Bill Siksay

[Foreign Workers, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was revealed that up to 60 foreign workers were doing tunnelling work on the new rapid transit line in Vancouver. Most of these workers earn as little as $5 per hour and work nine to ten hours a day, six days a week. The employer brings in these workers from Costa Rica, Colombia and Peru and pays them four to five times less than their Canadian counterparts.

This clearly violates foreign worker criteria that wages and working conditions must be comparable to those of Canadian workers.

Does the minister believe that this exploitation should be tolerated in Canada and, if not, what will he do to stop it?

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish that were true, but the bill includes a whole series of property crimes. It is not just violent crimes that are caught by the scope of the bill, and that is a serious problem with the legislation before us.

The member talked about an incident. I resent the implication that should this incident come before the courts, the judge will somehow be lenient on the people who perpetrated that kind of violent crime. I do not believe for a second that a judge goes to work every day with the intention of being lenient on people who commit serious, violent crimes. I do not think that is a characteristic of our criminal justice system. It is disrespectful to characterize and stereotype judges in that way. It is just not the way the system works and there is no proof of that kind of allegation.

Judges want to do the best job they can. They want to ensure that the sentences they mete out are representative and appropriate to the crimes that have been committed. I do not believe there is one judge in our country who wants to go easy on violent crime, not for one second.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the kind of program we need. I am glad the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has highlighted that work in British Columbia.

We need to work on the prevention side of the equation. We are falling down on that. We do not give the attention that young people need to divert them away from a potential life of crime. We do not deal with the question of drug addiction in our communities. We do not deal with the dislocation of families in our communities.

In my community of Burnaby the greatest crime problems are car thefts and break and enter. We know of the high correlation between those crimes and issues of drug addiction. Yet trying to get someone into a drug treatment program remains an incredibly difficult proposition in British Columbia.

If we could take that $250 million, which we estimate will cost the provincial correctional systems, and put that into drug addiction treatment programs, we would make a far more significant dent in crime in our communities than this proposed legislation ever has a hope of doing. We need to put our emphasis on that.

We need to look at our whole criminal approach to drugs as well. I am someone who believes that prohibition did not work with alcohol and it has not worked with drugs either. It has led to the same kind of criminal activity that we saw during the period of alcohol prohibition in the United States.

There are lessons to be learned, and there are better places to spend the money than what this kind of proposal would cost.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).

This is a very important topic. I want to come out right at the beginning of my remarks and say that I am a supporter of conditional sentencing. I think it has been an important addition to the remedies and the possibilities that are available in our criminal justice system.

Conditional sentencing was introduced in Canada in 1996. It was an innovation then and I think it has been an important part of our criminal justice system since then. It allows for sentences to be served in the community under certain conditions, rather than in prison, so it diverts people from the prison experience. The other options for punishment in our criminal justice system include fines, probation and ultimately imprisonment, but conditional sentencing was a new possibility that was an important addition to this system.

It was developed as part of an overall approach to sentencing, so it did not come out of the blue and it was not stimulated by an urge to be more lenient or to go easy on people. It was an attempt to broaden the range of sentencing possibilities available to judges in the system.

It was also an attempt to find appropriate options for expressing society's concern that laws be upheld, that appropriate punishment be meted out when laws are broken and that rehabilitation be a true possibility. These other options were necessary. We saw the failures of suspended sentences, of mere probation, of incarceration and the serious failure of incarceration to change behaviour and produce real rehabilitation. This came out of that concern to increase the possibilities and options.

Right now, about 13% of custodial sentences in Canada are conditional sentences. In my understanding, that makes it about 5,000 sentences per year. Always, as we heard the previous speaker say, the seriousness of the crime is taken into consideration, as is the responsibility of the offender for that offence. I want to read again for members the criteria that are part of the legislative basis for conditional sentencing.

There are four main criteria. One is that the offence for which the person has been convicted must not be punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. So where there is a mandatory minimum sentence, conditional sentencing does not apply, and those are already the crimes that our society recognizes as the most serious crimes that can be perpetrated.

The second of the criteria is that the sentencing judge must have determined that the offence should be subject to a term of imprisonment of less than two years. So even though the possibility of the maximum sentence can be very serious, it applies only to those situations where the judge has made a determination that the sentence would be less than two years.

Third, the sentencing judge must be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. Safety is a key component of sentencing and the use of conditional sentencing.

Fourth, the sentencing judge must be satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code, and those include quite a number of important ideas. The sentencing is to address the denunciation of unlawful conduct. It is to address the deterrence of the offender and others from committing offences; there is an example made. It is to address the separation of the offender from the community where necessary so the safety and protection of the community is paramount. Also, the rehabilitation of the offender is to be taken into consideration. The provision of reparation to victims or the community is another factor, as is the promotion of a sense or responsibility in the offender.

With this kind of criteria, it seems to me that by maintaining the relationship between the offender and the community those criteria are often best served. We cannot hide the offender away and pretend that none of these things happened. We cannot hide the offender away and pretend that there are not relationships that were broken and need to be restored. Conditional sentencing, under those kinds of criteria, is a crucial part of our criminal justice system.

Originally, I think, the intention was to divert more minor offences away from the prison system. Sometimes that is hard to understand when we have been victims of a crime, when we are involved in it so intimately and we see people not getting a jail sentence because of a crime they have committed.

There is concern around violent crimes and crimes involving serious injury, but I believe the current bill goes way beyond addressing that kind of concern in eliminating the possibility of a conditional sentence for any crime that is punishable by 10 years or more. By putting in that kind of criteria, I think we go away from addressing the concerns that have been raised in society.

We also know, and very clearly, that incarceration does not necessarily solve crime or lead to successful rehabilitation. The previous speaker used the term “schools for crime” in his remarks. Our prison system is often seen that way, as a great place for criminals to learn techniques, or a great way to expand one's criminal network while incarcerated.

We also know that incarceration leads to a higher incidence of reoffending. That is a statistic that has been proven time and time again. We also have a great example that incarceration does not work. We just have to look south of the border. The United States has a very high rate of incarceration that really has not affected the crime rate in the United States. So we know that incarceration does not work and that other options are vital to the system.

I also believe that judges should have some discretion. The judge is in the most appropriate and best place to judge the specific circumstances of the offender. Often we see sensational cases in the media and we see a sentence that just does not seem to make sense at first blush. Upon examination of some of the details as we look at the substantive and important considerations that went into the delivery of a conditional sentence, this is often seen in a very different and much more positive light.

Removing the option of conditional sentencing will have serious consequences on other sentences. I think it will lead to more suspended sentences, whereby judges who are looking for options will refuse to sentence someone to incarceration and will suspend the sentence instead. A suspended sentence does not have the kinds of conditions that are involved in a conditional sentence. There are no conditions in a suspended sentence.

I also think it could lead to shorter sentences generally. In that case, the shorter sentences of less than two years will put increased pressure on the provincial prison infrastructure. I think that new prisons will be necessary at the provincial level since the legislation that we are talking about applies only to sentences of under two years. There is a huge expense involved with this.

We know that it takes $125 a day to keep someone in a provincial jail. That is just over $50,000 a year. It is even more expensive in the federal system. That estimate varies from province to province, but that is an average. Let us say that 5,000 people per year are getting conditional sentences now, and let us say for the sake of argument that 1,000 of them go in some other direction. If 4,000 new jail terms are imposed, that could easily cost another $200 million to $250 million a year, not even counting the capital costs. That is just the cost of maintaining people in prison. As for building new prisons on top of those dollars, we have not had any allocation or any estimate of what it would cost the system to do that.

I think there is a serious question of the increased costs for the correctional system. We have not even dealt with the increased number of mandatory minimum sentences that the government is proposing under Bill C-10, which will have the same effect in the federal prison system. We are talking about huge increases in costs. I would much prefer that this kind of money go to attacking the root causes of crime, that it go to attacking poverty, attacking drug addictions, dealing with the alienation that people feel from Canadian society, and supporting families. I think that is where this money needs to be sent.

I see conditional sentencing as part of the whole movement around restorative justice. I think that keeping someone in the community, where the person and the community can take responsibility for re-establishing the relationship and for reparations and rehabilitation, is really important.

In my own community, the Burnaby Restorative Action Group on justice is working hard to establish a restorative justice program in my city, but it is meeting roadblocks every step of the way. The funding is not there to support that kind of important work. This is a community that wants to take responsibility for the crimes committed in that community. It wants to help people understand the impact of their crimes and be rehabilitated for those crimes. We need to support these kinds of initiatives like restorative justice and conditional sentencing. We need to maintain that kind of discretion in the system.

Those are my thoughts on conditional sentencing.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the past week a very prominent Canadian passed away. He would have been very interested in the debate this afternoon. Bernard Ostry was a public servant for a long time in Ottawa and in Toronto. He specialized in cultural policy. He was well known for his work in the areas of telecommunications policy and communications, culture and multiculturalism policy. National museums was also an area in which he worked. For a long time he was the head of TV Ontario. If he were still with us today, he would have been very interested in the discussion today.

I want to pass on my condolences to his wife Dr. Sylvia Ostry and to his children Adam and Jonathan.

Given the outstanding contribution of Mr. Ostry to communications and cultural policy in Canada, could the hon. member reflect for a moment on the contributions of public servants to the development of that policy over many years?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will not engage in that kind of rhetoric, which is demeaning and ridiculous.

I have every confidence in members of the Canadian armed forces. They know how to do the jobs they are asked to do and they perform that job admirably around the world. When we send them to do a job, I want to ensure that they have the support of Canadians and that they do the kind of work Canadians want to see done on our behalf.

I am distressed that we may be unable to make a contribution to addressing the important issues in Darfur, to addressing what everybody seems to recognize is a genocide. Because of our overcommitment in Afghanistan, perhaps we will unable to play a role in Darfur. That is a very serious issue and I think Canadians want to see us address that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really keen about going through the whole debate we had here yesterday and the one we had weeks ago on Afghanistan.

I am concerned about the cost of the mission in Afghanistan. It has already cost Canada over $4.1 billion to be part of the military effort in Afghanistan.

I do not support a combat role for Canada in Afghanistan. It might be different if it were a UN exercise, if we were under UN command, but it is not. We are participating in an American exercise, a combat exercise. We are not there to separate combatants, which is our traditional peacekeeping role. We are there as an active combatant. Many people in my constituency do not support the Canadian military effort in Afghanistan.

If the member wanted to talk about development assistance for Afghanistan, I would be happy to engage in that. However, right now we are trying to deliver development aid by the military and we know is not working. In fact, I heard from a constituent, through his mother who lives in my riding, who is serving in Afghanistan. He talked about the efforts of the Canadian armed forces to build schools and dig wells in communities in the Kandahar region, only to leave that community and find them targeted by the opposition forces. That is the first thing they target when Canadians leave. That is not an effective way of delivering development aid. Constantly we see this happen in Afghanistan.

That is not the way Canada has chosen to deliver development aid in the past, and I have a serious problem with that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill.

I believe the Conservative budget is a missed opportunity, an overall disappointment and does not serve the people of Burnaby--Douglas well, which is why I voted against it earlier this session. I will talk about some of the issues that are important to my riding and some of the things that did not happen for my constituency.

A budget that includes over $7 billion in tax breaks for corporations and throws another $5 billion against the debt shows that there is a lot of room to do things for Canadians, such as invest in programs that mean something to Canadians, but the Conservatives made other choices.

We know families need those investments. In fact, families have been losing ground. In a study that looked at family income in Canada since the NAFTA agreement was signed, only the top 20% of Canadians were doing better, and dramatically better, whereas in every category below that the real incomes of families have gone down. That is not a good situation and does not speak well to the situation of most Canadians. We needed some investments in programs that help Canadians and help reverse that trend, which is totally inappropriate in our society today.

Furthermore, we have seen that the government can forgive $1 billion in illegal levies against our softwood lumber industry and ignore the fact that Canada won every decision under NAFTA panels. This comes from a government that supports the NAFTA agreement. It does not look like it is worth the paper that it is written on. If our neighbours to the south cannot abide by the terms of that agreement, then what good is it?

As well, last night we made a commitment in this House, unfortunately in my opinion, to start a new mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2007. We already know that the mission in Afghanistan has cost $4.1 billion and we know that our financial commitments will rise over the next few years.

The surpluses for the next five years have been projected at $83 billion and yet the budget did precious little to show how that would be spent to improve the situation of Canadians.

I now want to talk about immigration, which is important in my riding because almost 50% of the people of Burnaby--Douglas came to Canada from other countries. On the immigration file, we are seeing a trend from the Conservative government that we saw from the Liberals, where they announce over and over again the same things. We saw the commitments in the budget and in its platform but then, last Friday, the Prime Minister had a big event somewhere in Toronto and announced them all over again like they were brand new. What is even more interesting is that the media covered them like this was some new revelation from the government on immigration policy. It was not new. It was the same old stuff. We are going through that same cycle of announcing and re-announcing things that are already on the books and in the public domain. It is a strange way to run a program.

One of the components for which the Conservatives are very proud, and I agree that it is an important step, is the reduction in the right of landing fee from $975 to $490. That is money new immigrants need. When people move halfway around the world to start a new life in Canada, they need all the money they have to establish themselves here and acquire the basic necessities to re-establish themselves in a new country. The $975 fee hurt new immigrants dramatically at a time when they needed the money the most. When the Liberals introduced that, the NDP argued that it was an unfortunate tax that would hurt people at a time when they needed all their financial resources.

In this corner of the House, we, as New Democrats, have always called for the total elimination of that right of landing fee. The Conservatives only reduced it. If a $975 fee is wrong, then a $490 fee is wrong. This is money that people need when they arrive in Canada and it should remain in their pockets so they can use it as they see fit to establish themselves here.

We know about the significant financial pressure that new Canadians face and refugees face. These people need the dollars to which they have access. This could be considered an anti-poverty measure, given the rate of poverty among new Canadians. Unfortunately, it is a missed opportunity. The Conservatives could have done the right thing by getting rid of it all together. It is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.

The other aspect of the budget around immigration was an increase in settlement funding. That is necessary, and I applaud the Conservatives for that. However, we have not seen how they plan to dole out that money or the program that will accompany it.

In settlement funding we know there is a huge imbalance among provinces. If we want to talk about fiscal imbalance, all we need to do is look at settlement funding across the country. Quebec gets almost $4,000 from the federal government per immigrant. Ontario, under the terms of the agreement negotiated last fall, will get $3,800 per immigrant. British Columbia gets a third of that, around $1,000 per immigrant. There is a huge difference in how funding is distributed for settlement work in Canada. We know how absolutely crucial settlement funding is to the success of our immigration program. If we are not putting money into the adaptation and integration programs, or into language training, the success of new immigrants is dramatically affected. This is a very important aspect of the settlement program.

We need to ensure that all provinces and every immigrant gets the same amount of money directed toward the settlement programs they desperately need. We have to watch. We are all anxious to know how the Conservative government will roll out that program. We need to ensure there is increased funding for language training, that the skill level which comes through the language training offered to new immigrants is much higher and that professional language skills are included in this. We know that it is crucial to the success of our immigration program.

Right now there is greater competition for immigrants around the world. This afternoon in this place we will hear from the prime minister of Australia, Mr. Howard. Australia is now an increasingly stiff competitor with Canada for immigrants from around the world. There are many people who think Australia is winning that battle. If we are not paying close attention to the settlement program in our country, we will lose that battle for the best immigrants from around the world. We need to ensure that this is a key part of what we do as a society and that it is a key part of what the government does.

The other thing the Conservatives announced was $18 million over two years for an agency to deal with foreign credentials. We still do not know what that means. There is no plan. The minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration last week and could not illuminate any plan for what that agency would look like, what it would or how that money would be spent. This is an urgent need.

The Conservatives, when they were in opposition, talked a lot about the importance of international credentials and to ensure that when people came to Canada, they would be able to use their education, training and work experience. Every day they are out of the workplace and workforce, it gets harder for them to get back in. When they are away from the work they are trained to do and they do not keep on top of those skills, it becomes increasingly difficult to get back in.

We are not sure what this means yet. We have to keep the pressure on the government to follow up on its promise, to follow up on its campaign promise, to follow up on the work it did in previous parliaments and to ensure there is significant action that comes from this. The $18 million could easily be a drop in the bucket in terms of what is really necessary around the whole issue of international credentials.

A number of things are missing. There is no new money to deal with the backlog. In fact, at the citizenship and immigration committee, we heard that the backlog, which was 700,000 applications, is now up to over 800,000 applications. We are not making progress in that area.

The refugee appeal division, an inexpensive measure by any account of around $8 million a year, which would bring fairness to our refugee system, is not included in the Conservative budget. It is the law in Canada. The Liberals refused to implement the law. Now the Conservatives are refusing to implement the law. That is a serious problem.

There are no measures around family reunification. In fact, the minister addressed the standing committee. In the usual mantra about immigration to Canada, we usually hear about the needs of our economy and the need for the protection of refugees. Then we always hear about the importance of family reunification to both nation building and to families in Canada. That was missing from the minister's statement. Therefore, I am worried that it is a significant departure. We need to keep on top of this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the Pacific Gateway initiative as well because I do agree with the member for North Vancouver that there is a Pacific Gateway gap in the current budget. I also want to ask him about the project itself.

Many people in my constituency are concerned about the plan to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Highway 1. We know we cannot build our way out of traffic congestion and this will only dump more cars on to our roads.

A key part of the Pacific Gateway project that has not been addressed either by the Conservatives or the Liberals is the federal government's railway bridge across the Fraser River, a swing bridge which causes a huge backup in rail traffic. If we want to improve transportation, we have to fix that bridge. Why is that not part of the Pacific Gateway project?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments by the hon. member on the environmental aspects of the budget and what was and was not in the budget. In fact, the Green Budget Coalition has said that there is virtually nothing in the budget to make good on the government's throne speech commitment to tangible reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases. The coalition stated:

Furthermore, the federal government missed a great opportunity to announce the phase-out of the $1.4 billion in annual subsidies to the oil and gas sector, and the over $150 million annually to nuclear power. For decades, these “pollution subsidies” have contributed to market failure, industrial inefficiency, unsustainable energy consumption, and unnecessary pollution and health damage.

Could the member comment on why he thinks the Conservative government kept those $150 billion worth of subsidies to the oil and gas industry in its budget?