Debates of Nov. 15th, 2010

(Return tabled)

Question No. 378

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

What is the total funding allocated by the government to the constituency of Saint-Lambert through the Economic Action Plan since its inception, up to and including the current fiscal year, and in each case, what was the specific department or agency, project and amount involved?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 380

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

With respect to transportation for Ministers and their staffs: (a) what is the total amount spent by each minister’s office on taxis from the 2005-2006 fiscal year up to and including the current fiscal year; (b) how many employees in each minister’s office have access to taxi vouchers; and (c) what is the overtime cost for each minister’s driver, from the 2005-2006 fiscal year up to and including the current fiscal year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 382

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund: (a) what is the current construction status of the Abilities Centre Durham and the North East Centre of Community Society, two projects announced in September 2008 in the amount of 15 million dollars; (b) when did the construction of the centres in (a) begin; (c) what is the construction or modification status of all projects approved from April 2008 to the present, including completion dates; (d) which projects included funding from provincial or municipal governments; and (e) what are the amounts provided by those provincial and municipal partners?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 388

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

With regard to transportation costs for ministers and their exempt staff, since February 2006, broken down by month and year, what is the total cost incurred for ground transportation for all domestic and international travel, including, but not limited to, limousines, taxis or car service for the following ministerial portfolios: (a) Minister of State and Chief Government Whip; (b) Finance; (c) Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; (d) Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA); (e) Citizenship and Immigration; (f) President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs; (g) National Revenue (Canada Revenue Agengy); (h) Human Resources and Skills Development; (i) Industry; (j) Canadian Heritage; (k) Environment; (l) Natural Resources; (m) Labour; (n) Fisheries and Oceans; (o) Minister of State (Sport); and (p) International Trade?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 390

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

With regard to the one-third of projects funded by the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund that will not be completed by the end of 2010, as indicated on page 66 of the government’s report entitled “Canada's Economic Action Plan — A Sixth Report to Canadians”, for each project: (a) what city was it in; (b) what is its description; (c) what was the total federal contribution; (d) what was the estimated cost of completing the project at the time of application; (e) what is the current estimate of the total cost of completing the project; (f) on what date was the project approved for funding by the government; (g) on what date was the project publicly announced; and (h) on what date was the contribution agreement for the project signed?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 391

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

With regard to social housing needs in the territories of the Yukon, Northwest and Nunavut: (a) did the government conduct an audit in order to determine the social housing needs of each territory, (i) if so, what are the results, (ii) if not, what are the government’s plans to conduct such an audit; (b) how does the government determine the social housing needs in each territory; (c) how are the needs of aboriginal and non-aboriginal populations determined; (d) what mechanism does the government have in place to ensure that aboriginal and non-aboriginal social housing needs are addressed on an equitable basis; (e) what is the average age of social houses in the three territories; (f) how many social houses have been constructed per territory since 2006; (g) what is the average occupancy per social house; (h) what is the projected lifespan of a social house; (i) how many social houses have been constructed per territory that are now deemed uninhabitable; and (j) what, if any, plans does the government have to replace uninhabitable social homes?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 393

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

With regard to government funding of programs for victims of crime in the territories of the Yukon, Northwest and Nunavut: (a) which programs have received funding; (b) what is the government’s portion of funding; (c) what is the status of these programs; (d) what is the take up on the programs by an aboriginal versus non-aboriginal clientele; (e) what is the level of funding from these progams that went towards domestic violence victims; (f) how much money is dedicated to the promotion of these programs; and (g) how are these programs promoted?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 394

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

With regard to global warming and its impact on the permafrost and northern infrastructure: (a) what plans does the government have to provide assistance for the costs of repair and replacement of affected infrastructure such as (i) buildings, (ii) highways, (iii) runways, (iv) bridges; (b) will the government conduct an audit of the level of damage and, if so, when; and (c) what is the projected lifespan of the infrastructure affected by global warming?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 406

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

With regard to requests for financial assistance made to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec for each of the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years, distributed by regional office, for requests submitted for the authorization of the (i) Regional Director, how many did the Director approve, and how many did the Director reject, (ii) General Director for Regional Coherence, how many did the General Director approve, and how many did the General Director reject, (iii) Vice-President of Operations, how many did the Vice-President approve, and how many did the Vice-President reject, (iv) President, how many did the President approve, and how many did the President reject, (v) Minister, how many did the Minister approve, and how many did the Minister reject?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice had the floor before question period, and he has 11 minutes for comments.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, by ensuring that people who commit the most serious crimes serve an appropriate period of incarceration, the amendments contained in Bill C-48 are another example of the government's ongoing commitment to protect the families and loved ones of murder victims.

Permit me to dwell for a moment on the policy underlying Bill C-48 to counter any possible criticism that the proposed measures are overly retributive in nature. Far from it, Mr. Speaker, for the measures set out in this bill have been carefully developed to balance the need to protect society and denounce unlawful conduct with the need to ensure that sentences in Canadian law respond to individual circumstances.

The measures in Bill C-48 will therefore not be mandatory. The government recognizes that the circumstances of every murder are different, and that a one-size-fits-all approach could well produce injustice in individual cases. This is because of the fact that patterns of multiple murders are extremely varied. They range from cold-blooded serial killings and contract murders to unplanned killings in the heat of passion, parental killing of children, workplace killings of fellow workers, right through to killings by persons in delusional states caused by alcohol, drugs or mental illness.

Many multiple murders, especially parental or workplace killings, are accompanied by extreme mental and emotional stress and often followed by a desperate attempt to commit suicide once the perpetrator has come to his or her senses. In short, the government clearly recognizes that the mental state of those who kill—even those who kill more than once—may vary widely and may carry differing degrees of moral culpability and be accompanied by varying degrees of remorse.

By allowing judges to make the decision whether to impose additional periods of parole ineligibility, the proposed amendments reflect the fundamental principle of sentencing that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. For let us not forget that judges who have presided over a trial and who have therefore heard all the evidence and been in a position to assess the character of the accused are in the best position to make such a decision.

However, in making this decision, judges will be required by Bill C-48 to have regard to the criteria that already exists in section 745.4 that they are now using to extend the parole ineligibility period for second degree murder up to 25 years, namely, the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the crime and any recommendation in this regard made by the jury. However, given the inherent seriousness of the offence of murder and the fact that more than one life will have been lost, the measures proposed in Bill C-48 go farther than simply providing judges with this new authority and obliging them to conform to strict criteria that have been developed and are being used for a similar purpose.

Bill C-48 would also require judges to state orally or in writing at the time of sentencing why they may have decided not to use their authority to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility on a multiple murderer in a particular case. This is only fair. The public, and particularly the families and loved ones of victims, have an absolute right to know why those who have killed more than once are not being forced to spend a longer time in custody before being able to apply for release back into the community.

In addition, by requiring judges to immediately make the basis of their decisions public, it will allow for an appeal in those situations where Crown counsel may conclude that the discretion afforded to sentencing judges may not have been properly exercised.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the measures proposed in Bill C-48 will be supported by police and victims advocates who have long been generally opposed to what they view as the relatively easy availability of parole in Canada for violent criminals.

Although the provinces and territories will not be directly affected in terms of correctional resources, I am equally confident that they too will be supportive because another group of violent criminals will be kept in custody for a longer time.

Nonetheless, some may criticize this proposal because murderers, and particularly multiple murderers, already find it more difficult than other offenders to obtain parole. To this I say simply that if there is any crime that justifies putting the interests of the families and loved ones of victims first, it is that of murder. And this is especially true in the case of those who have killed more than once.

In this respect, I can only repeat what the Minister of Justice said outside this House on October 5: each and every murder of a human being diminishes us as a society. Multiple murders are that much more repugnant.

In short, the government will continue to stand up for victims of crime. It will continue to be vigilant in protecting Canadians from violent criminals, and it will continue to put the interests of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of criminals.

Before I conclude, I would like to address another issue that has been the subject of recent controversy in this House: the question of the costs of the government’s law and order agenda. In this regard, I am pleased to report that, for the present and for the next 25 years, the measures set out in Bill C-48 are entirely cost-neutral. Shortly stated, Bill C-48 will not lead to increased costs for the federal government for the foreseeable future.

Nor will they entail significant costs for our provincial and territorial partners. Crown counsel in all jurisdictions will be required to address the proposed criteria I have already described in making their submissions on sentencing should they wish to recommend that a particular multiple murderer receive consecutive periods of parole ineligibility upon conviction and sentencing. These are criteria with which they too are already familiar.

There are no surprises in Bill C-48. The only surprise will be if it is not passed into law as soon as possible to respond to the concerns of those Canadians who wonder why offenders who are convicted of the most serious crimes seem to end up getting sentences that do not fully reflect the gravity of their crimes.

I empathize with ordinary Canadians. I understand why they may find it hard to understand that the justice system gives the most serious criminals–those who have committed multiple murders–access to parole despite the horrific circumstances of their murders and the number of lives they have taken. I understand why concerned Canadians may question why an unrepentant serial killer should have the same access to a parole hearing as a sincerely remorseful offender who killed once in the heat of passion.

Giving those who have killed more than once the same access to parole as those who have killed once erodes confidence in the integrity of the justice system. It also threatens to undermine the commitment of this government to protect Canadians by keeping violent offenders in custody for longer periods. We will not let that happen.

Canadians continue to tell us that they want a strong criminal justice system. They want to see decisive action to address violent crime. They want to see laws passed that will make this country safer and more secure.

Our government is following through on its commitment to make Canadian streets and communities safer by ensuring that offenders who are found guilty of serious crimes serve a sentence that reflects the severity of those crimes. The amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-48 are an important part of this commitment. We are standing up for Canadians who have repeatedly called on us to get tough on crime. We call on all members of this House to stand up with us.

Bill C-48 proposes to reform the approach to sentencing multiple murderers in a way that balances respect for the principles of sentencing with respect for the rights of victims and their families. For this reason, it deserves our careful consideration and the members' support.