allow somebody to stay. In fact, that is how the system has worked. On occasion the minister does exercise exactly that discretion for those reasons. The fact is that has been eliminated.

We have to look very carefully when this does hit the committee as to whether or not the use of extremes, nothing in between, has actually created a bill that would, down the road, show itself as producing a lot of hardship.

I am going to primarily address the question of the reduction of the elimination of the right to appeal to a broader category of persons and, also, the public policy discretion of the minister.

With respect to that public policy discretion, let me start here. The new section 22.1 says:

The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that a foreign national...may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

He may do that or she may do that for up to 36 months.

That is it. That is all we have there.

It is not too difficult to imagine how, in the hands of a certain minister or in a certain period of time, this could be exercised very arbitrarily, if not abusively. There is nothing in the bill to constrain that, other than, I hope, the fact that there would be judicial review available, but judicial review is one of the worst possible ways to produce checks in any legal system because it requires time, money and good lawyers to actually get anywhere. We need to have a system of decision making within the bill itself that checks the minister in his or her decision making, and public policy consideration is just simply far too broad a mandate to give any one person to exercise in the context.

I will not go into specific examples, but we do know of at least a few examples where the Minister of Immigration has clearly not wanted somebody to enter the country for reasons that, under the surface, appear to be more about politics than they do about sound public policy. That clause has to be looked at in committee. It has to be beefed up if it is to be retained.

The next provision to look at is section 64 which, as everybody has noted, lowers the threshold for removing the right of appeal on an inadmissibility decision from two years imprisonment to six months. If a person has been in prison for six months, that is it in terms of them having any right of appeal. They would not have any.

We should think about some of the things in the Criminal Code that can attract six months, and they may not that often, such as stealing oysters, section 323, selling a betting pool, section 202, and the list goes on. There are lots of offences that can attract six months. We would like to think the system would never end up seeking to deport somebody for these kinds of offences, but the moment we go down from two years to six months, we actually enter that territory where these kinds of Kafkaesque possibilities are there.

What about more recently, the effects of mandatory minimum legislation in Bill C-10? We know now that with marijuana, for example, the growing of six plants can lead to a six months sentence. The sentence cannot exceed six months, but it can also be six months under the new Bill C-10, when that takes effect in the Criminal Code: six months, six plants, no appeal. Does that seem at all proportionate to the kind of more nuanced decision making that we would want our laws to recognize. We hope that would never be used as a basis by the system to seek to deport somebody in and of itself, but there is nothing protecting against that result the way it is written.

The biggest problem is that the lower the threshold, the more people will be caught by it. More people who have permanent residence and landed immigrant status will suddenly be put in this category of deportable, even though what they have done in the grand scheme of things is not nearly as serious as what used to be the case under the law.

We have to begin to reflect on how much ownership we have to take of those among us who get into criminal trouble, who do end up with sentences right at the edge of six months, eight months, nine months. Who is responsible? What society is responsible for dealing with that issue? Is it always the other country that has a formal nationality, a country that a person may not have seen in 30 years, a person who may have come here at age two or age three and does not even speak the language of the other country, for example, or is it the country where the person grew up and basically produced the condition under which the crime occurred? We are not responsible for it, but we are that person's brothers and sisters. How do we think about the fact that the lower the threshold is, the more likely it is that people among us will end up in the headlights of the minister or the department of administrative immigration for this kind of deportation.

In the general sense, the bill may not appear offensive to those on the other side or to many in society, but when we look at how minimal the trigger is for somebody to be deported with no right of appeal, we really have to question whether this is the way our society wants to go. Two years itself is already something that was a compromise. Why we have gone to six months has escaped me.

Motions in amendment

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I rise today in this House to discuss something that is very important to me and obviously to all Canadians, and that is the safety and protection of our children.

My colleague opposite, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, introduced a bill that would amend the Criminal Code with regard to the kidnapping of a young person. I understand why this member introduced such a bill, because I am a father of three. The stress that parents of kidnapped children experience is unimaginable. I think it is one of the most revolting crimes, and all Canadians are disgusted when they learn that a child has been kidnapped. A child's life is so fragile that it is important to do everything possible to protect and improve their safety. During times like these, we can see just how strong Canadian solidarity can be.

The questions we have to ask today are whether Bill C-299 will reduce the number of kidnappings in Canada. Will it improve public safety? Is this new bill relevant in the fight against crimes against a person? I am not convinced of that and I do not think that this bill will achieve the objective of reducing the number of kidnappings in Canada. That is why I will oppose this bill.

The purpose of Bill C-299 is to deter potential predators by imposing a minimum punishment of five years. It would include provisions for a mandatory minimum punishment of five years for offenders found guilty of kidnapping a young person under 16 years of age. Like all of the other kidnapping provisions in the Criminal Code, Bill C-299 would impose a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Yet, a maximum sentence of life in prison is already set out in the Criminal Code for this type of crime. The life sentence has also been imposed by the courts, including in British Columbia. The Conservatives and the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia therefore feel that predators will be dissuaded by a minimum sentence of five years, rather than by the maximum sentence of life in prison that is already set out in the legislation. If a life sentence does not dissuade predators from kidnapping children, I do not believe that a minimum sentence of five years will be as effective or have any deterrent effect. In my opinion, the members opposite lack knowledge about criminology.

Once again, the Conservatives want to please their electoral base without any regard for the interests of Canadians or the reality of Canada's legal system. Minimum sentences are a judicial approach that even the most conservative and hardened American judges are starting to reject. They are concerned about the ineffectiveness of this approach and the burden it places on the prison system. During the debates on Bill C-10, their opinions in this regard appeared in the national papers. The Conservatives basically ignored these judges' experience.

With this bill, the Conservatives are once again trying to impose minimum sentences. They want to show the people of Canada that they are tough on crime, when the only effect this approach has is to place a heavier burden on the justice system. In addition, on several occasions, the Supreme Court has struck down the legislator's attempts to impose minimum sentences because such sentences went against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So, once again, the Conservatives are trying to impose such minimum sentences when they know full well that, in certain cases, these are unfortunately not the sentences that should be imposed. And I would just like to mention again that this will no doubt be challenged before the Supreme Court in the future.

The Conservatives are going to try to convince members of the House and Canadians that, since there is no minimum sentence, those who kidnap a child could be sentenced to six months in prison, for example. This is completely false. We must not fall into that trap. Canadians have the right to be well informed.

The NDP is tough on those who commit such crimes. We want to see maximum sentences imposed in these cases. However, we want to protect judicial discretion because we have faith in the existing judicial system.

If we look at sentences in kidnapping cases, we see that average sentences for this type of crime are around eight years in jail, which is quite a bit more than the five-year minimum that this bill would impose.

By introducing a mandatory minimum sentence, all the government is doing is tying judges' hands. This bill would not enable judges to take unique attenuating circumstances into account in certain cases.

It is difficult for lawmakers to write legislation that takes all of the possibilities into account, which is why judicial discretion is important. Judges must respect not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit. They must be able to interpret the law and hand down appropriate sentences that take into account the unique circumstances of each case.

We must have confidence in our legal system and in our judges, who typically make informed decisions that take into account both the law and legal precedent.

As I said, we have confidence in the justice system. That is why we will oppose this bill. We want to respect judicial discretion by opposing this five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Current provisions allow judges to sentence those guilty of kidnapping to a maximum of life in prison. Judges have the freedom they need to hand down harsh sentences and ensure that dangerous offenders do as much time as they deserve. As I said, judges have typically sentenced offenders to more than eight years in prison. That is more than the five years this bill sets out.

This bill is problematic on two counts: the mandatory minimum sentence it recommends is shorter than what is typical in case law, and judicial discretion is being taken away for this type of crime.

Justice Major of the Supreme Court shares our opinion on this issue. He is concerned that the minimum sentence would be the rule. He said that no two cases are alike and that the minimum sentence would be inadequate in certain kidnapping cases. He wondered why this bill imposes a minimum sentence that is lighter than typical kidnapping sentences. He also pointed out that minimum sentences do not deter would-be criminals but would have serious consequences for other aspects of our legal system.

Bill C-299 is another clear example of the Conservatives' lack of understanding when it comes to justice issues. At first glance, this is an interesting approach, but upon closer scrutiny, it soon becomes clear that this bill does not really accomplish much of anything. The courts are much more severe on these issues than what this bill proposes. Most sentences are much longer than the minimum sentence set out in this bill.

As previously mentioned, a life sentence is often imposed. Do the Conservatives not realize that they are undermining the discretion of judges and the judicial system with this bill?

In budget 2012, the Conservatives slashed front-line forces by also imposing minimum sentences in several sections of the Criminal Code. Do they really believe that minimum jail sentences will make Canadians and Canadian families safer?

Instead of adopting punitive measures that have no deterrent effect, why does the government not invest in tools and resources for front-line police forces when a kidnapping takes place? Instead of focusing on punishment, I believe the Conservative should pay a lot more attention to prevention.

We are worried that the Conservatives are once again using a crime bill to try to score political points with victims and anyone who is sickened by this kind of offence. We are under the impression that this bill was introduced in order to please the extreme right wing of the Conservative base. Once again, the Conservatives are introducing a bill that presents a restrictive view of the problem. Minimum sentences, I repeat, are not the answer to kidnapping problems, and that is why we do not support this bill.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my question with, “Really?” Bill C-10 was Bill C-10 and Bill C-37 is Bill C-37. I am not sure where my hon. colleague is drawing the link that just because we stood up against Bill C-10 from the beginning, we should do the same thing for Bill C-37. There are elements in Bill C-37 that deserve being looked at in committee. There are elements in Bill C-37 that need to be changed, in particular the point on judicial discretion.

Could my hon. colleague enlighten us a little more on the importance of taking a good look at a bill, trying to change the things that do not work and enhancing the things that do work, which is what we are trying to do with Bill C-37?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the fact that members of the New Democratic Party say that they support the Liberals' efforts and thoughts in regard to the importance of judicial discretion.

When I have asked why the NDP members would vote to send the bill to committee, the response has tended to be that that is where it should go. Even though Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, was strongly supported by provincial jurisdictions, including the NDP in Saskatchewan, the federal NDP voted against that bill going to committee. It is an issue of consistency and that is what I am looking to the member for. As the Liberals and the New Democrats voted against sending that bill to committee, it is a bit of a surprise that those members would not join us on this bill. Instead they have chosen to join the Conservatives in supporting this particular bill going to committee even though we seem to share the same concerns about judicial independence. I for one am a very strong advocate for listening to what the victims and others have to say.

If the government were to change the principle of the bill, then it would deserve the support of an opposition party. Would the member not agree?

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House and speak to this bill. Many hon. members have already talked about the summary of the bill, so I will not dwell on it. It has already been done. I will instead focus on some of the points in Bill C-350.

First, I would like to applaud the intent behind this bill, which is to provide support to the families of the accused and to victims by ensuring that offenders are required to fulfill their responsibilities toward them. That is a very noble intention. I am glad that we have the opportunity today to discuss this issue and that the bill will be referred to committee for study.

I would also like to point out that we have just witnessed something exceptional and remarkable: a Conservative member and an NDP member have introduced two very similar amendments, two amendments that go along the same lines. We often talk about disagreements between parties and about how impossible it is for them to work together. Today's event is a fine example that, despite disagreements, the various parties also have some common interests. All hon. members of the House are thinking people, knowledgeable and well informed about the issues they are working on.

The proposed amendments are very interesting and are heading in more or less the same direction. It will be interesting to see how they will be received in committee and how the members will work together.

The government wants to put the protection of families and victims first. However, this bill should not replace measures designed to better inform and advise victims and provide them with better financial support.

This bill currently states that offenders who are awarded monies will compensate victims. However, many cannot be accountable to the victims and families. We have to take these people into consideration. We must also ensure that this bill is not one we can use to say that we did everything we could. We can do more for the good of the victims and the offenders' families, for the children of offenders. That is my concern with this bill concerning victims.

Bill C-350 seeks to make offenders accountable, as indicated by the title of the bill. We must consider what will result in true accountability of offenders. Once again, a very specific approach is being taken to a problem, which is fair, because that is what we have to do in our work. But we must not lose sight of the broader issue of interest in Bill C-350.

The NDP believes that this bill is not the best way to make offenders accountable. Based on the testimony of many experts, among others, who appeared before the committee, an offender must be directly involved in decisions about paying compensation to victims and other financial decisions in order to develop his sense of responsibility. If such decisions are made for him and he is not asked for his input, he will not necessarily develop that sense of responsibility. He does not have a say, he does not even have to think about his situation. Will that really make him more accountable? The NDP believes that this question must be posed. Many experts are also wondering about this.

I spoke about the victims and accountability. I would now like to talk about rehabilitation and prevention. These issues are not addressed in this bill, and the Conservative Party has not talked about them much in connection with this bill. I continue to find this unfortunate and worrisome.

Accountability, yes. But what about rehabilitation? We support comprehensive rehabilitation programs that will reduce recidivism and make our cities safer. When we were debating mandatory minimum sentences, there was a lot of talk about safety in our streets and communities. However, the two concepts do not necessarily go hand in hand. If we want to make our cities and communities safer, we have to talk about rehabilitation and prevention.

In a 2007 report, Public Safety Canada recognized that former inmates face a number of challenges, such as limited access to jobs, that compromise their ability to become law-abiding citizens.

If we really want to help offenders fulfill their financial responsibilities toward their communities and their families, we have to think about what we can do to improve their access to jobs. The two go hand in hand, and that issue has to be part of a debate like this one. If the Conservative Party really cares about offender accountability, what is it prepared to do to ensure that offenders who are released from prison can find work and shoulder their responsibilities toward their communities?

Quebec's Centre de ressources pour délinquants comes to mind. The centre works to enhance the skills and employability of its clientele in order to facilitate integration or reintegration into the job market. These things exist and have already been implemented in several departments and provinces in different ways. The Centre de ressources pour délinquants is an example of that. Experts are available to offenders to ensure they have the legal, social and educational support they need to give them the best possible opportunity to reintegrate into the job market. The centre is part of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec. Yes, Quebec. So we have to think about just how involved we can get in this issue, but it is worth mentioning.

Now let us talk about prevention. Once again, we do not hear this word enough when talking about safety and the role of inmates or offenders in our society. It is important to prevent crime, and not simply punish people. This point cannot be over-emphasized, especially when working with a Conservative government like this one. Why not invest in prevention? A report entitled “Cost and Effectiveness of Federal Correctional Policy” stated the following:

The skyrocketing costs associated with new bills [like Bill C-10 and Bill C-25] will put a great deal of pressure on rehabilitation programs, which could suffer if the new influx of prisoners is not accompanied by the additional resources needed to handle them.

We could learn from the mistakes of other countries that also favour punishment, but did not put enough additional resources into the system and whose rehabilitation programs are suffering a great deal as a result.

I think it is now time to discuss Bill C-36. I can make an interesting link here. This bill deals with elder abuse. This bill contains measures that give judges another tool for punishing crimes committed against seniors. If we really want to tackle the problem of elder abuse, then we also need to ask ourselves how we can prevent it and how we can support seniors to make it easier for them to report cases of abuse.

In fact, a number of bills claim to be fighting a problem, but they do not really get to the heart of that problem and do not take into account the factors of vulnerability and prevention that go along with all that.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the work that the committee did on Bill C-350. I am pleased to see that amendments were made to the bill after the work in committee with all the parties. However, from what I heard from my colleagues on that committee, a number of questions have yet to be answered. I do not understand why members who know their stuff cannot manage to get some answers. For example, does this bill encroach on provincial jurisdictions? Is there not a risk of limiting a judge's discretionary power?

How is it that we have not yet gotten answers to these questions, and how is that we are seeing limited debate and testimony in this type of committee?

In conclusion, the NDP will support this bill at second reading, but it is important that prevention and rehabilitation be included in these discussions and these debates. Restitution is possible for a theft or items broken by an offender, but the psychological or physical damage done during a crime cannot all be repaired, and someone who dies as a result of a crime cannot be brought back.

That is why punishment is not enough; we need to take action beforehand to prevent the crime.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the danger that justice is not done because what winds up happening is that instead of the peculiarities or particularities of a case that is in front of a judge being taken into consideration, what is taken into consideration is the opinion of a government on sentencing, an opinion which, of course, is backed by certain values. The whole point of the judiciary system is objectivity and independence.

If we impose upon our legal system the values of a particular political party, a particular lobby group or a particular interest group through this type of legislation, although I am not saying that is the case for Bill C-37 but it certainly was the case for certain parts of Bill C-10, then we are on a slippery slope indeed.