Brian Storseth

[Canadian Landmine Awareness Week, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 1999, the Ottawa treaty, formally known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, was ratified making it binding international law.

February 23 to March 1 marks the 10 year anniversary of the Ottawa treaty with Canadian Landmine Awareness Week.

Canadian advocacy groups and international organizations alike are taking action this week by once again drawing attention to the horrific effects posed by the indiscriminate use of landmines and cluster munitions.

Canada continues to recognize the grave effects of these inhumane weapons. As one of the original signatory states of the Oslo declaration and later the Convention on Cluster Munitions, I am pleased to say that Canada signed the treaty on December 3, 2008.

I would like to take this opportunity to applaud our government for its continued leadership on this file, as well as congratulate Mines Action Canada for its help in making the world a safer place, one minefield at a time.

May this year's Canadian Landmine Awareness Week be a success.

[Cold Lake Air Show, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our country has a rich aviation history.

On February 23, 1909, the Silver Dart airplane made history when, with John McCurdy at the controls, it became the first controllable powered aircraft to fly in Canada. About two weeks later, on March 10, 1909, McCurdy flew the aircraft on an astounding 20-kilometre circular flight around Baddeck Bay.

The year 2009 represents 100 years of powered flight in Canada. I am proud to support the Cold Lake Air Show 2009, a celebration of centennial flight.

4 Wing Cold Lake, in concert with the city of Cold Lake, the municipal district of Bonnyville and Cold Lake First Nations, will hold an air show to commemorate the importance of aviation in our region.

From the first Canadian flight in February 1909 to logistical and tactical training during World War II, the men and women of the Canadian aviation sector continue to be a point of pride for our nation.

I welcome everyone to join the people of the Lakeland area on August 1 and August 2 in celebrating our aviation history on the beautiful shores of Cold Lake.

[The Budget, January 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way mentioned some of her disappointments with respect to agriculture in this budget. I think it is important that we recognize what this government, the agriculture minister and the Prime Minister have done. She talked about farmers in her riding wanting more information. Farmers in my riding have lots of information. What they need is access to markets so that they can get the right price for their product.

That is what this government has been focusing on. Bilateral trade agreements that had not been signed for a dozen years have finally started to roll out under this government. Just this January we had an agreement in principle with Hong Kong that will double our market share to $26 million in the beef sector. There is $145 million for the advancement of the Canadian bio-based economy. There is $134 million for commercialization of new bio-based products. There is $22 million for AAFC research and development projects. That is the history of this government. There is $500 million for new agriculture and agriculture flexibility.

Can the member explain how she is actually going to vote against that?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright on the excellent speech he gave in the House recently. He talked about several numbers and refuted the opposition critic on several of his points. He did an excellent job of that.

He talked about something that none of the opposition members have talked about. He said that rather than stay in Ottawa hatching backroom deals, he has been in his riding. I would be interested in his expanding on what he is hearing from his constituents on this economic update and how it is affecting their lives.

[Agriculture, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today more Liberal MPs admitted that their leader's regressive carbon tax plan would crush family farms. This morning at the agriculture committee three Liberal members followed this government's lead and only one blindly followed his leader. This tax would destroy jobs, increase the home heating costs, electricity and gasoline.

Could the agriculture minister tell the House how the Liberal leader's plan for this new massive carbon tax would also affect farmers in my riding and across Canada?

[Carbon Tax Proposal, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader's carbon tax has no friends, certainly not among Canadian premiers. Even Ontario Liberal Premier McGuinty has spoken out against this punitive tax. Last week Saskatchewan Premier Wall said this tax would “knee cap” Saskatchewan's economy. Premier Stelmach perhaps said it best, “The western provinces are really supporting Canada's economy right now, so why would we want to move further and diminish our competitiveness and hurt the Canadian economy”?

Why indeed? Why does the Liberal leader want to raise the price of gasoline? Why does he want to raise the price of home heating fuels? Why does he want to raise the price of electricity? Why does the Liberal leader want to endanger manufacturing jobs in Ontario and cripple more than 500,000 jobs in Canada? Why does the Liberal leader want to raise input prices on our grains and oil seeds farmers just when they are starting to turn the corner and make a profit? How can taxing Canadians out of their jobs and their livelihoods be revenue neutral?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the time he has put in. It seems as though he is a little confused as usual.

He talked about all these initiatives, but he did not even mention Bill C-50 and what is actually in this budget bill. He did not talk about the $500 million to help improve public transit. He did not talk about the $400 million to help recruit new front line police officers. He did not talk about the $250 million for carbon capture and storage in projects in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. And he certainly did not talk about the need to pass this legislation immediately so we have time to put the regulations in place so that the tax-free savings account can take effect on January 1.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he will stand up for rural Canadians. If he wants to talk about something that is going to destroy rural Canada, it is his leader's carbon tax plan. It will destroy areas, farmers and producers in rural Canada. It is worse than any other plan since the national energy program. He talks about it being cost neutral. How can it be cost neutral for farmers who have to put crops in the ground? Is the price of gasoline not high enough already for the member? How can it be cost neutral to those seniors who have to pay for increased heating costs? How can it be cost neutral for rural Canadians?

If the member insists that he stands up for rural Canadians, will he show up and vote on this budget implementation bill and support our government, will he vote against it where apparently his beliefs are, or will he do what he and his Liberal Party colleagues have been doing for months, which is to sit on their hands and run away from the issues?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and listened to an hour of this tirade. We will not continue to sit here and listen to the opposition bash the economic engines of our country.

Alberta represents 16% of the manufacturing jobs in Ontario and 1% of the net wealth of Ontario comes directly from the oil fields and the hard-working men and women in the oil fields of Alberta.

My question for the member is very simple and it is in three parts. First, will he vote with the government on the budget implementation bill? Second, will he and his colleagues stick with what apparently they believe and vote against our budget implementation bill? Third, will they, as they have traditionally done, not show up for work and abstain, as they have done over the last six months?

[Cluster Bombs, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the international community formally recognized the grave consequences that inhumane cluster munitions cause to innocent civilians around the world. This was an historic day for countries such as Canada that have never used these weapons and also for the victims who have had to live through the adverse effects of the irresponsible use of cluster bombs.

It should be recognized that once again Canada has demonstrated leadership by being one of the original signatory states in leading the fight for victim assistance within this treaty.

Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what Canada's position is regarding the outcome of this new treaty?

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my comments today in support of Bill C-393, introduced by the member for Leeds—Grenville.

Like him and many members of this House on both sides, I have serious concerns about the way our criminal justice system is functioning. Like other members, dissatisfaction or perception of general dissatisfaction with the justice system in Canada is a sentiment I hear expressed regularly by my constituents of Westlock—St. Paul.

As we have heard, Bill C-393 contains three general issues.

The first deals with sentencing for crimes involving carrying deliberately concealed weapons and homicides committed with a knife in defined circumstances.

The second deals with increasing the discretion of the National Parole Board to provide relevant information to victims and to prevent abuse through offender adjournment of parole hearings.

The third area, which I wish to address today in greater detail, deals with clarifying the discretion available to sentencing judges in calculating what credit, and indeed what extra credit, should be given to persons who have been denied bail prior to their sentencing. While these are clearly distinct areas of criminal procedure, they have a common feature of dealing with systematic discretion in one fashion or another.

In the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, the bill clearly is replacing the lower end of the discretionary sentencing range with a minimum sentence. Quite literally, this bill says to sentencing courts that at least a specified custodial sentence must be imposed, and that, of course, is a partial elimination of an existing judicial discretion.

There are dozens of like provisions throughout the Criminal Code, so its use is nothing new. However, its application to these offences is new. I should add that the choice of mandatory minimum sentences by Parliament has recently been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Ferguson case.

In the area of enhancing victim rights, Bill C-393 actually increases the discretionary power of justice system officials responsible for decision making at the National Parole Board. This is an important point to make, as rather than issue a blanket entitlement to any and all offender information, Bill C-393 carefully weaves that outcome into defined relevance and discretion through the parole board.

The third area of the bill deals with what has come to be known as pretrial custody credits. Before analyzing this further, I should point out that this term comes about not as a result of a law passed by Parliament, but instead as a result of the way a discretion bestowed by Parliament has been misused, in my view, by some sentencing judges.

In this area, Bill C-393 clarifies how that discretion can be used by providing specific disqualifications based, it is important to note, on existing provisions within the Criminal Code.

Bill C-393 clarifies how a vested sentencing discretion is to be used and how it is not. In assessing the impact of this bill, it is wise to start with the specific section it modifies, namely subsection 719(3) of the Criminal Code, which states:

In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence.

Four things stand out in this wording. The first is that the court “may”, not must, take pretrial custody into account. I am advised that on some seemingly rare occasions judges have refused to give such credit precisely because of past criminality and breach of existing bail orders.

The second is that the time considered is that spent in custody, not on bail under restrictive conditions but in custody.

If there were any doubt about that, judges need only look above subsection 719(3) to subsection 719(2), which expressly says that time spent:

--at large on interim release granted pursuant to any provision of this Act does not count as part of any term of imprisonment imposed on the person.

In other words, what the sentencing judge did in the Moffitt case was contrary to the express provisions of the Criminal Code. Members will be interested to know that this view has been accepted by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The third item that stands out is that the section does not specify any mathematical formula such as the two for one or even three for one calculation currently in vogue.

Fourth, and I think most important, is that the section specifies that the time to be considered is time spent “because of the offence”, not “because of breaching previous bail” or “because of a lengthy record” but “because of the offence”.

This is consistent with the way our system handles life sentences for persons convicted of murder. Pursuant to section 746 of the Criminal Code, the clock on parole ineligibility starts running from when the person is arrested and held in custody, as used to be almost always the case on murder charges in years gone by.

In other words, if a person is denied bail not because of the offence, but because of the offence and his or her lengthy criminal record or violation of bail, then that person should not qualify for this consideration.

In enacting subsection 719(3), Parliament has deliberately expressed the qualification for this benefit, and it is not up to the courts to add to it, especially when the grounds for the denial of bail are themselves expressly stated in the Criminal Code directions to courts about when to deny bail. In plain English, it is called common sense.

Not only have courts abused this discretion by applying it to the wrong people, they have taken it upon themselves to artificially create “extra” credit based on their view of the nature of the remand facilities. This is where the two for one or three for one calculation comes from.

The irony of the no doubt well-intentioned judicial inmate advocacy has apparently escaped judges who follow this practice. By giving extra credit for remand, they are providing an incentive for people denied bail for past criminality to stay in remand to take advantage of the extra credit. Then they have their lawyers complain about the overcrowding as justification for extra credit. If there was ever an artificial absurdity in dire need of correction by Parliament, this is it.

It used to be that in the old days when the career criminals got caught and were denied bail because of their past records, they quit the delaying tactics and pled guilty to what they knew they were going to be convicted of. They did it to avoid what was known as “dead time”. Today, thanks to misguided judicial misuse of a legitimate discretion, that dead time has been converted into the gift that keeps on giving.

Canadians following the debate will be shocked to learn that this abuse of discretion has literally caused their justice system to reward past misbehaviour and violation of bail by giving it extra credit when it comes to sentencing. I know this will come as a shock to those who think complexity is always better, but we need a system that rewards non-offending and compliance with court orders. We need a system that punishes continuing criminality and breach of bail.

Put simply, we need to restore to our justice system the capacity and willingness to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Bill C-393 does exactly that and it will also restore public confidence in our judicial system. Canadians are rightly wary of a justice system that says one thing but does another, and where we have to read the fine print to see what the truth is. Quite frankly, Canadians deserve better than this. It is up to us to make sure they get it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for Leeds—Grenville for the hard work and dedication he has put into the creation of the bill.

As with all legislation, there are some changes we need to look at. If the bill is sent to committee, the committee will study it and will even make the bill better in some cases, but I think it is important to remind all colleagues in the House that we all ran on the idea of fixing our judicial system to make it stronger and better for all Canadians and for future generations.