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

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been trying our best to move forward with Bill C-10 to ensure that the victims of crime are the ones that are recognized as the actual victims here. We have to ensure that those that commit the crimes do the time. I believe that Bill C-10 does that. I believe that we are heading in the right direction and I am all for this one.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak at report stage of Bill C-10, the Conservative omnibus bill. The bill is actually made up of nine bills combined into one. It is a bill that the Conservative government is ramming through the House without proper scrutiny. We do not even know how much it is going to cost. Witnesses were barely given time to speak as they were forced through committee so quickly.

New Democrats proposed to the government that the bill be divided, so that the parts which would improve public safety and help protect our children could be passed at all stages immediately. I am the father of two young children. I know how important it is to protect our children. Unfortunately, the Conservative government rejected our proposals.

We also proposed amendments to the bill, which the Conservatives flatly rejected at committee. The Conservatives do not want to debate the real problem with this legislation or any other legislation they put in front of Parliament.

Every day in the House the Conservatives undermine democracy by shutting down debate prematurely without reason. New Democrats tabled a motion in the House last Friday in a last attempt to stop this because this is a democracy and Canadians deserve a real debate.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that Bill C-10 would cost the federal government $5 billion over five years and the provinces and territories somewhere between $6 to $10 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is working to complete more detailed projections; however, he has to work basically in the dark because not all of the facts and figures have been provided to him by the government. The government has not provided adequate information so he can do his work.

Many critics suspect that the government's refusal to produce realistic costing documents is because it has no idea what the real price tag for Bill C-10 is going to be. Worse yet, the government wants to force this legislation into law before we have a chance to find out how much it is going to cost Canadian taxpayers.

Since the introduction of this controversial omnibus bill, we have seen a groundswell of concern from across this country. Opposition to the Conservative crime agenda has been steadily mounting. Experts from across the political spectrum have urged the government to rethink the sweeping changes to the criminal justice system that are contained in Bill C-10.

We have heard repeated warnings about huge costs to taxpayers, the crippling impact on our courts, and the enormous pressure that will be put on our already struggling corrections system. These serious warnings are simply being dismissed by the Conservatives without any explanation.

In response to questions about Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice recently commented, “We're not governing on the basis of the latest statistics”. Clearly, facts and evidence, and research were not a priority when the government was drafting Bill C-10, but neither was the cost to taxpayers.

Provincial leaders spoke out in committee against the bill. They have been very clear that they are not ready to bear the costs of the government's political agenda, nor do they agree with many of the measures contained in the bill.

The Canadian Association of Crown Counsel has spoken out and has said that Bill C-10 will overload prosecutors and jam our already stressed court system.

This so-called tough on crime agenda has already failed across the border in the United States, where governments are moving away from the same approach that the Conservatives are now proposing. States like Texas are now abandoning the mandatory minimum and three strikes policies that lead to ballooning prison costs, populations and skyrocketing costs to the taxpayers. States have found that these approaches have actually done little to prevent crime, but do a great deal toward bankrupting the states.

Canada should be learning from the mistakes of our neighbours, not repeating them. We need practical solutions on crime that improves safety in our communities, not old strategies that are expensive and proven to be failures.

There are some measures in the bill, like provisions that toughen laws around child luring, sexual exploitation of children, that we as New Democrats fully support, but there are also those that will do nothing to make our streets and communities safer places.

New Democrats believe that the primary goal of any legislation, any changes to our criminal justice system, should be public safety, safer streets and to protect our families and communities. A major way to accomplish this is by supporting cost effective crime prevention programs that really make a difference, something which the government has failed to address.

I spoke up about a program last week. There is a society in my constituency whose funding is being cut and it actually helps at-risk youth, educating them about self-esteem and getting back into school. The funding for this program is being cut by the Conservatives.

Our communities would be safer if the government focused on goals like putting more police on the streets and stopping gangs from recruiting our youth.

Conservatives always talk about how they are investing into policing, the front line officers. The facts are that the Auditor General, in the last report in June, pointed out that police officers were woefully underfunded to fight against gangs and crime. We need more front line police officers. Not only do they help prevent crime, but they help to deter crime. That is a good way to go about preventing crime in our communities.

We should ensure that our corrections system has rehabilitation programs that reduce the rate of re-offending. Unfortunately, the government is cutting funding to prevention programs like the Pathfinders about which I talked. Youth gang prevention programs are critical to the future of our children and the safety of our communities.

This Conservative approach is not smart on crime. Canadians deserve better. I urge the government to reconsider the real concerns of Canadians expressed by members of the opposition and people across the country.

At the last stage of the bill, I urge the Conservative members to consider the amendments proposed by New Democrats and I urge it not to push the bill through.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments and am very interested to hear his viewpoint on a couple of things he brought forward.

First, he said that there was a groundswell across Canada against this bill. I was actually one of the members of Parliament who had a protest outside my office. There were 10 people and the majority of them were affiliated with special interest groups, some involved with the New Democratic Party and some with, let us say, original points of view on drug use.

The member said that we needed more police officers on the streets. Members know that we provided money for 1,800 more front-line officers, but the NDP voted against it. I know the gentleman is a new member, but he does not realize that his party's stance on this is way out of touch with Canadians.

He talked about the program cut in his community. We established these programs, but they are not meant to exist forever. Then New Democrats want us to extend programs that they have already voted against.

Could he address the fact that there are differences in the criminal justice system? There are hard-nosed criminals who repeat offences and the best thing we can do for victims is keep them off the street instead of allowing them back on the street and coddling them.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I may be new to the House, but I know what has been going on in the community. I have been listening to my constituents and there is huge support for the proposals that New Democrats are making. In fact, I have heard from many of my constituents who are dead set against this approach to the crime and prison agenda.

I do not have to look at the Conservatives' facts. I can look at the facts that are provided by the Auditor General. The Auditor General, in his June report, stated that the RCMP was woefully underfunded by the government and that we needed more front-line police officers so we could deter crime from happening in the first place.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member relates to the impact of this bill on the provincial coffers. In my province, provincial institutions are already strained. This will add an additional strain, yet apparently there is no compensation that comes with it. We have heard from the Canadian Association of Crown Prosecutors that there is a lot of money for police and prisons, but in between there is a system that is stressed to the max and that system is largely the responsibility of provincial governments.

Could I hear from my hon. friend with respect to the impact on provincial governments?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from a number of ministers at committee. We heard from Quebec, B.C. and a number of other provinces. The fact is this is basically offloading a federal cost to the provinces. I read in newspapers this morning that B.C. was already running a very high deficit. This is going to add additional costs to the provinces. Some of the programs that the provinces are responsible for, such as education, health care and schools, are going to be chopped as a result of the federal government bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Conservatives talk repeatedly about police officers. I am a former police officer. Is our hon. member aware that before he was elected, the NDP asked repeatedly for thousands more police officers? We just heard a member say that there was money for police officers and prisons. Unfortunately, it is only prisons.

Is he aware that New Democrats have been asking for more police officers and that the need has not been met?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with police officers for 14 years. A number of them were my colleagues and I worked side by side with them in my former job at the Justice Institute in New Westminster. I have talked to many police officers over the years. As part of my former job, I did training with police. Many police officers have said that the number one thing they need is more front-line officers on the streets.

They have been asking for additional police officers and New Democrats have been asking for additional police officers. In fact, one of my first questions for the public safety minister was about getting more police officers on the streets.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act. I welcome all of the proposals in the bill. I believe their enactment, both individually and collectively, will make a significant contribution to safeguard all communities across Canada.

I will first address the impact for victims of violent crime.

In my riding of Etobicoke Centre, there is a family named Cikovic. The parents are Vesna and Davorin. Vesna is a piano teacher and Davorin works at CBC-Radio. Their son, Boris, attended high school in Etobicoke at Scarlet Heights.

The Cikovic family were refugees from war-torn Sarajevo, with Boris arriving in Canada as an infant. This family worked to escape the horrors of a war where former neighbours preyed upon each other and visited atrocities upon each other in every form imaginable. The family settled in Canada, grateful for the new start they had and grateful for the opportunities that Canada had provided their son.

As Boris grew up in Canada, he became the all-Canadian kid, an athlete and gifted hockey player, a leader on the ice, helping less skilled players score and achieve rather than allow his own talent to dominate. He mentored his teammates. At so young an age, he showed maturity and wisdom that was returned by his large circle of friends with great affection and strong bonds that developed in elementary school and endured through high school and what would have appeared to be beyond university and throughout life. Boris was a leader and one that this close circle rallied around. He was a natural and his future appeared limitless. Then, on a night in 2008, Boris and his friends were transiting a local park, were accosted and he was shot and killed while being robbed of his backpack and valuables.

The Cikovics are victims, devastated by the tragic loss of their only son who had natural gifts and talents and was on his way to becoming a model Canadian success story.

What of the Cikovic family in this? Do is care that Statistics Canada says that crime is down, as the members opposite often cite? I asked the Cikovics that and their response was a resounding no. I challenge any member opposite to look that family in the eye and quote that statistic. The Cikovics are not vengeful people, but they are entitled to justice for their son.

Of the many provisions in Bill C-10, victims of crime would have the ability to present statements at Parole Board hearings. If attending the hearing, the victim may comment on the harm or damage resulting from the offence and its continuing impact, including concerns for his or her safety and the possible release of the offender. Even if the victims does not attend, the Parole Board may authorize presentation of the statement in an alternative format.

Also authorized to present a statement are the persons described to have been harmed or suffered a loss due to the act of the offender. This includes any safety concerns and concerns regarding the offender's potential release. This provision provides victims with empowerment and a role in the corrections process.

Other areas include the elimination of pardons for violent crime and measures that protect the public from violent and repeat young offenders.

Today I speak for a family that has been tragically victimized and I speak in the name of Boris Cikovic who can no longer speak for himself, but today in the House his voice is heard.

I will focus my remaining remarks on Bill C-10 proposals that address child sexual exploitation and violent crimes in part 2 of the bill.

As members know, these proposals were originally introduced as Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators act and with all party support had been passed by this chamber in the last Parliament. Bill C-10 has reintroduced these proposals with some additional sentencing enhancements that are consistent with and reflect the overall objectives of these reforms.

Part 2 seeks to better protect children and youth from sexual predators in two ways: first, by proposing sentencing enhancements to ensure that all sexual offences involving child victims are consistently and strongly condemned; and second, by creating new offences and measures to prevent the commission of a child sexual offence.

Bill C-10 has been reported back to the House of Commons after having been thoroughly studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, without any amendments to its child sexual exploitation reforms. Indeed, part 2 proposals received strong support by witnesses appearing before the justice committee, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance, KINSA, as well as the minister of justice and attorney general for New Brunswick who said:

I believe strongly that crimes against children deserve strong sentencing. We believe the changes proposed in this crime bill will make it possible to achieve that objective.

I could not agree more.

Bill C-10 proposes to enhance the sentencing or penalties for sexual offenders involving child victims in two ways. It proposes to impose seven new and nine higher mandatory minimum penalties as well as higher maximum penalties for four child specific sexual offences.

These amendments are needed because, currently, the Criminal Code only imposes MMPs on 12 child specific sexual offences and none at all in the general sexual offences where the victim is a child. For those offences that already impose MMPs, these are inconsistent or simply inadequate. The effect of imposing MMPs in only some but not all sexual offences sends an inconsistent message that not all child sexual offences are serious and perhaps even that some child sexual assault victims are less victims than others.

Imposing inconsistent and inadequate MMPs is equally problematic. For example, currently the Criminal Code imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of 45 days for the offence of sexual interference of a child, even though the maximum penalty or indictment is 10 years. Bill C-10 proposes to fix this by increasing this MMP to one year.

To my mind, and I think to all of us here, the current inconsistent and inadequate approach to sentencing in child sexual abuse cases is wrong. Who among us does not agree that children are the most vulnerable in our society and that all children are deserving of equal protection against all forms of child sexual exploitation? As I noted earlier, Bill C-10 also seeks to prevent sexual assault against children. It proposes two new offences criminalizing sexual assault against children that police witnesses were particularly against.

The first new offence would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that young person. Child sex offenders often use adult pornographic material to groom their victims, for example to lower their victims' sexual inhibitions with a view to making it easier to sexually exploit them. Though any such use of child pornography is already prohibited, this is not the case for adult material. Accordingly, this new offence would fill a gap. The proposed new offence would impose a mandatory minimum penalty consistent with other parts of the bill.

The second offence proposed by Bill C-10 would prohibit anyone from using telecommunications to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. This offence is modelled on the existing “luring a child” offence of the Criminal Code that prohibits the use of a computer system to directly communicate with a child for the purpose of facilitating a sexual offence against that child. However, as the “luring a child” offence only applies when communication is with the child victim, this new offence closes the gap where the communication is between two other persons to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence against a child. This offence would also impose a mandatory minimum penalty.

As well, Bill C-10 would impose a condition on convicted child sex offenders or on suspected child sex offenders, a recognizance or peace bond under section 810.1, prohibiting them from having any unsupervised access to a young person or unsupervised use of the Internet. Preventing a known or suspected child sex offender from having the opportunity and tools to commit a child sexual offence should protect other children from being victimized.

I urge all members to support the swift enactment of Bill C-10 so that Canada's children will be protected against sexual exploitation.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the family of Mr. Cikovic, to whom the member referred earlier. We certainly do not disagree that we on both sides of the House would like to prevent crimes such as this. I guess that leads me to my question.

How would this bill do anything to prevent what happened to the Cikovics from happening again? Could the member explain that for me, please?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would assist in preventing further crimes because mandatory minimum sentences would be imposed on a lot of these crimes within Bill C-10, which would add a further deterrent to criminals contemplating perpetrating this form of crime, especially a violent crime in this case. If a crime, in this case as it has been committed, is perpetrated, it also would allow the victims a form of redress and being able to access the parole system and to have an ability to impact on the offender's incarceration.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on that last answer. The suggestion from the hon. member is that the mandatory minimum sentence would provide a deterrent and yet there is no evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence in the United States to the contrary.

My question is whether the member's view of the criminal law is that the right way to go is “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, or does he subscribe to a more enlightened view based on proportionality?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 is a made in Canada law. It is not a made in the United States law. We are not looking at the United States, we are looking at us.

Canadians have given this government the very strong mandate to enact the laws. We made a promise that we would pass Bill C-10 with strong laws involved and ensure that serious offenders are jailed for the appropriate length of time. The bill also would ensure that our victims feel that justice has been rendered. It is not an eye for an eye thing. It is an ability for the victims to be able to redress the crimes that have been perpetrated against them and to ensure that the criminals are incarcerated for an appropriate period of time, although rehabilitation still happens. It provides comfort to those victims that these criminals will not be released too early and that their rehabilitation time will have time to take root.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question from the Liberal member opposite. I had an opportunity to practice criminal law and to actually be in the trenches in this kind of situation. I had a client who received two years less a day for sexually assaulting two of his daughters over a seven year period of time. He was able to serve that sentence in a house. I was ashamed of getting that sentence. I was, quite frankly, surprised that that sentence was available, first of all, which was about eight or nine years ago, but it is still available today, and we are taking away that opportunity.

Does the member think it is reasonable that a person who would do that to his daughters, two family members, over any length of time, if at all, would do any time or any punishment in their own home? Is that a reasonable disposition as is allowed today under the Criminal Code?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it absolutely is not a reasonable time. Any offence against a child, whether it is a person's own child or someone else's, is absolutely reprehensible. However, when they are someone's own children who should feel safe and secure with their parents in their own home and they do not, and they are victimized by their own parents and then that parent is only sentenced to the absolute minimum possible term, that continues to victimize those children again because that individual will be released in two years less a day or less than that even. That will cause further harm to those children down the road because of psychological impacts and because justice will never have been fully rendered in their case.