Debates of Sept. 27th, 2011

Bill C-10--Time Allocation Motion

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my parliamentary secretary for all her work and the support she gives us in this area.

The Department of Justice pointed out that the cost of crime in this country was about $99 billion. What is particularly arresting is the fact that 83% of that is borne by victims in this country. They are the ones who ultimately pay the price.

I do not get too many questions about victims in the House of Commons. It is not just the financial cost; it is the emotional cost. I remember when we introduced the bill to get rid of the faint hope clause, a reporter asked me if it was going to stop people from committing first degree murder. I said that what it would do is reduce victimization in this country, because those individuals who worried about the criminal getting out on the faint hope clause would not have to worry about that anymore.

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

Madam Speaker, I have one point on the position the NDP has taken, particularly through my office, on omnibus crime bills.

This is not the kind of omnibus crime bill we have talked about at all. If the government is going to do an omnibus crime bill, if it is going to have meaningful reform to our Criminal Code, it has to be done on a thematic basis. The government has to look at one whole area of the code and decide on the amendments that need to be made. Then they need to be compiled.

What the government has done is brought together a mish-mash of various legislation. There are sections of the immigration act that are being amended. There are amendments to the corrections act, the Criminal Code and the drug enforcement legislation. That is not the way to draft omnibus legislation if the government is really serious about good public policy.

I want to go back to the point the minister keeps raising about victims and about the fact that he has all this great support in the country. The reality is that not once during the election campaign did the Conservatives talk about the cost. Not once did they say to the victims or the taxpayers that it is going to cost x billions of dollars.

In fact, the government hid those figures from us. It was only as a result of a contempt motion that part of that was released. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he only received about 40% of the material he needed to be able to do an accurate assessment so that the Canadian people and the House would know how much this was going to cost.

When will the minister be coming before the House to give us realistic figures as opposed to shutting down debate?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in response to a previous question, we tabled hundreds of pages with respect to the costs of crime. However, if we are all very frank and honest, for those who oppose cracking down on violent criminals, spending a dollar on it is too much for those who are opposed to what we are trying to do.

We are on track. I completely disagree that we did not raise this. I know I personally raised this matter. I see the hon. member from Brantford, who will confirm that during the election I talked about the cost to victims all the time. I said that they bear most of the costs. Financially and emotionally the costs are borne by the victims in this country.

My parliamentary secretary just asked a question with respect to the costs. I would point out that 83% of the costs, according to the Department of Justice in 2008, was borne by the victims. I have never hidden that statistic. I am glad to repeat it over and over because we know who pays the cost of crime in this country.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister has said that the government has a mandate with regard to the Safe Streets and Communities Act. All governments have a mandate for safe streets and communities. All governments are given a mandate to protect the security of their citizens. We had a mandate for that as well. The question is how one implements that mandate and the nature of the legislation that is put forward.

This legislation that has been put forward comes at a time when, even before the legislation was tabled, there is overcrowding in Canadian prisons, to the point that in British Columbia as an example, there is some 200% overcrowding in the prisons. In the United States overcrowding led to a constitutional challenge with respect to cruel and unusual punishment. The courts ordered the release of inmates.

The legislation has not been costed so it will cost mega-billions for the building of megaprisons. Regrettably, at the end of the day we will get more crime and less justice with spiralling costs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the mandate, yes we did receive a majority government but we were very clear during the election that we would reintroduce the bills that we found, in some cases, impossible to get past the opposition. This will be the fourth attempt to pass the drug component of this bill. The Liberals actually let us pass it in the House of Commons because they knew their colleagues in the Senate would hold it up forever. Then when we had a majority in the Senate, the Liberals changed their minds and opposed it in the House of Commons.

We were very clear with Canadians when we said that if we were re-elected we would reintroduce these bills. We put them together in a comprehensive package. They all deal with the subject of better protecting victims in this country. These are steps in the right direction. I am very appreciative and pleased that the Canadian public has given us this mandate.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is business as usual for the Minister of Justice, the master of demagoguery. The Conservative government and the Minister of Justice seem to feel that if we are not on their side, endorsing their measures—which are deeply controversial, especially in Quebec—we are siding with criminals. It is always the same story. We always hear the same thing from the minister, who knows full well that he does not have consensus within the justice system, again, particularly in Quebec.

This omnibus bill is deeply controversial. We are not saying that this bill does not contain some good measures. We know, as does the minister, that certain measures, particularly those concerning sexual offences against children and parole reform, are useful.

I think that everyone in the House agrees, and the minister knows that he could have tabled these measures separately from his omnibus bill and it would not have been an issue. They likely would have passed unanimously in the House of Commons.

As usual—and we see this with their budgets as well—the Conservatives are tabling bad measures alongside the good ones in this bill, which means that we have to come to a decision without debate. And they know that that does not work.

Did the minister consider splitting the bill so that certain measures would be passed more easily?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the years I have found that when we put a number of bills together we get complaints from the opposition that it is an “omnibus” bill. If we split them up I have had suggestions from them that we should have put them all together. Now we have them all together and opposition members are suggesting we should split them again.

Let us be honest about this. If members are opposed to getting tough on drug dealers they should say so. The bill is clear. We are going after people who bring drugs into the country. We are saying to the people who would bring drugs into Canada, which law enforcement agencies tell me is part of organized crime, that they would go to jail. If members are against that and think that is a terrible thing, that is fine. That is their opinion. However, they should not dress it up by saying that the bill should be tough on this and combined with something else or that it should be divided. Let us cut out the nonsense here.

We have put these bills together. They all make sense. They are not all of the bills that had not passed in the previous Parliament. We put nine of them together. They all stand alone in the sense that they have been looked at thoroughly by Parliament. They have been thoroughly debated and discussed in this country. I am absolutely convinced that Canadians support us on this and so should the hon. member.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, based on the terminology used by the minister, we can clearly see that this is not an attempt to improve safety on our streets, but a purely partisan and political act. That is what this is.

If the minister's goal is to protect victims, why has he not moved forward in areas where there is unanimous consent of all parties in the House such as random roadside testing? Simply bringing forward what has already been approved by all the parties would save hundreds of lives a year. There is no way to put a cost on that.

There is also unanimous consent for moving forward on DNA testing. That would allow us to solve thousands of crimes per year. Yet the words chosen by the minister as he gesticulates toward his Reform Party base and says that this is about safer streets and these guys must be in favour of protecting dangerous criminals, we realize that we are faced not with an effort to improve laws in this country but an effort by the government to position itself politically.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have experienced this spin with all the bills that we have introduced right across the board. The opposition members either immediately oppose it or they say it needs a lot of study. Most times the term “needs a lot of study” means that we will never get to vote on the issues and never get them implemented. I always hear opposition members say that we are cracking down on drug dealers and violent criminals, that if we would only get to some other area then the NDP would be right behind us and the Liberals would be cheering us on.

We all know that is a bunch of nonsense. No matter what the government introduces to crack down on crime in this country and go after those who exploit and take advantage of other people, in the end the opposition members will do one of two things, either oppose it or say that it needs a lot of study.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to be honest and admit that this bill will create more victims. The evidence is clear from the provisions in the bill that by putting more people in prison for longer periods means there will be more crime inside prisons and more crime outside prisons which would create more victims. As well, this will target the most vulnerable in our society, those with mental health challenges, youth at risk, low income families and aboriginals. The bill shifts funds to prison cells and away from the supports required for the members of those groups to live successful lives.

What research has the minister done to determine what the increase in AIDS rates would be due to this increase in prison population? The leading AIDS researcher in Canada and internationally says that the bill would undo most of the good work that has been done to prevent AIDS.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is from British Columbia. I have heard loud and clear from law enforcement agencies, municipal politicians and others in that part of the country how terrible and difficult some of the challenges are regarding drug crimes.

I have been told that the people who bring drugs into British Columbia are part of organized crime. If the bill is somehow creating victims out of people who bring drugs into this country, or creating victims out of these poor vulnerable gangsters who are selling drugs around schools, I want those people to know that they are vulnerable, because they are the ones we are going after. We are going after the people who bring drugs into this country and I make no apology for that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #32

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the debate on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake is rising on a point of order.

Comments by Member for Timmins—James Bay

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding comments made yesterday in the debate on Libya. The member for Timmins—James Bay made a comment about me. He said:

I heard my colleague for Selkirk—Interlake use the old tired Conservative slogan: “We don't cut and run”. Now my colleague is from farm country and probably does not know what “cut and run” means.

Standing Order 18 is quite clear that we are not supposed to be talking disrespectfully of other members in this House. Not only did he insult me, but he also insulted all farmers and anyone who lives out in farm country as being less intelligent than himself. I find that completely disrespectful and demand that he apologize or that appropriate action be taken by you, Madam Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member for his comment. We will look at the blues and come back if necessary.

The House resumed 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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise here today with a bit of a heavy heart, for the vote that was just held suggests that the work ahead of me as a new member of this 41st Parliament is perhaps less important than that of other members in past parliaments.

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, deals with many sections and many pieces of legislation. I was told this morning that 295 witnesses appeared at 88 committee meetings in previous parliaments. Those individual bills failed to pass during previous parliaments, at least not in the form in which they were introduced by the governments in office at the time.

The government is introducing an omnibus bill that includes all these provisions. Bill C-10 is 102 pages long and includes 208 provisions that amend nine existing laws. This is not a small bill. The explanatory notes alone are 39 pages long. Not everyone in the House has experience in criminal law as it pertains to terrorism or is well versed in the laws relating to young offenders and immigration. That is a lot of things.

The leap of faith that the government is asking us to take is to find that what was done before is sufficient. In the future, when we are not happy, the axe will fall and the government will pass the bill because it committed to introduce the bill and pass it within the first 100 days of its mandate. When we disagree with the Conservatives on any part of the content or form of what they present to us, they tell us that we are in favour of criminals, child rapists and terrorists. I have a problem with this way of categorizing the serious work that all members of the House do every day.

I have a background in law. I worked in criminal law for five years when I began my practice and I was able to see the extraordinary work that the crown attorneys, judges and judiciary do; their work is not always easy. There are also defence lawyers who are obligated, under the Constitution, to represent people who are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There are some rather disturbing isolated cases that seem to have slipped through the cracks in the system. We are all aware that such is the case. I have also had a call-in radio show. Anyone who has listened to this type of show knows how things can sometimes get out of hand when people get started, particularly when such isolated cases are mentioned.

Our judicial system examines thousands and thousands of criminal cases each year. I find it a little rich that the Conservatives are introducing this 102-page bill that contains 208 provisions to amend nine existing laws on the basis of a few cases they have chosen here and there that deviate a bit from the norm.

I participated in a debate with Senator Boisvenu. I have the utmost respect and admiration for the work that he did for years after the crime that led to the loss of his two daughters. However, we must really avoid changing laws simply to respond to a need here or there.

The sad thing is that we on this side of the House are inclined to be in favour of some parts of the bill without even having to do much further study. We are in favour of the provisions having to do with sexual offences against children and parole. The entire system needs to be reformed, and that is often where we run into problems. But this bill lumps everything together.

As a member of the Barreau du Québec I can tell you that we, as lawyers, receive hours of mandatory professional training because the top priority is to protect the public. Every move a lawyer makes is scrutinized. When a lawyer goes the slightest bit off track, he or she is shown the door and is asked to report to the agency that monitors the legal profession.

The Canadian Bar Association has some valid and serious objections to this bill, not because it wants to protect criminals, but because it wants to protect what we should all be trying to protect together, and that is the penal system and the courts. We have to ensure that there is more than just the appearance of justice and that justice is actually served.

My basic concern with this bill, having practised law, is that within the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association, two entities for which I have the utmost respect, we are going to see judges become quite apprehensive about hearing minimum sentence cases, because the bill eliminates the wonderful concept that every law student learns on their first day: every case is unique. Under the Conservatives, the concept that every case is unique no longer exists. From now on, if a person commits X crime, they receive X sentence, leaving no room to understand why the crime was committed or to see what would best serve society. Will we create hardened criminals?

Maybe the solution for the Conservatives is to keep everyone locked up for the rest of their lives regardless of the crime. That would be ridiculous. I do not want to put words in their mouths, but sometimes that is the impression the Conservatives give, because under some of the laws affected by the omnibus bill, we will no longer be able to apply this fundamental principle in law. What does that mean? It means there will be legal challenges.

I spoke to a number of my colleagues across the country as I knew that opportunities to hear from witnesses would be curtailed. I consulted several experts in the field who told me that some lawyers believe that constitutional challenges will be launched. Is it contrary to the charter in terms of unusual punishment? Is it this? Is it that? I doubt very much that we will achieve the intended results. Once again, I find it unfortunate that they are playing politics—I was going to say petty politics, but that would be unparliamentary—rather than really trying to fulfill the mandate we have been given, that is to legislate.

When I arrived here for the 41st Parliament, I believed that our job was to ensure that each bill passed is for the good of all Canadians, that each bill is useful, that each bill becomes a good law, and that each bill achieves the intended results.

I have the impression that sometimes it is a question of making headlines. Unfortunately, that does not meet the needs of victims or of the system, and it does not result in the changes the legal community is seeking.