Brian Murphy

[Truth in Sentencing Act, June 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-25, the truth in sentencing act. I intend to go through the bill briefly and point out where we in the Liberal Party can in principle support the bill and where we have a few problems.

I might say at the outset that the overall bill is one we can support. However, along with a lot of other justice bills, it will put a lot of pressure on the system of rehabilitation and incarceration. As such, we want to be sure the government gets the message that even though these bills are coming down the pike, it should resource the corrections facilities and agencies in charge of those facilities with sufficient resources to do the job.

I might start with clause 1 of the bill itself, which says “Truth in Sentencing”. I understand the aim is to try to codify, to regularize, to give reasons for the time given in remand for sentences accorded.

However, there is something pejorative in “truth in sentencing”. It implies there was untruth in sentencing. Inasmuch as sentencing is a judicial function, I see this title as another example of the unrelenting attack that the government has had on the judiciary in general.

We know that upon the Prime Minister being elected, or maybe it was just prior, he talked about Liberal judges. Judges are judges are judges. Once they becomes judges, there ought to be more respect for them. I find that a little objectionable.

I wish the Attorney General, the parliamentary secretary and the government in general would take a little more care to step away from the Reaganesque or Bushesque habit, it seems, to tell the public through the label what kind of legislation they are proposing rather than concentrating on the actual impact of the legislation.

Clause 2 talks about amending section 515 of the Criminal Code by adding a section that is trying to get justices to put in writing the details of what credit, if any, they are going to give for remand time. It is a good idea.

I think judges across the country will embrace this idea. Instead of being given a form that is a bit vague as to how they arrived at the sentence and what, if any, credit they are giving for remand time, the form, which would be new form 21 in clause 4, combined with the effect of clause 2, tells judges very clearly whether they are going to give extra credit for remand or bucket time, which is time in facilities where there are no programs, there may be issues of overcrowding and safety, and in some cases there is limited access to the outdoors, to recreation.

We have to understand that this is a province by province and institution by institution situation, which only an individual judge can deal with. A judge can look at the circumstances of the remand in question and give, even under this act, up to 1.5 days for one day served in remand. However, he or she must state the reasons. It is a good thing, and I think judges will look forward to having forms presented to them that make some sense.

The crux is found in clause 3, which amends subsection 719(3) of the Criminal Code. It says that the benchmark will be one day for one day in remand time. In circumstances, when reasons are given, it can be 1.5 days. In exceptional circumstances, where a person has already violated bail and therefore is not allowed to have this 1.5 days, we think there remains some discretion for judges to say that in certain circumstances 1.5 days would be given, unless that person has already violated bail and shown that he or she has no respect for the justice system.

I mentioned there is a new form 21, which judges will applaud. This law is a bit of a housekeeping arrangement. It tells judges and prosecutors that they have to clean up their paper trail as to how they treat people with their incarcerated time.

A national justice survey commissioned by the Department of Justice in 2007 shows there was general public approval for reducing sentences to compensate for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. A little more than three-quarters, 77%, were of the opinion that credit for time in pre-sentencing should be allowed in cases of non-violent offences. However, more than half believed, and this is the important part, that no credit should be allowed for persons convicted of serious violent crimes.

We concur with that. We think that is sensible. We do not always knee-jerk agree with what the Canadian public believes, but in this instance it seems to make sense to those in the House who ask why people in the justice system should get extra credit in the case of a very serious violent offence. We do not think that is correct.

What is disturbing is that there is this whole body of practice without reasons, which I frankly think is the lawmakers' fault. Lately we have been prorogued into inaction and all the bills have been jettisoned by the political appetite of the government in power on any day. We have had too many elections and too little work done on the housekeeping aspects of the Criminal Code. It has led to judges saying that in the absence of clear direction on how they are supposed to give a person credit for time spent in a horrible remand situation they are going to include it by deduction in the overall sentence. By sleuth, there has been a credit given without reasons. This says to judges that they have to give reasons there is remand time credit given.

Double time became the benchmark. By dereliction of duty, which parliamentarians have to share, it seemed that two-for-one became the benchmark of justices in this country. The courts have basically made that a common practice, but as in the case of Dadgar, a Quebec Court of Appeal case, it was never automatic. The public pronouncements that judges were giving two-for-one credits willy-nilly and that it was a rule is not exactly correct.

We did deal with this at committee, and I want to bring attention to the pressing need of the government to understand there is going to be a capacity crisis if it continues to bring in legislation that crowds our facilities. Don Head, of Correctional Service Canada, gave the following evidence:

In the long-term, CSC will have to look to construct more permanent accommodation, including the construction of new units or institutions to manage the population growth--

Notwithstanding the impacts of the bill,

And I think he was a bit in the crosshairs of everybody, especially government-side MPs, when he said:

--the Correctional Service of Canada is committed to continuing to fulfill its mandate to manage the sentences of federal offenders and to ensure public safety results--

I felt a bit sorry hearing him, because I am sure that if the shackles, using a bad corrections pun, were off him, he would say he does not have enough resources to ensure there will be adequate corrections facilities for the mandate he has been given.

More importantly, Howard Sapers, who is the corrections ombudsman, has basically said that the bill itself will lead to a significant increase in the offender population managed by CSC. It is very clear there is going to be more population, and it is not as clear in looking at items in the budget presented by the federal government that there will be adequate resources.

We feel this law will bring clarity to time served. We think that is a good thing. Judges are looking for direction and they would agree with this housekeeping aspect. But if as a consequence there are more people going to Correctional Service Canada facilities or provincial facilities, then it is very incumbent upon the government, the Minister of Public Safety, to ensure there are adequate resources to prevent conditions of overcrowding so we do not get in trouble with international human rights obligations, charter rights obligations and basic human obligations of being in conditions that are adequate.

It is not the concern of this bill, but it is very much the concern of the government, and I want to make sure we are on record as saying that the government better be concerned with it. It better be concerned with it because it is the government's duty and fiduciary obligation and we will hold its feet to the fire as this bill goes forward.

[David Humphrey, June 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Hon. David Humphrey, who died on May 17. Justice Humphrey was a leading criminal lawyer in Toronto for nearly 40 years prior to his appointment to the bench. He defended accused persons from all walks of life during his career. He achieved great success and received acclaim as one of the great counsel of his day.

He was passionate about justice, and always empathized with those who found themselves in the criminal justice system.

Prior to the coming of Legal Aid, he often acted in serious cases pro bono. During his career, in the 1950s and the 1960s, David Humphrey often acted without fee, even in capital cases.

When he was appointed to the bench, he soon acquired a reputation for not shying away from a stiff sentence when the crime warranted it.

He rejoiced in the nickname “Merciful Dave”.

Mr. Speaker, permit me to express the thanks of the bar, the House and all Canadians on the passing of this great Canadian.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the hon. member. I cannot disagree with her remarks about rehabilitation and the need for resources, but this is not a budget debate. It is a debate on a specific bill.

The Conservatives finally seem to be learning something from three and a half years of opposition members' railing in committee about the efficacy of bills. I think she would at least concede that one of the novel parts is the reporting back to Parliament on the efficacy of this bill.

The second part is the aspect of diversion to the drug treatment court system, although sparsely situated in the country and under-resourced. It goes with her theme and it is a good thing.

Finally, will she admit that attorneys general across the country have been asking for such legislation for dealing with trafficking offences?

Our visit as a committee to British Columbia brought it home, and Dave Chomiak, the Attorney General for Manitoba, brings it home as follows:

Canada has become a source country for marijuana exports and, to a lesser extent, methamphetamine exports. Commercial level drug trafficking and grow operations are closely linked to criminal gangs and violence associated with competition over illegal drug markets and other drug related disputes.

He calls on the government to do something. He is not alone. Almost every attorney general in Canada is asking for this.

They steer the justice system at the provincial court level and the corrections facilities for provincial offences in their own provinces and territories. How can we ignore their pleas totally?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, June 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to say a few words on the Bloc Québécois Motion No. 288. The other day I spoke briefly on another motion from the Bloc and I was not in favour of it. Today, however, I am extremely proud to support the Bloc motion. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should reconsider its decision to eliminate the funding channelled through the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to non-profit bodies active in the economic development sector, and reinstate their funding.

I am not from Quebec, but from New Brunswick, its neighbour. The Conservative government has a habit of cutting funding and acting without any consideration toward the agencies for the promotion and economic development of the regions of Canada. I am in favour of this motion because the Conservative government has done a lot of damage to Canada's economic development agencies, and more specifically, as this motion says, the agency for the regions of Quebec.

The hon. minister of state has recently announced that the Economic Development Agency would be reinstating the funding to these bodies, but this is not true. Let us be clear and precise about this. The things that the government has done to that agency are unjust and do not respect the goals of promoting this country's economic development agencies. I must point out something: the same goes for my Atlantic region.

For example, in the region of Atlantic Canada, by the change to the method by which transfers were made to the province of New Brunswick, the province of New Brunswick will receive this year $29 million less than it would have received had a Liberal government been re-elected in the election of 2006. This is happening across the country.

What is really telling is that in this case, the cuts to the agency we are speaking of in particular have been continuous and without replacement. There has been a 45% decrease in the funding to this agency in the province of Quebec.

As I said before, I stand in unison with my friends from the beautiful province de Quebec, not because it is a Quebec issue, but because it is a national issue. It is an issue that affects all regional economic development agencies, but in particular, we are speaking about this agency.

In my view, the Conservative government does not believe in regional development. There is a quote from the Prime Minister, which I would like to share with the House. It is quite instructive on why this step has taken place, why we, as opposition members, should be against its vision of Canada and Quebec and why we should be in support of this motion. The quote is from Global News, February 24, 2002:

We have in this country a federal government that increasingly is engaged in trying to determine which business, which regions, which industries will succeed, which will not through a whole range of economic development, regional development corporate subsidization programs. I believe that in the next election we got to propose a radical departure from this...

If this were a debate about language policy or how the Prime Minister truly feels about Atlantic Canadians or bilingualism, as I mentioned, we could go back to the famous speech in Montreal of 1997, but on this side, we do not like to go back and harp on past sayings and past personal statements of leaders. This is only in 2002 and it is specifically about regional development agencies. It is very clear that from the top, down, the Prime Minister had it in mind to make cuts, such as were visited upon this agency, from the day he was elected by minority vote in 2006.

The dramatic change in application requests is clearly a sign that the Conservative government has changed the rules and made it much more difficult to obtain financial assistance. The Conservatives have proven they cannot make government work on their own when we need it. They have a mere 4% success rate when it comes to the delivery of their own programs. Not only are they, in this very instance, cutting the very core funding to programs and cutting the very existence of the agency in question, they are making the agencies less effective as they stand. It is almost as if they wish for all of these agencies to disappear, which was, I think, what the prime minister-in-waiting, the leader of the opposition in 2002, really wanted to happen in the first place.

The guts of the motion is to reinstate the 2005-06 levels of funding, and that would be up to the level of $400 million. The government has cut funding to regional development and made it more difficult for organizations.

The second point in my short speech is with respect to the not-for profit agencies, which are in many cases cultural in nature. It goes to the very core value of the Conservative government with respect to cultural agencies.

Despite all of the rhetoric from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the fact is the government stands against the idea of cultural agencies. I believe it feels that culture and the support for cultural agencies and institutions should come from the private sector.

If we look back on previous comments of groups such as the National Citizens Coalition and the Fraser Institute, I think the bedrock of Conservative ideology, the ideology that should be apparent not in the words but in the actions of the other side, is this private sector support for cultural agencies and not-for-profits. The Conservatives believe that with respect to child care. They believe that with respect to broadcasting, with their non-support of CBC's request for bridge financing. However, of late, in an attempt to appear perhaps a little more, shall we say, liberal in their approach to not-for-profits and cultural agencies, they have not been as explicit in their hard core Conservative ideology against regional agencies, cultural agencies and institutions.

The motion and the debate around it serves to re-establish the debate about what is left, what is right and what is centre.

It is important for Canadians and Quebeckers to know that a debate is going on at this time concerning cultural issues and the support to this country's economic development agencies.

A debate is taking place with respect to whether Canadians believe in things such as bilingualism, support for culture and the arts and support for regional development. I cannot say that the report card for the government is very good with respect to the latter, which is precisely what this motion is about.

I suspect from reading the cards here, when most of the elected politicians in the province of Quebec support this motion, which challenges the government's decision to leave to its own devices the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions in the province of Quebec, it is very clear to me that the debate has been lost by the Conservatives, particularly those Conservatives from Quebec who should realize their time has come and that the majority of people who represent the province of Quebec will not support a government that cuts aid to regional development agencies.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It is a very tough question, perhaps.

The member is probably getting even with me for the fact that I made some ageist remark about schools and his hair, and I want to apologize for that.

Clearly, he is on the right point. We struggle with it every day at justice. As to whether there is an attack on judicial discretion posed by much of what the Conservative government brings forward, in many cases, there is. There is such little respect for the judiciary over there.

Also, judges do not have a voice or an opportunity to come to the justice committee, to Parliament and so on, but they would tell you if given a chance that they do like clear direction in legislation. Ninety percent of the appeal court decisions are tied up with questions about legislation that was not carefully drafted, or thought of, or clear.

It seems me in this case that there is clear indication that the judge must do certain things in certain circumstances. There is a devolution of some discretion to prosecutors in some cases. They are very much a part of the system as well and have not been heard from too much in this whole debate.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, clearly there is an issue with respect to capacity in our corrections facilities, but to look at criminal law and say, “Well, we better not punish something that is punishable because we have backlog” is not the right response.

The right response, and I hope we are united on this, is to push the government to give proper resources to provinces through transfers. As a result of the Minister of Finance's conversion to per capita financing for provinces, my own province has seen a cut of some $40 million in transfers, which will create a problem. It is time for us to do our work and get on the government with respect to those issues.

With respect to sentencing in general, I refer to section 718, which includes more than the principle of rehabilitation. It includes principles of denunciation and deterrence. They are there.

The difference between her party and that party and our party is that we believe in all the principles in section 718: rehabilitation, deterrence, denunciation and others.

The Conservatives only believe in denunciation and deterrence, and it seems that the NDP only believes in rehabilitation.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is a nice way of sliding by the hard questions I asked of the government in my speech to do something about rehabilitation and treatment. There are all these laws. It is almost like the Minister of Justice is sending all these buns in a bakery production line to the Minister of Public Safety.

Are we going to be sure that the government is going to take care of the orders it already has with respect to the criminal justice system in terms of incarceration and treatment? We hear about treatment everywhere in terms of spreading out the distribution of the drug treatment courts.

I am a father of three young children. I have been practising law for 26 years. Goodness gracious. I do care about the safety of my community. I think it is something that combines all of us in our belief. We believe in the safety of our community. If this minor tool will make the school grounds of our country and my riding better, I am for it, but by no means should that member think that he is off the hook and that the Conservatives can ride off on some white horse, providing justice and safety in our communities.

By no means should he think that. He should get to work from the back row of his benches and persuade the guys on the upper bench that they should resource the elements that they have put into place already. They should read some literature on prevention and treatment, and get on with the game of actually having an anti-drug strategy instead of just having a 5 o'clock news conference.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was precisely our point. Trafficking is a serious offence. I think the NDP is playing to an audience that believes that recreational drug use in the privacy of one's own home is an all right activity and should not be captured by new laws of Parliament.

I am not going to weigh into that debate. As Tip O'Neill, another Irish politician, said, “All politics is local”. If one is trafficking in drugs near my children's school in Moncton, that should be punished. A minimum sentence in that regard for a person who is selling drugs is not a bad thing. The member talks about fearmongering. She talks about playing a political game. She and her party are playing a political game. They are trying to downplay what trafficking means.

She said in her own remarks that it is a serious offence punishable by up to 14 years. If it is a serious offence, what objection can there be to putting someone away who is trying to corrupt our youth near a school ground or trying to make money for the organized crime units in this country? She also has to remember that her party opposed mandatory minimums when they were first implemented by a Liberal government in certain specific circumstances. These are some of the circumstances that the people of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and I can live with.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate at third reading of the bill. Yes, we dealt with it at committee. I want to thank all members of the committee for bringing to the committee a very intelligent debate on anti-drug laws.

It is interesting and somewhat refreshing when we have a news story that is actually accurate. There is a news story today about the bill. There is one quote in there that says the following about the offences in the bill:

These are trafficking offences, these are people who are in the commercial business of selling drugs. If you're convicted of trafficking in drugs, I believe you should do the time that is indicated in this bill.

That is a quote in a national news story attributed to me, and I am happy the newspaper got it right, because it is exactly how I feel about the bill.

It is curious about the opposition to the bill. All that was printed from the perspective of the other opposition parties, and maybe they did not get their whole quote and that is fair, that has happened to all of us, but the only real quotes from the opposition are that we are going down the road the United States has gone and it has been a failure.

There is nothing quoted, and I have heard nothing in the House, and I would have listened in the House on the occasions I had to speak to this bill or in committee for the many hours we spent on these issues in general. I would have listened, had there been some compelling evidence to suggest that a person convicted of trafficking in drugs should not go to jail.

It is important because occasionally we lose sight of the fact that there is a whole book called the Criminal Code that talks about what the offences are. What is trafficking? It is very important that the public perception not be that we are trying to put people in jail who are in possession of small amounts of drugs, particularly marijuana. This is where the pressure point of the public seems to be, that if individuals have a joint, they will go away for six months under this new law. That is not the case.

We heard evidence from the Department of Justice officials, and even the government would admit that DOJ officials are not always on side with everything that is brought down the pipe. They said very clearly that would not be the case.

These are issues involving trafficking. Trafficking, under section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, has been interpreted by the courts variously, but for instance, “--distribution means the allocation to a number of people and accordingly, cannot occur where there is one recipient.--” That is a case from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

Another one: “--where the transportation by the accused of a narcotic is incidental to the accused's own personal use of the narcotic, as distinct from transportation as part of a transaction involving others, there is not an offence of trafficking”.

As my friend from Edmonton—St. Albert indicated, with his years of experience, it is not a walk in the park to convict somebody of trafficking in drugs. Trafficking in drugs, even marijuana, means that people are selling drugs for the purpose of a commercial gain. They are trying to increase the use of drugs.

Particularly, the bill gets into an issue that is very near and dear to me. The young children of our community are going to school in a different environment than when I went to school, and certainly when the member for Mississauga South went to school, which was considerably more years before I did. These are different times, and drugs are front and centre of the dangers that little children face every day. They walk to school. They go through playgrounds. They are faced with the possibility of being drawn into the net of drug use, which can ruin lives, families, and eventually may ruin our social mores in our community in general.

I sit back and think of what I am saying. Do I sound like a rabid Conservative? Am I a person who has become the Republican road show that we have seen for the last three years over there? When I look at the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, I know that he is a family man. I know that he is a church-goer. I know that he believes in social mores. I have to think that he does not think that putting traffickers back on the street again so they can corrupt our youth and our society is a good thing.

This is where we draw the line with our friends who are free-willing on drug use, on drug sales, on drug trafficking, and the Conservatives who would say, if George Bush did it, it is okay. That is why we are the party of the middle, the party of responsibility, and we say this is a good act.

This legislation targets trafficking. For the first time the Conservatives might be getting it right. They are saying that in order to avoid sending someone to prison on a mandatory minimum sentence, that individual would have the opportunity to take part in rehabilitation through diversion to a drug treatment court. These are great tools. They have been used extensively in western democracies for some time.

We have been critical of the government's national anti-drug strategy. Its strategy consists of a bunch of neoprene, blue placards placed in front of any television camera saying it has an anti-drug strategy.

Where is the funding for the drug treatment courts? Why are there not more drug treatment courts across this country? I live in Moncton, New Brunswick. New Brunswick is a province of this country. In fact, it is one of the first provinces of this country. There is no drug treatment court in New Brunswick, and that is a shame.

By supporting the bill we are saying to the Conservatives that for however long they might be government, and we all hope that might be a shorter time rather than a longer time, that they increase funding to diversionary tactics, treatment facilities and institutions like drug treatment courts.

The other aspect that the Conservatives are learning from the years of battering in justice committee is that it is important to have regular reports to committee and to Parliament with respect to how their legislation is doing. That is contained in section 8.1(1). Reporting to Parliament on the effect of this legislation would be a positive step.

The justice committee held one set of hearings in Vancouver. Members were astonished by the fact that marijuana, which in some popular parliaments might be seen as a recreational drug which makes one peaceful, is the currency of organized crime in western of Canada and probably in the rest of Canada as well. It is a serious problem.

We have to do something to include marijuana. I have heard nothing from the other opposition parties that it would be okay if it were crystal meth. Those members are trying to push the button of sensibility on the issue of moderate marijuana usage. It is wrong to think that marijuana and the trafficking of marijuana is part of our Canadian culture. It is not. It is part of the cashflow of organized crime.

We have been through this legislation. It is time to put the bill on the books and hold the feet of the government to the fire. Its anti-drug strategy must be something more than a 5 o'clock press conference.

With that in mind, I want to close my remarks by moving, seconded by the member for Cardigan:

That this question be now put.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton—St. Albert for his work on the justice committee. He is probably too modest to talk about it, but he has extensive experience in the courts in Alberta. He understands what happens in the courts, when not all of us around here do.

Based on his experience at committee and his experience looking at the law and this bill in particular, I want to ask the member whether he thinks that trafficking is a conviction that is easy to get. We are talking about trafficking, selling for commercial purposes, drugs that are harmful, that are the currency of organized crime in many instances, that get into our youth areas and that are certainly a scourge on our communities today.

The fear seems to be that one person possessing one joint on the way to a high school reunion or something is going to be caught by this bill. It is trafficking. Does he think these offences would be easily met in a court of law in this country?