Debates of Dec. 11th, 2012

Search and Rescue

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the chiefs of the Vancouver police and fire departments have written to the Prime Minister urging him to reverse the plan to shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

The chief of police has consulted with other experts and says that the long response times will be longer and that the level of service will be negatively impacted.

Why are the Conservatives stubbornly defending this reckless decision and putting lives at risk?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, these Coast Guard changes value lives and livelihood above all else.

As I have said in the House before, changes to the Coast Guard will have no impact on our ability to provide the world-class excellent service that Canadians and mariners have come to expect.

There are more Canadian Coast Guard assets in Vancouver harbour than in any other harbour across the country.

Public Safety

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to giving police forces the tools they need to keep our streets and communities safe.

After a serious crime, the thugs and criminals who make up street gangs across the country are able to intimidate witnesses into silence. This can become a huge barrier to police taking dangerous criminals off the street and putting them behind bars where they belong.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please tell the House what our Conservative government is doing to ensure an effective and reliable witness protection program?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to introduce the safer witnesses act. This bill improves processes for secure identity changes, broadens the prohibitions against information disclosure and extends the amount of time emergency protection may be provided to witnesses.

As Chief Blair of the Toronto Police Service said:

In Toronto, we have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation...We support the government's initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.

Ethics

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for years Elections Canada was forced to fight legal battles with the Conservatives over the in and out scandal. Do members remember that? In the end, the Conservative Party pleaded guilty as charged, shredding the credibility of the parliamentary secretary, who said for years that rules were followed, the same guy who ran a calling company that did not comply with CRTC rules, but he now throws it all at others.

Now Conservatives are again using legal tricks to cover up election fraud.

Will the government amend the Election Act so the Conservatives behind this massive fraud end up behind bars, exactly—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, what amazes me about the Liberal Party is not just its general hypocrisy, it is that it chooses certain members of its caucus to rise and make allegations of ethical impropriety.

That is the same member who got caught taking money in violation of House rules to pay for her housing, money that she had to pay back. Now the Liberals invite that member to stand in the House, wag her finger and lecture everyone else. I do not think so.

Housing

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the negative impact of not renewing long-term agreements—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The member for Hochelaga has the floor.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are already seeing the negative impact of not renewing long-term social housing agreements.

For example, the agreements with the Native Inter-Tribal Housing Co-operative in London are about to expire. If the government does not renew these agreements, a number of low-income aboriginal families in London will literally end up homeless. This is one of the first real-life examples of the impact of ending the long-term agreements.

When will the minister renew the agreements so that these aboriginal families do not end up on the street?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, the government is currently subsidizing more than 600,000 affording housing units because it believes that Canadians should have affordable and secure housing.

The CMHC offers mortgages at good rates. I must also point out that we give a lot of money to the provinces and territories to help them provide affordable housing.

Foreign Affairs

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, despite efforts by the international community to engage Iran on its nuclear program, the regime continues its refusal to comply with international obligations, co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency or enter into meaningful negotiations.

The government of Iran is the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today. As evidenced by the town hall meeting in West Vancouver last Saturday, Canadians are increasingly concerned about these things.

Would the parliamentary secretary please update the House on recent steps taken by our government to put pressure on the Iranian regime?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, today our government announced new sanctions against the Iranian regime, including the listing of an additional 98 entities, ratcheting up the pressure on those who support Iran's nuclear program, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij paramilitary organization.

These measures align Canada's sanctions with those adopted by our allies and partners. We will continue to work with them to address the urgent need to bring pressure to bear on the Iranian authorities.

Telecommunications

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

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians have difficulty using the Internet service to which they should have access.

Internet service that is too slow or too expensive because of inadequate telecommunications infrastructure is preventing entire sectors of our economy from expanding.

People living in rural areas want a firm commitment and specific schedule regarding development of the network.

When will the Conservatives unveil a real plan that provides affordable high-speed Internet service to rural areas?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's hypocrisy in this matter is rather ironic, especially in light of the fact that we have introduced the broadband Canada program, which has provided high-speed Internet access to more than 200,000 households. Moreover, we have announced the 700 MHz auction rules. Our policy is to increase competition and provide better access for rural areas.

The NDP voted against Broadband Canada, a concrete measure that we implemented. It is shameful that it is now asking such questions.

Sport

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

Mr. Speaker, sport may well have evolved, but the same cannot always be said for mindsets.

One great example of that is the Canadian speed skating federation, which, instead of investing in developing a promising, well-known athlete, is forcing this athlete to make a choice: school or funding, but not both. Olympic gold medallist Mathieu Giroux is being deprived of precious training resources.

Does the Minister of State for Sport support this completely outdated approach? Will he intervene to ensure that athletes are able to pursue their studies without being penalized, or will he wash his hands of the situation, as Dimitri Soudas of the Canadian Olympic Committee did?

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, we want our athletes to succeed at the world level. These decisions are best left in the hands of national sports organizations that are responsible for preparing our athletes for competition. Our government is proud to support our national sports organizations at record level funding.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

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

Mr. Speaker, just before question period I was speaking to the reasons why I have grave concerns about Bill C-37. I earlier explained that this legislation is titled the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. It is not a separate act at all. The bill would amend the Criminal Code and these amendments deal with the issue of surcharges and fines that would be paid.

These amendments to the Criminal Code would deal with only one thing, and that is the fine, a surcharge put on someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence. The current surcharge is 15% of the amount of any fine that is assessed against someone at the point of sentencing. This act would double that to 30%. That is, in and of itself, not a concern of mine. It is important that we have adequate funds for victim services.

Just to clarify for anyone who is watching, these fines do not actually go to the victims but to provinces and territories, which are supposed to use those funds for victim services. This is different from the category of restitution, where convicted individuals actually provide funds directly to the victim of their crime. This is a general pot of money that is supposed to go to victim services. I note that some of the witnesses before committee had concerns that we did not know how tightly a province or territory tracks those funds and applies them to victim services, but that is not the thrust of most of what I want to talk about today.

On top of doubling the fines from 15% to 30%, these amendments to the Criminal Code would also create an automatic $100 fine in the cases where no particular fine has been levied. Anyone guilty on summary conviction would have $100 levied, and anyone guilty of an offence punishable by indictment would have an additional fine of $200 if no fine had been levied by the judge.

This would get to a very difficult area. I am very supportive of victims of crime, as the Green Party, and I think every member in this House is supportive. We know that even a relatively small criminal event is traumatic in a victim's life, and the more severe events can be catastrophic in one's life, so it is not for lack of concern. However, one looks at the question of who is victimized in society and where all the victims are. Not all the victims are outside of our prisons; some of them are inside our prisons. This is the point I raise, based on testimony that was heard before committee on November 1 from Kim Pate, who is the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read into the record some of what she said. She said, in part:

...the majority of the women—91% of the indigenous women in prison, 82% of women overall—have histories of physical and/or sexual abuse, talking about a victim surcharge to assist victims, when these women end up in custody largely because of the lack of resources in such other parts of the community as social services and health care, particularly mental health....

She goes on to say:

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that it costs $343,000 per year to keep one woman in federal custody, and provinces range, depending on the range of services and what is costed in, from a minimum of $30,000 of cost up to in excess of $200,000. When we're talking about those kinds of costs, to jail someone for non-payment of either a fine or a victim surcharge seems counterproductive at best.

The essence of this is to suggest that when we remove judicial discretion, which is the essence of this bill, Bill C-37 would do two things. It would double the percentage that would be paid as a victim surcharge fine, from 15% to 30%; and it would impose an automatic $100 on summary conviction and $200 at indictable offence. The other most important ingredient that this bill would do would be to completely remove judicial discretion to waive these charges if it is, in the opinion of the judge, a situation where undue hardship would be occasioned due to the circumstances of the accused.

Our current Criminal Code includes these words under subsection 737.(5):

When the offender establishes to the satisfaction of the court that undue hardship to the offender or the dependants of the offender would result from payment of the victim surcharge, the court may, on application of the offender, make an order exempting the offender from the [surcharge].....

This judicial discretion would be completely removed under this act. The only judicial discretion that would be allowed is judicial discretion to increase the fine.

However, we need the ability to look at the accused and wonder if they, in the circumstances of their lives, have been victims of crime themselves. I think of the case of Ashley Smith, for example. All of us who watched what happened to that young woman recognized that she was less the actor in a criminal act and more, through a series of horrific errors, a victim of incarceration and the impact from incarceration that ultimately led to her death. Had someone in her circumstances—and it would have been a much better circumstance—been released from prison and then at the same time been told she still had to pay that fine, where would she find the resources? How would she go on? Would she then end up having a counterproductive result, as the Elizabeth Fry Society says to us?

I want to close with the advice of the Canadian Bar Association. It says:

In our view, the proposed changes to increase victim fine surcharges beyond the reach of a greater number of people will lead to more defaults and more incarceration of the poor, and prevent judges from using their discretion to ensure a just result.

This legislation does not meet its objectives. Those who are victims of crimes should have access to adequate resources, but this is not the way to go about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has an unusual ability to integrate details that many of us miss within a much broader context of social and legal implications. I learned a lot from what she just said. It concerns me as well.

I would like her to take this a bit broader and talk not about the impact of victims within prison walls but about their families and what implications there might be for actually increasing the cost to society in a variety of ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, that has been a concern of a number of the witnesses who testified before the committee. If a fine is levied against individuals for a relatively minor offence and they lack the ability to pay, it essentially could recriminalize them and prevent them from being able to care for their dependents. That was one of the grounds we would now repeal, that a judge could have concern for whether there was undue hardship on the perpetrators of the crime, or on their families.

I remember this well. I was thinking of it earlier when the member for Cape Breton—Canso spoke of the progress that has been made by the Mi’kmaq people of Waycobah. Years ago, I remember reading the story in the paper of the criminal conviction of a young man from Whycocomagh, nearby, for the theft of a pizza from the local store. It was “theft under”. It was punishable by summary conviction. He had jail time, and under this new law he would also be immediately fined $100, for which there would be absolutely no recourse. That is a mistake. It would do damage to families, it would do damage to the individuals involved and it would add nothing to the overall health and wellbeing of our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned for quite a while that even when there is legislation that most of us agree with, like this—all of us want to see adequate protection and, if necessary, compensation for victims—the members of the government virtually never vote for any amendments to any of their legislation. They apparently feel that they have it perfect. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands may want to add to my comment that I hope this is one time that they will consider a small amendment to an important piece of legislation to prevent a big error and to improve the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to urge that we could, at report stage, make amendments. In this case, as in most cases, we have seen efforts made at committee. I want to particularly note that the former minister of justice, with whom I have worked on this file, who is currently the Liberal member for Mount Royal, has worked very hard on this as well and sees some of the same issues that I see.

Victim services are not advanced if we create more people in prisons. I completely support increasing the fine. I completely support that we track the funds and make sure they are going from provinces to victim services. However, it certainly is wrong to remove judicial discretion. Only a judge, having watched an accused in a proceeding, having tested the evidence, and at the point of sentencing, has the ability to look at the accused person and decide whether applying the fine would be in the interests of public security and safety, or counterproductive.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with interest. However, there are many aspects of this program that she failed to mention, such as the fine option program that is available in virtually every province and territory of the country. There are other systems in place where it is not available. Someone tasked with paying a victim surcharge can pay it off with community service or the like.

These surcharges that we are talking about are $100 for a summary conviction and $200 for an indictable offence. We are not talking about onerous fines, nor will people go to jail for non-payment unless they refuse and are in contempt of court.