Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2011

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When this bill was last being debated, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway had seven minutes left to conclude his remarks. I will give him the floor now.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we were in questions and comments.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech provided by my colleague yesterday.

One of the things that came across my mind as he was articulating was the whole issue which both opposition parties have been raising, which is regarding the costs. There is no doubt a great deal of effort by both the provincial governments and local municipal governments to try to come to grips with the issue of fighting crime.

The idea of trying to invest more resources in those things that are going to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place, such as community policing and after school programs for high-risk offenders, is where priorities should be.

I wonder if the member could provide any information he has in regard to the costs that have been provided for the implementation of this particular bill and the possible impact of those costs on being able to provide other forms of programs that would have more of an impact on preventing crimes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is lot of wisdom in that question. It touches upon a number of issues that reflect the deficiencies in the bill before us.

There is nothing in this bill that deals with prevention. There is nothing in this bill that addresses the need for increased resources to help prevent crimes from happening in the first place.

As I said in my speech yesterday, it is a renowned accepted fact on all sides of this House that 80% of the people in federal institutions suffer from an addiction. I do not think one has to be a criminologist to realize that if we really want to assist people so that they do not commit an offence once they leave prison, it would be wise to put resources into addressing their addiction.

There is not one iota in this omnibus bill, that takes in 10 separate acts, that addresses that matter. It is highly predictable that we will not make a dent in terms of helping those people to not reoffend once they come back to our communities. I have seen statistics that show that a very high percentage of people released from federal prison are returned to prison for breach of conditions. One of the conditions is invariably that they stay away from alcohol and drugs.

Well, if 80% of them are addicts or alcoholics and they are not getting acceptable treatment in prison, it only stands to reason that when they return to the communities, they will reoffend. They get into that revolving door of prison, which is very expensive for taxpayers, ineffective, and leads to recidivism, which everybody on all sides of the House would like to reduce.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill continues a long-standing pattern of disrespect by the government to our judiciary by taking away judicial discretion around sentencing in particular. It is imposing very rigid guidelines, and not just guidelines, but legal mandates as to how people would be sentenced, giving no discretion to our judiciary to handle the cases on a case-by-case basis.

Ironically, with regard to the part of the bill that deals with sexual offences against children in particular, we have the very real prospect that those types of criminals will go to jail for shorter periods of time because the government has set mandatory minimums at a very low level in some cases.

I wonder if my colleague could just comment on the history of the government's attitude toward the judiciary and what kind of respect it pays the judiciary.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this allows me to expand on something I said in my speech last night. The public safety committee benefited from the testimony and experience of a representative from the United States who represents a group called Right on Crime. The person who testified at committee was the first appointee of Ronald Reagan to the drug enforcement agency and also was a key architect of the tough-on-crime policy over the last 20 years.

He told the committee that they made clear errors and the errors they made were imposing mandatory minimums and things like “three strikes and you're out” policies that did nothing but stuff their jails full of prisoners, burden the taxpayers with billions of dollars of unnecessary expenses, and did really nothing to reduce the crime rates in their communities. He testified that states like California and Texas are reversing those trends because they find that they are challenging state treasuries and risking bankruptcy for no real measurable community safety.

Those are key measures that attack judicial discretion. Any mature, intelligent, efficient, effective judicial system will give our judges, who are highly trained and highly skilled, the tools they need in order to render appropriate sentences in each case. For justice to be done, it must be tailored to the individual case. That is what justice is about, and the bill is harmful in that respect.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will probably recall in the last Parliament the government telling us that the actual cost of Bill C-25 was going to be $90 million and later it was updated to $2 billion, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that the actual cost would be $9.5 billion over five years.

Could the hon. member tell me why the government will not come clean on the actual costs of justice bills?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the costs of the government's approach to crime have been escalating and are huge. The last Parliament was full of that kind of discussion about how much the bills would cost, and there were estimates and underestimates. As all Canadians and all parliamentarians know, the cost of the government's crime agenda will be in the billions. That is without any doubt whatsoever. No one on the government side will stand and deny that the cost implication will be in the billions.

Also, I hear the Minister of Finance repeatedly attack the Liberals about downloading costs to the provinces in the nineties. That is exactly what the current bills will do as well. They will download costs to the provinces because many of the people who go to jail will be in provincial institutions.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to speak to Bill C-10.

The legislation before us today fulfills one of our government's strongest commitments made to Canadians, both in the Speech from the Throne and our 2011 election platform, a commitment that we would take action to make our streets and communities safe and to stand up for victims.

I am very proud of our government's strong record on making families safer. Not only is this what we were elected to do, but it is what we have made a point of doing from the first day we took office back in 2006.

Canadians have spoken loudly and clearly about their expectations from day one as well. They have told us that law enforcement agencies must have the resources they need to make our communities safe; they want the rights of victims, law-abiding Canadians, to be considered first; they want serious offenders to be held accountable by serving sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes; and they want to see action that will help to prevent crimes before they happen.

Our government listens to Canadians, which is why we have delivered in each of these areas.

Our government is making communities safer by giving our police the tools they need to strengthen the protection of victims and law-abiding Canadians. For example, we have hired over 1,000 additional RCMP personnel as part of our effort to combat crime.

We also said that we would provide funding to the provinces and territories to allow them to hire additional police officers. We delivered on that commitment with a one-time $400 million police officer recruitment fund. I am very pleased to note that Statistics Canada reported last December that the number of police officers across Canada is now at its highest point since 1981. From 2009 there was an increase of almost 2,000 police officers on our streets.

On the legislative side, our government has passed a number of laws to crack down on crime, especially violent crimes. For instance, we have taken steps to champion the rights of victims in the justice system by ensuring offenders serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes. Before we passed the Truth in Sentencing Act, serious criminals were receiving two-for-one or sometimes three-for-one credit for time served while in pre-sentence custody. Of course, this was clogging up our provincial remand centres in places like Manitoba, where 70% of the prisoners were in fact remand. Once we passed the two-for-one and three-for-one, that of course moved the people out of the provincial system and into the federal penitentiaries.

Our government has passed the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act to ensure first-degree murderers serve their life sentences of 25 years without the possibility of early parole through the so-called “faint hope clause”. Our government also passed reasonable measures to ensure that convicted con artists, fraudsters, and drug traffickers cannot be released onto our streets after serving just one-sixth of their prison sentences. This was unacceptable to Canadians, and our government has taken action. I want to specifically point out the assistance that was provided by the Bloc Québécois in assisting us in passing that in a minority Parliament.

The measures I have listed thus far are but a few examples of our efforts to keep communities safer, give police the tools to fight crime, and assert the rights and interests of victims of crime. However, are we finished? Not by a long shot.

As stated in the Speech from the Throne, “Our government will be here for all Canadians—for individuals, for families and for all regions of the country—as together we move Canada forward”. We will continue to be “here for law-abiding Canadians” since “the Government of Canada has no more fundamental duty than to protect the personal safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security”.

Victims have a right to be safe from the people who have done them harm, and our children have a right to be safe from sex offenders, which is why I am very proud that our government passed legislation to strengthen the national sex offender registry and the national DNA databank so that all sex offenders are registered with the police. Of course, when the Liberals passed that legislation in 2002, they deliberately put administrative blocks in the way, additional hearings that would have to take place after conviction, with the result that over 40% of those who were supposed to be on the DNA registry and the sex offender registry were not there, simply because of the administrative burdens.

This is typical of Liberal legislation. The Liberals try to appease the voice of victims by bringing forward legislation while through the use of administrative hurdles ensuring that the legislation cannot accomplish what it was set out to do. Therefore, it discourages Crown attorneys, courts and police officers from actually proceeding with those additional hearings.

What we have done is made those registries automatic upon conviction, which is only proper. Anyone who has been convicted of a serious offence should be on the registry.

Tackling crime on all fronts remains a key priority for the government, as it is for all Canadians. This is why I am proud to support the legislation before us today as it builds upon our government's already impressive track record of cracking down on crime and standing up for victims. Indeed, one important component of Bill C-10 involves standing up for victims, and specifically victims of terrorism.

The bill proposes a fair and balanced approach in allowing victims of terrorism to seek redress. First and foremost, the proposed legislation would allow any victim of terrorism to sue the perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters. The bill would allow these victims to seek redress for a terrorist act that occurred on or after January 1, 1985.

I also want to emphasize that Bill C-10 would allow victims to sue supporters of terrorism. This is crucial, because we all know that terrorist organizations rely on financial support to operate. By targeting such supporters, the legislation would become yet another important tool in our fight against terrorism.

Since the target of legitimate lawsuits could include certain states known to support terrorism, the proposed government legislation contains provisions to amend the State Immunity Act. Specifically, it would authorize the government to create a list of states that could be sued for their role in supporting perpetrators of terrorism.

Bill C-10 strikes the right balance. It addresses the needs of victims for redress against perpetrators and supporters of terrorism while preserving the important international relations that Canada enjoys.

From its first day in office, this government has been working to ensure that law-abiding Canadian families feel safe and secure in their streets and communities. With Bill C-10 it is taking the next logical step in the fight against terrorism. We are giving victims not only a voice but a legal means to seek justice against those who cause them harm.

In addition to proposing measures to stand up for the victims of crime, Bill C-10 would also introduce reasonable and balanced provisions to help ensure that offenders are fully held accountable for their crimes.

In 2010, our government passed important legislation to provide the Parole Board of Canada the discretion to refuse a pardon in some cases.

Bill C-10 would further strengthen reforms to the current system of pardons in this country in a number of ways.

First, it proposes to replace the term “pardon” with the more appropriate designation of “record suspension”. This would better reflect what is actually taking place.

We need to be clear about what this mechanism would and would not do. We believe the term “record suspension” better reflects the purpose of the legislation, that being to close off general access to a criminal record in appropriate cases as opposed to expressing forgiveness for the offence. After all, it is up to the victims to decide whether or not to forgive the criminals who have abused them, not the government.

This change in terminology is an important one in terms of reinforcing the role of this legislation and eliminating pardons for serious crimes.

Second, the government is clear in Bill C-10 that eligibility for a record suspension would be more restrictive. Bill C-10 would ensure that no one convicted of committing a sexual offence against a child would be eligible for a record suspension.

There are some crimes that should never have the opportunity to be sealed. We believe that sexual offences against children is one of them. Unlike members of the New Democratic Party, we do not believe that those who sexually abuse children should be able to hide their criminal records.

On top of this, individuals convicted of more than three indictable offences would not be eligible to apply for a record suspension if they have received a federal sentence for each of those offences. We believe this is a fair balance between those who have committed a few youthful indiscretions and repeat offenders with serious criminal histories.

In addition, the waiting period to apply for a record suspension for summary offences will be increased from three to five years and from five to ten years for indictable offences. However, the reforms we propose will better align the pardon system with the public's expectation for a fair system, yet one that distinguishes those who have committed serious crimes and whose records should not be sealed.

As well, Bill C-10 would help to enhance offender responsibility and accountability while strengthening the management of offenders during their incarceration and parole. It would also give victims access to more information about the offenders who have harmed them and modernize disciplinary sanctions for offenders serving their sentences.

Bill C-10 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to emphasize that the primary purpose of corrections and conditional release is the protection of society. As the House is aware, in 1971 solicitor general Jean-Pierre Goyer stated that rehabilitation would be the first concern of the state, rather than public safety. We have seen the justice system turned on its head by that pronouncement and subsequent legislation. Since 2006, our government has been working to turn the justice system right side up by ensuring that the interests of victims and the public are paramount to those of convicted criminals.

Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, the primary purpose we are expounding is in line with key recommendations from the independent review panel that our government established in 2007 to review Correctional Service Canada's operational priorities, strategies and business plan. It is also in line with our commitment to put the interests and safety of law-abiding Canadians first in the justice system.

The amendments before us today would require offenders to conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates respect for other people and their property. As well, they will require all offenders to obey all penitentiary rules and conditions governing their release while also actively participating in the setting and achieving of objectives in their correctional plans.

Since a corrections plan plays a key part in offenders' rehabilitation, Bill C-10 proposes amendments to ensure that a correctional plan is completed for each offender, who sets out objectives for behaviour, program participation and the meeting of their court-ordered obligations, such as restitution for victims. As well, Bill C-10 would modernize the system of discipline in federal penitentiaries by addressing disrespectful, intimidating and assaultive behaviours by inmates, including the throwing of bodily substances.

Bill C-10 also proposes to strengthen the management of offenders in their reintegration into society by allowing police officers to arrest without a warrant offenders who appear to be in violation of their parole. Our government is delivering on these changes asked for by police and other criminal justice partners.

Victims have also long requested access to more information on offenders and to have a greater say in the justice system. Bill C-10 would deliver on this in a number of ways. The bill would allow victims to obtain information on the reasons for a temporary absence, offender transfer, offender program participation and any offender convictions for serious disciplinary offences.

Also, a victim's right to attend and make statements at a Parole Board of Canada hearing would be enshrined in law. As well, in most cases offenders would be prevented from withdrawing their parole applications 14 days or less before a hearing date, which routinely happens and often causes further suffering to victims.

These proposed amendments are balanced and fair. They respect victims and hold offenders accountable.

Finally, Bill C-10 proposes important amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act in order to expressly include public safety as a purpose of that act. This would provide a more flexible decision-making framework and would ensure that the protection of society is paramount when the minister is considering an offender's request to be transferred.

I find it amazing that opposition members continually talk about how terrible Canada's prisons are. However, Canadian prisoners convicted abroad continually want to come home, and foreigners who are incarcerated in Canadian prisons do not want to leave. That should give the opposition an indication of the relative benefits of being in a Canadian prison.

Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, will further strengthen our government's already impressive track record of protecting families, standing up for victims and holding offenders to account for their actions. These reforms respond to the needs of Canadian families, victims, law enforcement agencies and many Canadians.

I therefore urge all hon. members to work with the government to ensure that these proposed reforms receive the speedy passage they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite spoke about protecting our children from sex offenders, and I agree with him. We must take action to protect our children. We agree on that. However, there is substantial evidence showing that minimum sentences are ineffective as deterrents. Texas, for example, is in the process of backtracking because its minimum sentences are ineffective and costly.

I would like my colleague from Provencher to tell me how he can claim that Bill C-10 will truly protect our children.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the issue of mandatory minimum prison sentences.

We know that an offender in prison is not out committing offences. It is called incapacitation to commit offences. It is a very important aspect of criminal justice.

The American studies indicate that for every year dangerous offenders are out on the streets they commit at least 12 serious offences. Having mandatory minimum prison sentences for dangerous offenders ensures they will not be out victimizing another 12 people.

My colleague fails to understand that while some of the American states do not have mandatory minimum prison sentences they do have sentencing guidelines that are actually used by judges who adjust them up or down accordingly under very strict conditions. Therefore, they in fact do have mandatory minimums.

Another point made to me by the homeland security secretary was that the reason Canadians want to come back to Canada is that they are released on parole after serving one-sixth or one-third of their sentences, whereas when serving sentences in an American federal institution, they receive 15% off for good behaviour. Therefore, time served in the United States is actually real time as opposed to the sentences being imposed here.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the minister's comments about the relative merits and the attractiveness of Canadian federal prisons.

I am not sure if the minister is aware, but there are many provincial institutions that are absolutely stretched to the max. I was interested to hear that part of the plan to deal with this is to give offenders longer sentences so that they can serve them in federal institutions.

Is that the sum total of the government's plan to deal with overcrowding in provincial institutions or would it fairly compensate the provinces for the impact this would have on the provincial budgets by locking people up longer and putting more people away?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Every single province supports this legislation. These legislative provisions, including the Truth in Sentencing Act passed last year, were asked for and passed by provincial governments of every political stripe. Therefore, I suggest to those individuals who now stand up and pretend to be speaking on behalf of the provinces to ask their premiers what they said to us in terms of bringing this forward.

In respect of two or three for one credits, lawyers were telling their clients to stay in remand to receive those credits so that once sentenced they would basically be free and out on the streets. The provincial authorities realized this was clogging up their system. For example, 70% of all prisoners in Manitoba were in remand.

This legislation gives no incentive for offenders to remain in provincial institutions. Rather, they would go to trial quickly or plead guilty and receive sentencing so that appropriate programming could be delivered to these sentences.

I would advise the hon. member to ask his premier why that province supports this legislation.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments today and his efforts to put more police on the streets.

I constantly hear from people in my riding their concerns about crime. There is a notion that crime is going down. I think it is going down because people are not reporting crime. They do not see the use in doing that.

Statistics Canada reports increases in pornography, firearms, drug offences, criminal harassment and sexual assault. Could the minister talk about the efforts in the bill to specifically address those types of crimes?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I note with some interest that members of the NDP laugh when we talk about the issue of crime. They think crime is funny. They may live in safe, secure, gated communities where they do not have to worry about that kind of thing but most people are concerned about crime.

For example, in 2009, in Winnipeg, the violent stuff, sexual assaults, robbery and murder, jumped by 11%. That same category of crime in 2008 went up by 14%. That is 25% in those two years. It is no wonder that an NDP government came to us and asked if we could do something about the legislation.

Those individuals who sit in the luxury of their seats here and perhaps in the luxury of Ottawa may be insulated from crime, or maybe not. Maybe they are insulated from the reality that their constituents are facing. Let them laugh, but it is their premiers who have been asking for this type of legislation. They should go back to their premiers and ask why they wanted this legislation and why we are bringing it forward.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the comments we heard from the minister regarding the transfer of prisoners.

Members may recall that the Americans sent us a diplomatic note on this issue, and the problem was inconsistency. The problem was that we were not doing our job here. This legislation will not help that. The Americans are telling us to take care of our own and we are saying no.

The minister said that individuals would fulfill their sentence there, but there will be no supervision when they come back to Canada. People here are saying that this would make public safety worse, not better.

I would like to hear the minister's comments on that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, only a socialist would say that bringing a dangerous prisoner back to Canada and putting that individual back on the street would be great for public safety.

We are concerned about that relationship with the United States. I had a long conversation with the homeland security secretary and she was not aware of the kind of prisoners the Americans were holding there. Prisoners spend 85% of their time doing federal time and, when they get federal time, as some prisoners might know, it is a long period of time, and they spend most of it down there. The reason they want to come back to Canada is that they can get out on parole after one-sixth or one-third of time spent and then they are back out on the street where they commit more offences and victimize more Canadians.

Appropriate criteria is set out in the bill. I would point out that the Federal Court recently came out with a whole series of decisions saying that the minister has a broad degree of discretion in making these decisions. However, we want to put some more guidelines in place. This legislation would give the exact guidelines that the member is looking for.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that we do not understand crime. I was a victim of assault, so I understand the impact of crime.

The government takes expert advice and hires expensive consultants for its financial information. Why does it continue to refuse to listen to experts who have refuted the effectiveness of mandatory sentences and continues to ignore the 20 year trend of decline in the crime rate?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last year, there were 2.1 million reported crimes. Statistics Canada indicates that the rate of reported crimes is going down. Reported crimes dropped to about 31% from about 34%.

The point is that many people have simply given up trying to deal with the justice system. What we are doing, as opposed to what the opposition is trying to do, is restoring faith in the criminal justice system. Every individual should be entitled to walk down the street ,not just during the day but 24 hours a day. It is our right as Canadians. We have a right to be safe from criminals.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what is a very complex, complicated bill that is actually being treated without the proper oversight from the government.

We have heard from other members of the House the problem with the bill when it comes to the costs, which is something that is resonating from Canadians. As we hear, the financial crisis is getting worse. In fact, I believe the Minister of Finance right now is speaking to it just outside this place. We have a government that said that the priority would be the economy and yet, at the first opportunity to deal with the economy, what do we see? We see an omnibus bill, which is an ominous bill, that would pass down costs to provinces.

Just yesterday, the Minister of Finance stood and, with great vitriol, said that the government would never do what the previous Liberal government had done, which was to push costs down to the provinces. Well, that is what this bill would do. Billions and billions of dollars in costs would be pushed down to the provinces, be it members' home provinces, or mine, right across the country.

What we do not see is the evidence as to why we need this legislation. What we have is the politics, which is what we have heard time and time again from the government. In fact, since 2006, it has been the brand of the government to get tough on crime, often waiting until the next election and the next election to bring in its legislation because it is also helpful to the Conservatives to manipulate this issue.

There is a lot in the bill. I will touch on a couple of things that are important. I already touched on one in my question to the minister with regard to foreign affairs and the transfer of prisoners. I was interested in the minister's response when I asked him how he was dealing with the fact that we had a diplomatic note sent to us from the United States last year telling us that we needed to take care of the problem of Canadian citizens who are arrested in the United States. The United States told us that we were not taking care of them and that we needed to bring them back to our own country. What do we do? We outsource the problem to the United States in this case.

The reciprocal is interesting. The United States has a convention and a policy that it does not let that happen. We created a diplomatic spat over an issue around whether we will take care of Canadian citizens who are arrested abroad. I could tell many other stories about the problems of Canadian citizens stranded abroad but I will save that for another day.

The point is that, in this legislation, the minister stood just minutes ago and said that we should not worry about it because he would be given, as a minister, a lot of room to interpret and, therefore, be able to deal with the issue. The problem right now is the way in which the minister and the government are interpreting it. Canadians who are arrested in the United States are often left there, and there are inconsistencies. We have percentages from 14% of applications that are actually received and dealt with by the Americans, to upwards of 62% over one year. In other words, there is a total inconsistency in the application for the transfer of prisoners.

Why does that matter? The claim of the government is that this is about public safety. When prisoners finish their time in the United States, they then come back to Canada. We can talk about the situation of prisons there in a minute. However, if the government is concerned about public safety, there is no supervision of those prisoners after. The minister says that we should not worry because that will be taken care of, that at a time when the government is cutting services to do the actual supervision that is required.

Here is the problem. We have the Americans coming to us with a diplomatic note, which, in Foreign Affairs, is substantive. They do not write diplomatic notes every day. It is when there is a problem that cannot be resolved between countries. A diplomatic notes raises the red flag to say that we are not doing enough. The response from the government is to basically ignore it and say that the American prisons are much tougher and we would rather they stay there.

The Conservatives have been in power since 2006 and it is saying that they would rather the prisoners stay in the United States because it is a better situation and we want them to stay there and, when they come back, they can just go out on the street without supervision. Talk about cognitive distance. We have it in front of us with this one example of transfer of prisoners.

By the way, it is not just the NDP. I know that does not always sell with my friend across the way as a salient argument. We are talking about diplomats from the United States. We are talking about people who deal with the criminal justice system, the advocates and lawyers, who are saying that this is a real problem that we need to deal with, never mind the people who are trying to deal with crime prevention. The bill fails just on that one piece. It actually undermines our credibility internationally with our best friend and closest neighbour.

I will turn to the issue of taking a stronger stance against perpetrators of terror, which is also in the bill. On the surface, I think we could all agree, it is important that there should be ways of dealing with anyone who is involved in or funding terrorism. It is about preventing terrorism but we have concerns with what the bill would do. We believe this is a valid issue that should be dealt with, no question, but there are some components in the bill that are worthy of putting out.

The bill would create a cause of action that would allow victims of terrorism to sue individuals, organizations and terrorist entities in Canadian courts for loss or damage suffered as a result of terrorist acts as defined in the Criminal Code. Second, it amends the State Immunity Act to remove state immunity for states that are on a list of countries, established by cabinet, that have supported or currently support terrorism. The bill would allow victims to sue foreign states that are on the list.

That sounds fine, and I would say there are some good things in that, but there are significant steps that we need to look at. There are a couple of concerns I want to underline because they are very serious. If we are going to do this, we need to do it right.

The question is whether amending the State Immunity Act would cause retaliation against Canadians. What are the risks? I have not heard from government why it is limiting the cause of action to a certain list of states. This is where we have to focus in. If we just list certain states, then we are saying that it is open for others and we would be defining terrorism in a very limited way. That is where I think the bill needs some work.

Also, there is the question of the merit in extending the cause of action created by the bill to victims in other forms of state violations, such as human rights and torture. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen us fold that in. I believe my colleague from the Liberal Party had legislation to amend the State Immunity Act.

Right now a person can go after someone for economic cause and sue someone in another country, but if they have been tortured, they can not. We have had many cases in this country, the Mr. Arar case being one, where they cannot use our courts to seek justice. It is a human rights issue and it is an issue we need to take on. I have no idea why the government did not include it.

I was happy to support my colleague, the former justice minister in the Liberal government, who brought legislation forward to do that. It is sensible to amend the State Immunity Act for those Canadians who have had the unfortunate experience of being tortured by other governments and sometimes with the complicity and knowledge of our own government. It is absolutely critical that we do that. It is not in the bill and it should be. That is a failing facet of the bill.

It is very interesting to hear the rationale for the omnibus bill. It is along the lines that the government believes it would deal with a perceived problem and sometimes a factual problem. The government's perceived problem is that crime is higher and is getting worse.

Crime is in the eye of the beholder, of those who have suffered as victims, as my colleague said. However, the programs we have in place for reconstructive justice and reconciliation, sadly and bizarrely, are not being funded to the degree they should be.

If we are serious about crime and serious about victims, then we have to be serious about funding those programs. Many of us have talked to victims and some of us are victims. The one thing victims want is justice, but there is no justice in using a hammer to whack a peanut. What we are talking about here is making sure there is justice for victims and making sure there is reconciliation.

I attended a conference in California on HIV and the law, and what is happening in the United States. The spectacle right now is that judges are forcing the State of California to release prisoners. Why? Because the “three strikes and you are out” policy and putting people in jail for drug crimes has failed.

There is a consensus, with the exception of our friends across the way, that the approach used in the war on drugs was an abysmal failure. Why? Ask people like Newt Gingrich,. My goodness, I never thought I would use him for validation, but it turns out he is now. God bless him, Newt Gingrich now says not to do what they did because it is costly and ineffective.

California has privatized its prisons. It has more prisoners than it can handle. Judges are forcing the state to release prisoners. California has absolutely no programs in the prisons to deal with treating addictions, which we all know is a major problem in our prisons and the U.S. prisons. What are we going to do? It turns out we are going to adopt its failed policy.

I would plead with Canadians to hold their members of Parliament to account on this because it is going to cost us more. There is the economic argument regarding downloading all the costs to provinces which right now have difficulty withstanding the costs associated with education, health, et cetera. There is the question of justice. Does this work? The evidence is pretty clear in other jurisdictions that it does not.

Then there is the question of politics. I have sensed a change in this country around why governments and politicians are using issues as important as justice and criminal justice for political gain. We only need to look at the government's talking points. Government members are not citing evidence from peer-reviewed studies; they are saying they have received a mandate so it is a blank cheque and they can do what they want.

It is very important that we look at this issue carefully. If the prisons are full of people who need help, they need to be given supports. Victims need justice, but we will not find it in the bill to the extent that it should be.

We do see little parcels of politics, such as, if the government wants to give the notion that things are really bad, it says that it is going to crack down. It is going to make sure that judges are not allowed to look at the circumstances, and instead it will direct them. The government will make sure that more prisons are built because that is its idea of justice. The government will make sure in the transfer of prisoners to keep them in the United States because the U.S. is tougher on crime; or on something as important as the State Immunity Act, it will not fold in the whole issue when it comes to victims of torture and other human rights abuses.

I wonder whether Canadians see in this legislation any change in politics that they were hoping to see, such as looking at the problem from an evidence-based point of view. If the evidence is such that crime has changed, and I acknowledge that, the indications are it is lower. Let us look at how to prevent crime and get smart on crime. This tough on crime idea is to put people in jail for longer and bring in mandatory minimum sentences. To be smart on crime, which is the way to go, is to look at preventing crime.

In many of the downtown core ridings in many of the cities across the country, the programs to help youth at risk are themselves at risk. I am thinking of recreation programs, arts programs, access for kids from lower income families to things to which middle-class families and families of better means can afford to send their kids. These programs have been cut.

Part of prevention is to make sure there is equity of access for kids. As a teacher who taught in a downtown school, I know what happens when kids do not have access to recreation, the arts, et cetera. They are given fewer choices and less opportunity. If we invested more of our dollars into prevention and opportunity for our kids, we would not have to worry about what will happen later in their lives. We would be able to prevent crime.

It goes without saying that when we look at prevention and reconciliation in the case of victims, we would be able to deal with crime in a strategic way, not a political way. Over the last couple of years, the framework that has been set in this country is that we will deal with crime in an overtly political way, which is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for victims. It is unfortunate for those who for many different reasons find themselves before the criminal justice system.

I want to finish my comments by underlining something that is a crisis in the United States, but we must not be arrogant because we have a similar problem and challenge. There is a disproportionate number of African Americans in the U.S. prison system. That is not news. It is a disturbing trend that has been going on for many years. We must not be arrogant about it in our country, because we have a similar challenge, and that is the disproportionate number of first nations people in our prisons.

Like many members in this place, I was very proud when we acknowledged the issue of what happened in the residential schools. That acknowledgement was a proud moment for Canada, but what did those words mean? If there is a disproportionate number of first nations, aboriginal and Inuit people in our prisons and we have not acknowledged why they are there, we are simply treating them in the same manner as is happening in the United States, as people who broke the law and let us just send them to jail. We have not only failed in terms of dealing with the situation on the ground, but we also have turned our backs to the spirit of what that reconciliation was supposed to be about in the House of Commons a couple of years ago.

On the issue of crime and justice, we need more justice. We need more prevention. We need to make sure that we honour our treaties with our allies in the United States. When it comes to looking at the State Immunity Act and making sure that we acknowledge that it needs to be amended, we have to take in the issue of torture, we have to take in the issue of human rights. If we do not do that, then we will have failed in that opportunity as well.

I hope Canadians will get in touch with their members of Parliament regarding what the government is doing on this issue. The costs are financial. This is about dealing with an issue which all Canadians are seized with, but doing it in an intelligent manner, based on evidence and making sure we take what I believe is an overtly political agenda out of an extremely important issue. We need to deal with it in a sensible manner for all of our citizens and all our constituents.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a good speech and a good analysis of the bill.

He touched upon the cost of the bill. We have had some discussion about that. There is also the cost of not doing crime prevention.

Crime prevention is critical to lowering the rates and making sure people get back on the right track for those who had committed small crimes. I used to run a youth program, and we had a 90% success rate when there was intervention. They had a job. They had hope and opportunity. They went back to school.

I want to ask the member a specific question in terms of crime prevention. Windsor has the largest border crossing in Canada and North America, and our customs facility is being moved to Fort Erie, nearly 400 kilometres away. Customs officers will have to phone someone 400 kilometres away to see whether they should move on suspicion of drugs, guns and smuggling, which are the tools for organized crime, tools that inflict a lot of serious problems on people.

That move was motivated by the possibility of cutting a couple of million dollars. There will be a cut of a couple of million dollars and that greater intrusion.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that if we are to be smart on crime, we have to invest in the right places, but the government cut in an area where there is a huge need for more resources.

If we are going to be smart on crime, we have to ensure there is the requisite supervision of our borders.

The member is absolutely right. A huge issue is guns coming over the border and we must prevent that. The NDP has called for more resources for the border to be smart on crime. The best way to deal with lowering crime rates is to prevent crime. One way is to ensure there are more resources on the border. The notion that officials at the border have to call someone 400 kilometres away to take action speaks to the lack of logic in the government's action.

Why is the government doing something that would further inflict problems--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the member, but he will have eight minutes to conclude his period of questions and comments at some later time.