Lost his last election, in 2006, with 40% of the vote.
The Criminal Code October 3rd, 1996
They vote against increased sentences. They vote against our efforts to help control violence in Canadian society. They try to have it both ways. They say they want increased criminal control, but when they have the opportunity to vote for it in the House what do they do? They vote against it. It is very difficult to understand the logic of that type of system.
The Criminal Code October 3rd, 1996
It classified the smuggling of firearms as an enterprise crime that carries up to a 10-year sentence.
Mr. Speaker, you can hear all the noise in the Chamber because they hate being told that the government is dealing with the justice issues. They simply ignore them and every time they vote against them.
The Criminal Code October 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-55. It deals with an issue of great importance to my constituents, the whole issue of public safety and protecting Canadians from violent offenders.
While the proposals in this bill introduce tough new measures to deal with high risk offenders in our society, they also introduce a number of initiatives to deal with non-violent offenders who are at low risk at reoffending.
The proposed sentencing and corrections reforms incorporated in the bill build on current criminal and correction laws. They extend controls over those people convicted of sex crimes and other violent offences and aim to reduce the risk of repeat offenders.
One of the most significant parts of these proposals is the establishment of a new sentencing category. This category is to be called long term offender and I believe this is an important new designation that will work well for the better protection of society as a whole.
Most people are familiar with the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code because this designation has proven to be a useful mechanism for sentencing serious offenders who pose a high risk of committing further violent offences.
This long term offender designation would be equally effective. Long term offenders would be subject to an application procedure similar to that of a dangerous offender. The procedure would apply to people convicted of sexual assault and other sexual offences.
Under the proposal the convicted person found at a special hearing to be a long term offender would be subject to an appropriate sentence and an additional supervision period of up to 10 years.
Every long term offender would also be subject to standard conditions such as keeping the peace and not being allowed to possess firearms. Further specialized conditions can also be added to ensure close supervision of the offender such as regular reporting to an assigned supervisor and mandatory participation in counselling, electronic monitoring and other rehabilitation programs.
I support this initiative and I support the government in its attempt to make our homes and streets safer for all Canadians.
Bill C-55 goes even further. Not only is the category of long term offender being created, the dangerous offender provisions are also being strengthened.
Because under the current law a judge has the discretion to sentence a dangerous offender to a fixed term, under these new proposed changes a judge will no longer have the discretion and will be required to impose an indefinite sentence, thus better protecting members of our society from these dangerous and repeat offenders and keeping them behind bars.
In addition, the crown will now have up to six months after conviction to bring in a dangerous offender application. Currently the application must be made at trial. Sometimes new information surfaces after the completion of a trial and this new information may be critical to the service of justice and to the protection of society from dangerous offenders. I definitely support this proposed change as well.
The reforms to Bill C-55 are simply the latest initiatives in a long series of federal justice initiatives designed to better protect Canadians.
Members of the third party stand in this House day after day and suggest that the government is not fulfilling its obligation to protect Canadian society against criminals, against violence. That is absolutely wrong. The Minister of Justice has produced strong legislation in this House time and time again that protects Canadians. The really strange thing about this is every time he proposes increased sentences, every time he proposes better protection of Canadians, the third party votes against it.
When we proposed and passed legislation that would have increased sentences for young offenders who commit violent crimes, the government supported it. It was government legislation. Look at the Reform Party. A vast majority of its members voted against young offenders who commit violent offences from having longer sentences. Check Hansard . The majority of them voted against it.
For my colleagues opposite, I will list some things. This one they will find difficult to deal with. We have created a national crime prevention council because part of dealing with criminals, part of dealing with justice in society is to work toward dealing with some of the underlying causes.
The third party might have some difficulties with that concept but we have dealt with it. We instituted a flagging system for use by Canadian police to identify high risk offenders.
We established a new mandatory five year sentence for those convicted of using violence to force children into prostitution. I guess that is being soft on criminals. We classify as first degree any murder committed while stalking. I guess that is being soft on criminals, according to the third party.
We have increased sentences for those convicted of stalking and we have specifically dealt with the issue of eliminating the drunken defence and giving the police the tools and means to issue warrants so that they can get DNA samples. I guess, according to the third party, that indeed is mollycoddling to criminals. It is not.
We talked about violence in society. It was the government that introduced legislation that increased the minimum sentence for using a firearm in the commission of a criminal offence by 400 per cent.
Return To Canada Of Karim Noah October 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, further to my question to the Minister of Justice I wish to emphasize my constituents' concern about safe homes and safe streets for themselves and their families. They have made this clear during two very well attended forums in my riding to discuss justice initiatives which gave my constituents an opportunity to voice their concerns, in particular with reference to the Young Offenders Act.
The justice minister's initiative about dangerous and long term offenders is of great interest to me and to the people in my riding who attended those sessions and others. Tough new restrictions on high risk violent offenders will make Canadian homes and streets safer. These new initiatives go hand in hand with a whole series of initiatives designed to improve the quality of life for Canadians.
The list of these initiative is impressive: the creation of a national crime prevention council which works on strategies that address the underlying causes of crime; increased sentences for young offenders who commit violent crimes; the creation of a flagging system using the Canadian Police Information Centre to help provincial prosecutors identify high risk offenders; a new mandatory five-year sentence for those convicted of using violence to force children into prostitution; the classification as first degree any murder committed while stalking; increased sentences for those convicted of stalking; a specific outlawing of the practice of female genital mutilation.
We have introduced child support guidelines to help protect children from financial hardship resulting from marital breakdowns. We have increased minimum sentences by 400 per cent for those who commit crimes using a firearm. We have classified smuggling of firearms as an enterprise crime with a sentence up to 10 years. We have introduced amendments that end self-induced intoxication as a defence against crimes of violence. We have provided the basis on which police can serve warrants on suspects to take samples for DNA testing. We have improved legislation with respect to proceeds of crime.
I have reintroduced my private member's bill to establish a victim's bill of rights in the Criminal Code.
Added to this list are proposals to create a new category of long term offender. Long term offenders will include those convicted of sexual assault and other sexual offences. To better protect the community, offenders in this category will be subject to an additional period of supervision of up to 10 years after they have completed their parole and prison sentences.
Further, specialized conditions can be added to ensure close supervision of the offender such as regular reporting to the assigned supervisor and mandatory participation in counselling, electronic monitoring and other rehabilitation programs.
These are all good initiatives but once again, I say to the minister that it is essential that young offenders also be subject to the provisions and sanctions included in Bill C-55.
It is my hope that the justice minister will take this view into account when proceeding with this much needed and important legislation.
Prisons And Reformatories Act October 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the hon. member.
In his diatribe he mentioned that every piece of legislation put forward by this government protected the rights of anybody except that of society, or words to that effect. I do have a question with a number of parts that I would like to ask him.
I would like to know how these things protect criminals and ignore society. How can increased sentences for young offenders who commit violent crimes help criminals and not society? How can a new mandatory five year sentence for those convicted of using violence to force children into prostitution be helping criminals and not helping society?
How is the classification of first degree murder to any murder committed while stalking helping criminals and is not helping society? How is increased sentences helping criminals and not helping society? How is the fact that we have provided the basis upon which police can serve warrants on suspects to take samples of DNA helping criminals and not helping society? I would like to know how our outlawing of the so-called drunken defence is helping criminals and not helping society.
The government's agenda, the government's record on criminal issues is one of protection for Canadian society, one of recognizing the need to protect the rights of victims. We have done a good job on the criminal justice system in this country and the member opposite is absolutely wrong in suggesting that our legislation helps only criminals, not society.
Justice September 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Justice introduced measures to protect Canadians against violent long term offenders. It is an initiative that I applaud.
However, Canadians who are concerned about rising violent crime among young people want to know why the minister is not applying these new tough measures to young offenders.
Supply September 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I differ with the hon. member's interpretation of things. If we look at pollster after pollster who talks to Canadians, they come back each and every time and demonstrate confidence not only in the government but in the Prime Minister. The member is right that more work needs to be done, but 650,000 new jobs were created.
He went on to talk about nothing being done on the deficit. Indeed the deficit is coming down by $25 billion. Then he said that we cannot count new revenue coming in; that is not allowed. He ought to talk to the finance critic in his party who puts together its budgetary plan which calls for over $20 billion of new revenue to come into the government.
Maybe he would want to talk to his finance critic if he does not accept the fact that economic growth is one of the ways to bring down the deficit. Perhaps he wants to be like all the other Reformers who feel the only way to do it is to slash and burn and take away from the most needy Canadians. A balanced approach does things: economic growth along with sound fiscal management.
Supply September 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify a number of points the hon. member made.
In terms of comparing the government to a business, I said very clearly that the government had to operate in a businesslike manner but at the same time understand that it was not a business.
We undertake things in the House not to make a profit. We support medicare not to make a profit. We support Canadian over age 65 not to make a profit. We make sure there is an EI system not to make a profit but because government understands it has a social responsibility and acts collectively on behalf of all Canadians. It is important to understand that.
We talked a bit about fiscal management. What is the fiscal management of the government? I will remind the hon. member of a $25 billion reduction in the deficit and collective savings of $28.9 billion. That is fiscal management.
The hon. member talked about propaganda. I want to tell all members in the House and everyone watching television that having pride in Canada, being patriotic about the country, understanding its history or living day by day with a love of the country in one's heart is not propaganda. It is being a good Canadian. I am proud of the country and the Canadians who live in it.
Supply September 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to talk about the main estimates.
I would like to begin my comments by clearly and unequivocally stating that I support the government in its spending estimates. I also support the adoption of the full estimates. I reject all of the amendments that have been placed on the Order Paper by the opposition.
I support the Prime Minister, the finance minister and indeed all of the cabinet. I believe and the Canadian people have demonstrated in poll after poll they understand that we have demonstrated sound fiscal management of this nation over the past three years. That is reflected in poll after poll where we hear Canadians saying very clearly that they have confidence in the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party but have very little confidence in those parties which sit opposite in this House.
There is a very clear reason for that. It is because the Liberal government clearly understands that it has a dual responsibility in government. It understands that it has a fiscal responsibility. It understands that it is necessary to make sure that there is full value for every tax dollar that is spent and that Canadians have an efficient government and one that is operating like a business although understanding that it is not a business.
Besides the fiscal responsibility, this government understands that it has a social responsibility. We collectively have a social obligation to each other in society. We have operated in this nation for well over 50 years with a collective understanding that we will not allow individual Canadians to fall below a certain level.
When people go to a hospital in this country the first question they are asked is not how much money they have or what is their insurance plan. They are asked: "How are you ill and how can we help"?
We have people in this country who need social support from the government. This government is determined that it will adhere to that social responsibility in addition to its fiscal responsibility.
The sound management of our country has worked well. It has led to good economic fundamentals which have led to economic growth, which has increased job creation, all while maintaining those critical support programs for Canadians.
I would like to spend a few minutes looking at the responsibilities the government has undertaken, both fiscally as well as on the social side. The Minister of Finance in his last three budgets has clearly demonstrated sound fiscal management.
We have taken the nation from a deficit of approximately 6.4 per cent of GDP and as we promised in this fiscal year we will have reduced that amount to 3 per cent of GDP. The minister in his last budget went beyond that and indicated it will be 2 per cent of GDP in the following fiscal year.
Percentages can sometimes be difficult to grasp. To put it in dollar terms, the finance minister will be reducing the deficit by some $25 billion. Even more important than the actual amount of the deficit reduction has been what has been done in terms of borrowing needs, the actual amount the government must borrow from the markets, the amount on which is incurred additional interest costs. When the government came to power it was borrowing almost $30 billion annually. By the next fiscal year it will be reduced to $6 billion. It will be the lowest level of borrowing by a federal government in almost 30 years. That is the key. If borrowing is reduced, interest costs will be reduced. If interest costs are reduced then financial resources are available to use in other critical areas. The government has done that well.
The government has done a good job of reducing expenditures. The program review undertaken by the President of the Treasury Board shows a $14 billion expenditure reduction. The government has gone from a program expenditure of 16 per cent of GDP down to 12 per cent. That 12 per cent figure is the best a federal government has done since World War II. Since World War II it has done as good or better than any other government in taking control of its program expenditures.
When we look a the cumulative effect of the finance minister's three budgets and the cumulative effect on the 1998-99 budget period, it will be collective savings of $28.9 billion. That is a government that is committed to sound fiscal management and committed to keeping its expenditures under control.
The size of government has been reduced. The size of the civil service has been reduced. We are making sure that government does things right, prudently and efficiently.
We made another major change from previous governments with absolutely no increases in personal income tax. Compare than to what the finance minister mentioned during question period, the 39 tax increases in the previous government's regime.
We do not have sound fiscal management just for the sake of it. The interest is not just simply to keep individuals on Bay Street, Wall Street or Tokyo or London markets happy. That is not the motive for sound fiscal management. The motive is to create an environment in which jobs can be created. Sound fiscal management is allowing things to happen because we have been able to see strong economic fundamentals exist in this country. These strong economic fundamentals are allowing the private sector to do what it does best and that is create jobs. It is working.
The unemployment rate has dropped from 11.1 per cent to 9.3 per cent and 650,000 new jobs have been created. Is it enough? Is it something to which we just say great and rest? Obviously not. There is much more work to be done on the job creation side. Good and substantial progress has been made. It is coming about because of sound management by the government. Those economic fundamentals that I speak of are familiar to us all but I would like to enunciate some of them because it is important.
Interest rates are low. They have dropped almost four points in the last year. Indeed, for the first time in a long time, short term interest rates are actually below those of the Americans. That has a real and important impact on Canadians. If there is a three point decrease in interest rates and a person's $100,000 mortgage comes up for renewal, that means a saving of about $3,000 a year in after tax dollars. That is putting money back into the hands of Canadians. It is stimulating consumer demand and creating jobs.
Inflation is at its lowest sustained level in 30 years. It is a strong economic fundamental that is encouraging people to invest in Canada, to invest in jobs.
Canadian exports have increased by 40 per cent in the last three years. The government has worked hard in that area, on the whole Team Canada approach where the Prime Minister has gone abroad and helped sell Canadian business. Through the Team Canada approach, almost $20 billion in new trade contracts have been put together.
As I mentioned earlier in continuing with economic fundamentals, the reduction of the deficit and, most important, the reduction of borrowing needs means that the government is no longer crowding out the private sector for much needed investment capital. All these economic fundamentals are leading to job creation. Six hundred and fifty thousand-plus jobs is the net increase since the government took office.
The Liberal government also understands that there are times when it is necessary to directly intervene in critical areas of the economy to help with job creation and with employment. In the last budgetary cycle and since, there have been some good examples of the targeting of resources to areas where they are needed and where they will have the best impact.
In the last budget the finance minister announced a $315 million investment in youth employment, an area of critical importance, an area of critical need. The government has recognized it and has responded to it.
High technology is a growth area in Canada. It is an area that is capable of creating jobs in large numbers. The government has invested in the high technology area.
The Minister of Industry announced a $150 million fund which will grow to $250 million to help support growth in the high tech area. It is not simply government throwing the money at the high tech area. It is being done in partnership with the private sector, with a sharing of risk and a sharing of reward on those things that are successful. There has been a $50 million investment in the Business Development Bank of Canada to assist in the high tech field, again to support emerging growth industries that can help create jobs.
I mentioned one of the fundamentals. The export area is an area of growth and an area of job creation. The last budget had a $50 million increase in the money available to EDC to help firms that are exporting.
Over the three years of the government, important investments have been made. The infrastructure program was widely accepted across the land. It has helped not only create short term jobs, but also long term jobs by putting in place the infrastructure that is needed for the development of industry that is needed for the development of long term jobs. That has taken place as part of this infrastructure program.
There has been other assistance for job creation. The Minister of Human Resources Development has put together a $300 million transitional fund which is meant to help areas of high unemployment with economic development and job creation. It is a specific need, and a specific action has been taken to meet that need.
We have seen the five employment tools brought out as part of the employment insurance reform which will help individual Canadians in obtaining employment and helping them to be reintegrated into the workforce.
The government has always understood that one of the engines of the economy, one of the things that drives job creation, drives economic growth, puts the people back to work, particularly in an area like mine of Parry Sound-Muskoka, is the support of the small business sector. It is the engine that drives the economy. It is where new jobs are being created in the Canada of 1996 and well on into the 21st century.
Many things have been done to help in that area. A major thing has been working to increase the access to capital for these businesses, not simply by saying that government can be the lender to all businesses, but by working with the private sector to insist that it provides additional capital to the small business men and women, the entrepreneurs who are out there.
Over the last two years through the work of the industry department and in particular the industry committee, a number of tools have been developed with the chartered banks: a code of conduct that governs the relationship between a bank and the small business person; an alternative dispute resolution system; a mediation process when there are disputes; an ombudsman in each of the banks; an industry ombudsman that can deal with problems that cannot be dealt with within the organization.
Most important, the banks have agreed to provide Parliament quarterly with their small business lending statistics. Then we can evaluate. We will know it is not just words we hear that these codes of conduct mean something. We can actually see what their lending is to small businessmen and women in this country. We can react when we do not believe it is happening the way it should.
These are important tools. Progress is being made. Much yet needs to be done in terms of access to capital but progress is being made and we are working to help small businessmen and women.
There are some direct things we have been able to do in that respect as a government. The amount of money available to the Business Development Bank of Canada this past year has been increased from $3 billion to $15 billion. There is the small business loan program, a government guaranteed loan program, which the chartered banks and others administer. That has been increased from $4 billion to $12 billion, again to allow more access to the small business sector.
The Minister of Industry began the community investment plan. Communities will be allowed to bring together the small business people in their areas with individuals who have investment capital. The two will be brought together in partnership to help their individual communities grow.
Recently I had an opportunity to work with both the chartered banks and the community futures organizations. They have entered into a program that will see $2 million flow from the chartered banks to community futures in rural Canada, rural Ontario. This will provide more capital at the higher risk end. Small businessmen and women who are having difficulty accessing capital can go to the community futures and be able to borrow.
Obviously we have worked hard in the area of small business to provide it with the tools it needs to create jobs in our communities.
It is not just a matter of fiscal management, it is not just a matter of getting the economic fundamentals right. All of that is important in government, but we also have to remember our social responsibility, and this government lives up to that very much.
Look at some of the expenditure figures from the last budget: OAS, $21.9 billion; employment insurance, $13.8 billion; CHST,
$26.9 billion; veterans affairs, $1.8 billion. This is a government that cares about individual Canadians.
In conclusion, when evaluating whether or not these things have worked for Canada, when you evaluate whether this government has done a good job for Canada it is simply a matter of asking some questions. Is the unemployment rate down? Yes it is. Are more Canadians working today than three years ago? Yes there are. Has the deficit been reduced in the last three years? Yes it has. Are expenditures down? Yes they are. Are interest rates down? Indeed they are, by more than three points. Are exports up? Yes, 40%. Has our tourism deficit been reduced? Absolutely, by more than $3 million. The best question to ask, and it has been asked three years in a row by the United Nations, is Canada the best country in the world? Absolutely, it is the best country in the world. We have made good progress as a government. There is still much to be done and we are committed as a government to doing it.
Our government's actions and performance has been one of strong actions, hard work and most of all, as I just indicated, one of accomplishments.
Community Credit Project September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud a new initiative which will put an additional $2 million into the hands of small business people in rural Ontario. The Community Credit Project is a result of a partnership between the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Ontario Association of Community Development Corporations and represents an example of Industry Canada's efforts to increase small business access to capital.
Scotiabank has agreed to make $2 million in wholesale loan funds available at below market rates to eight community development corporations that will administer the loans under their existing network. This will provide viable businesses with access to much needed higher risk start-up and expansion capital, directly addressing one of the greatest obstacles to small business growth and development in Ontario.
This is an effective partnership between a private funding source and an existing public delivery network that positively impacts job creation in rural Ontario. I congratulate the sponsors.