Jay Hill

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member across the way had been allowed a little more time for questions and comments I would have asked him if he knew about the change the government made in Bill C-64 from Mr. Cadman's bill, to place the offence under rights of property, under section 377.1, as opposed to what Mr. Cadman intended which was to put it under fraudulent transactions in section 397. By moving it to an offence against rights of property, the government removed all charter provisions as a mitigating factor. However that was the argument he was just resorting to so obviously he has not read the bill and does not understand the bill.

I wish to notify the Chair that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

We have spoken at some length here today to why we find ourselves in opposition to Bill C-64. Obviously the intent to bring down legislation that alters our justice system and holds those who would alter or obliterate a vehicle identification number is something we support. However, as has been pointed out by a number of my colleagues, the legislation is not in the form intended by the original sponsor, our colleague, the late Chuck Cadman.

We have been through that in a number of speeches today that we believe this has been watered down. We were into a debate with a Liberal colleague a few moments ago where we clearly showed our concern that by changing the definition to include the phrase “without lawful excuse and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”, that would put a double onus on the crown to prove this was an illegal action.

To be quite honest, I do not understand why the government always sides with the criminal and always wants to handcuff our crown attorneys, our prosecutors, by making it so difficult for them to do their job. We see it with legislation the Liberals bring forward all the time. As the Liberal member just said, they are so worried that the accused might actually have to prove that he is innocent at some point that they make it virtually impossible for our crown prosecutors to get a conviction.

I want to move beyond this legislation in the sense of looking at what would likely happen if the crown actually did get a conviction under this. The Liberal who just spoke said that he would be supporting this, that it is getting tough on crime and that it would come with a maximum sentence of five years in prison. We are going to get tough with these guys because a lot of the time when people obliterate or change the vehicle identification number, it is because it is a criminal activity that is involved. It is not someone out joyriding. In many cases it is organized crime that is heisting very expensive motor vehicles for profit in a very organized manner. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles are stolen in this country and we need to get tough.

The Liberals bring in this bill that says a maximum of five years. I want to talk about what will likely take place even if we haul a Hell's Angel into court. What will likely happen is that they will receive a conditional sentence.

What is a conditional sentence? A conditional sentence is something the Liberals brought into being less than a year after they took office in 1993. I believe it was half way through 1994. I and a lot of my colleagues in the Reform Party at that time raised concerns that conditional sentencing might be used for violent crime and drug trafficking, things we felt, and I think the majority of Canadians felt, were totally unacceptable.

People who commit horrific crimes, especially violent crimes, such as sexual assault, common assault, manslaughter and murder, should do jail time, not just because they may or may not be an additional threat to society were they to be left at large, but as a deterrent, to send the message that those types of activities are totally unacceptable in a civilized society. We need to send the message that when people do those types of crimes they do serious jail time.

What did the Liberals do? By September 3, 1996, they brought in what I would classify now as their infamous conditional sentencing. The justice minister at the time was a fellow by the name of Alan Rock, he of the infamous gun registry. If we believe the Liberals, it was with the best of intentions that they wanted to bring it in. They said repeatedly in debate and in committee where it was studied that they wanted to ensure that people, especially young people who made one error in judgment, whether it was vandalism, shoplifting or something like that, would not go to jail and be mixed in with hardened criminals. It was an admirable objective. Nobody had any problem with that.

However we said at the time that the Liberals should specify those crimes where judges will not be able to use conditional sentencing because they are so serious. We asked them to put that in.

I went beyond that as a private member in this place. I drafted a private member's motion, first introduced in early 1998, less than a year and a half after conditional sentencing came into existence in our country. I specified which crimes would be excluded for use by the courts for conditional sentencing.

What is conditional sentencing? Conditional sentencing is imposing certain conditions. What are those conditions, usually? It is like Paul Coffin. He stole a million dollars from the taxpayers and was given a conditional sentence. What was it? It was a curfew, something we would give to a wayward teenager, telling them they must be back home by 9 p.m., or some silly thing. Conditional sentencing usually means house arrest. Instead of going to jail, a person has to serve his or her time sitting at home. That will certainly provide a great deterrent.

After some nine years that conditional sentencing has been law, I have introduced motions and bills to limit the use of conditional sentencing and exclude violent crime from its use. Now the justice minister is saying, in the dying days of this Parliament, which we all know will end, at a maximum, by next spring, that he will bring in some changes to conditional sentencing. I will wait to see what those are. I can almost guarantee the House that they will be just like those in the bill we are debating today, Bill C-64. They will perhaps restrict but they will provide enough legal loopholes that defence lawyers will be able to keep their clients out of jail. I would almost guarantee that is what will happen because the government always comes down on the side of the accused, the criminal, and Canadians are getting more than a little bit tired of it.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as did a number of others, I listened with great interest as I always do to my colleague from Wild Rose. I would add to his comments that despite his challenge, I did not see any Liberals on the other side rising to defend what we would consider to be the indefensible, or try to defend the indefensible, when it comes to the completely undemocratic actions of the government.

I recently had the opportunity as House leader for the official opposition to write a couple of newspaper columns that were published, in which I declared that I believe that this is the most undemocratic Parliament I have seen in my lifetime and maybe in the history of Parliament itself.

My colleague cited a number of motions that were passed. The reason they were passed is that we are in a minority Parliament. It is not easy to get agreement among the three opposition parties in order to pass something. To get the agreement of the Conservatives, the separatists and the socialists is quite an accomplishment on any given day.

As the member indicated, with our opposition days last winter and early spring we passed a number of motions in the House that we felt were in the best interests of Canadians. They were supported sufficiently, in some cases by the Liberals themselves, to pass in this chamber and they should have been acted upon.

Instead, the government creates this illusion of democracy. As the member indicated at the closing of his remarks, the Liberals have replicated this fall what they did in the spring out of fear that the opposition may use an opposition day to bring forward a motion of non-confidence in the government which, if passed, would cause the government to fall. Out of fear of that the Liberals have postponed all of the opposition days. Normally we get roughly one opposition day every seven to nine days.

The Liberals postponed all of the opposition days until mid-November or later knowing two things. One is who wants an election on Boxing Day? That is what would happen if the government fell after the middle of November. Obviously that is a serious consideration for any party in defeating the government, even though we inherently believe, and have steadfastly believed since late last winter, that the government is corrupt and should be removed from office. We have never deviated from that.

The other reason is what my colleague from Wild Rose alluded to which is if the Liberals can put off the opposition days, they will not potentially be embarrassed, the way they should be embarrassed right now. Opposition days resulted in the passage of some really good motions, which the member listed, which should have been democratically acted upon by the government because the majority of the elected representatives in the House of Commons voted for them. It should be incumbent upon the government to enact those motions, but it is ignoring them.

If the Liberals can push that back until the winter, obviously with an election coming in the spring at the latest, they will not have to act on those. Even if we bring forward more good motions that we believe are in the best interests of Canadians, even if the majority of members crossing partisan boundaries support those motions, the government will not act upon them.

I wonder what my colleague has to say about a government in a minority situation that will use every possible parliamentary procedural tool at its disposal, and actually brag about it, to avoid the challenge of confidence of the chamber. Our parliamentary system is based upon the premise that on any given day the Prime Minister must be able to demonstrate to Canadians that he has the confidence of this place. That is what it is based upon. The Liberal government, more than any in the past, is avoiding that responsibility to prove to Canadians that it has the confidence not just of its own backbench, not just of its own cabinet, but that it has the confidence of the majority of members in this place.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition yet again, as I have been endeavouring to do at every opportunity this fall. This petition is signed primarily by citizens from Toronto, Brampton, Scarborough, Etobicoke and Mississauga, Ontario. The petitioners note that, on average, about 2,000 children are adopted from other countries and brought to Canada by adopting families, and that, unlike other countries, the United States and Great Britain, these children are not granted automatic citizenship. These petitioners feel that they should be. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to immediately enact legislation to grant automatic citizenship to these minors adopted from other countries by Canadian citizens, with this citizenship being immediately granted upon the finalization of the adoption.

I have literally dozens of other petitions on the same subject, but unfortunately, as well-intentioned as they were, the people did not have the opportunity to put them into an acceptable form. I seek unanimous consent of the members present this afternoon to add these to this petition.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in light of one of the concerns raised by the Conservative Party with regard to how the government has altered the requirement to prove intent for criminal activity in altering a vehicle identification number, would the Bloc Québécois be willing to support an amendment that would see the legislation returned to what Chuck Cadman had originally intended, which was to remove that section that we have highlighted as a problem area?

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to let Canadians know that I share Prince George with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George and we make a great team in representing that city.

I listened with great interest to his remarks about this bill, about justice issues in general and about the Liberals' soft on crime approach. I was reminded when I was listening to his remarks that the Liberals always seem to take a good idea and weaken it.

This legislation is a good idea, make no mistake about it, and we are supportive of the idea, but we are opposed because the Liberals have taken a good idea from an opposition member, in this case Chuck Cadman, and they have softened it and weakened it. The Liberals are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than the rights of the victim, whether it is someone who has had their car stolen, or someone who has been harmed and in some cases killed by a street racer, or whether it is someone who has been hurt, raped or murdered. The culprit always seems to get a conditional sentence.

This is something that I and parties I have been associated with have been concerned about ever since the Liberal government brought in conditional sentencing. The justice minister has now made a vague promise to study it and may change it at some point in the near future. I can assure Canadians watching the proceedings at home that when the Liberals change it, they will still leave legal loopholes for criminals to get away with murder.

My colleague from Prince George obviously has followed these justice issues with great interest and has spoken passionately about them over the last 12 years. I wonder if has noticed other areas where the government has left legal loopholes so lawyers can get their clients off without serving appropriate jail time.

[Points of Order, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question during question period the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said:

—the hon. member for Pontiac denies any wrongdoing on his part, but has written to the Ethics Commissioner to ask him to look into this matter. I hope the member opposite waits for a response from the Ethics Commissioner before commenting on this issue in the House again.

Later in question period the member for Nepean--Carleton asked the following question:

The Globe and Mail is reporting today that KPMG had found irregularities in the activities of the firm run by the family of the MP for Pontiac.

The Speaker then ruled the question out of order, citing subsection 27(5) of Appendix 1 to the Standing Orders which reads:

Once a request for an inquiry has been made to the Ethics Commissioner, members should respect the process established by this Code and permit it to take place without commenting further on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, the subsection you cited is a subsection of section 27. Section 27 deals with the matter of a member who has reasonable grounds to believe that another member has not complied with his or her obligations under the code. Under section 27 the Ethics Commissioner would then conduct an inquiry into the matter.

In the case involving the member for Pontiac, it was not another member who initiated an investigation; it was the member himself who made an inquiry. Such inquiries are covered under section 26. Section 26 deals with seeking an opinion and has nothing to do with an investigation. Subsection 26(1) states:

In response to a request in writing from a Member on any matter respecting the Member's obligations under this Code, the Ethics Commissioner may provide the Member with a written opinion containing any recommendations that the Ethics Commissioner considers appropriate.

Therefore, there is no investigation under way. An opinion has been sought and under the rules there are no restrictions regarding the asking of questions in this House.

The remaining subsections of section 26 deal with the opinion being confidential, that the opinion is binding on the Ethics Commissioner and that the last subsection provides rules for the publication of said opinion.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I contend that you applied the wrong section of the code. A member cannot initiative an investigation into himself. A member can seek an opinion and that is covered under section 26 and not section 27.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would submit that if your ruling were to stand, it would mean that at any point when government members' activities were called into question, all that would be required to avoid any further questions in this place would be to have those members request the Ethics Commissioner to look into the matter. Given the government's propensity toward questionable behaviour, at some point soon the Ethics Commissioner could be looking into dozens of Liberal members and the opposition would be unable to ask any further questions.

[Business of the House, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of the House and indeed all Canadians would be interested to know what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has planned for his agenda for the remainder of this week and the next week.

In light of the fact that we have already sat 14 days in this fall session without an opposition day and there are only 35 days left, that works out to one opposition day every seven days. When will we get an opposition day?

[Petitions, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and present yet another petition in the long list of petitions that I have been presenting at every opportunity this fall on a subject very important to many Canadians. This one is signed by citizens from all across the country, so many communities from so many different provinces I cannot possibly list them all.

The petition notes that on average about 2,000 children a year are adopted from other countries and brought to Canada. Children adopted from foreign countries by Canadian citizens currently do not gain automatic citizenship despite the fact that other countries do grant automatic citizenship to foreign children who are taken to those countries, countries like the United States of America and Great Britain.

Therefore, the petitioners are seeking from Parliament that it immediately enacts legislation to grant automatic citizenship to those minors adopted from other countries by Canadian citizens with this citizenship being immediately granted upon the finalization of the adoption process. I note that the minister has promised to bring forward stand-alone legislation to accomplish this. I would hope that he does so in a timely manner.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, October 18th, 2005]

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, once again we see a fundamental philosophical difference between the Liberal Party of Canada, unfortunately the government of today, and the Conservative Party, the next Government of Canada.

I hope that people who are watching this debate at home tonight can clearly see this. I think it was exemplified by the comments made by my colleague across the way.

Very clearly, when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable in our society, our children, my colleague is more interested in excuses, in providing discretion, in providing room to manoeuvre for the judges. At the end of all of that, his question was whether there was any chance that some modification could be made to the discretion already given to judges to take into account the fact that the trafficking might have been done close to schools.

I already have said in my speech what the reality is: we do not even have any statistics. We do not even know how much of the trafficking that is currently taking place in this country takes place within 500 metres of a schoolyard.

He asked, and I suppose quite rightly, what about a playground or all these other places? But we have to start somewhere. I am sick and tired, after 12 years of being in this place, of hearing the answer every time somebody in this House or this party raises an issue like this that it is too restrictive or that it is only one change to protect one group.

Why do we not start somewhere? Why do we not start with schoolyards?

There is a sense over there on the Liberal Party side that they are so concerned about the criminals' rights and they do not care about the children, for God's sake. I cannot believe they would not want to enact this legislation in order to provide some real deterrence.

If the member had been listening to my speech, he would have heard me say that the average sentence handed out to traffickers was four months, if they receive any jail time at all. As I said, no statistics are kept so we do not even know how much of that trafficking took place with children close to schools.

The average sentence was four months when the traffickers got any jail time at all. Four months. Is that the message we want to send? Is that how much we are willing to protect our children? By suggesting that the deterrent for these animals to prey on our children by pushing drugs at them will get them four months' incarceration? In some cases, they just get a fine.

I do not think so. I do not think that is the message we want to send. I think the average parent understands the need for mandatory sentencing to take away the discretion from judges so that these people go to jail.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, October 18th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking in a controlled drug or substance within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the whip of our party, my colleague from Niagara Falls, for seconding my bill.

It is a great pleasure to finally be debating Bill C-248 during this first hour of debate at second reading. Although, I introduced the legislation on four previous occasions, this is the first opportunity to have the legislation debated by members in this chamber.

The purpose of Bill C-248 is to impose mandatory prison sentences upon those convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug or substance within 500 metres of an elementary school or a high school. The mandatory sentences imposed would be one year or more for a first offence and two years or more for a subsequent offence.

These mandatory sentences apply to substances and amounts of substances as listed in schedules I, II, III, IV and VII of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, but the bill also would set maximum sentences depending upon the substance and/or the amount of the substance.

For example, a maximum prison term of three years would apply to someone convicted of their first offence for trafficking in barbiturates and someone convicted for a subsequent offence in trafficking cocaine would face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The legislation specifically addresses a matter of justice and criminal law, but I do not wish for members of the House, or Canadians at large, to be misled into believing that the legislation is simply about getting tough on crime or waging a war on drugs. The bill is about health, mental health, education, social welfare and the future we offer our nation's children. Those are all areas for which Bill C-248 offers a key component to success. That is because its ultimate purpose is to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, our children.

Drug use among children and minors affects their health and their mental well-being. Drug use blocks their scholastic success and it impedes their ability to become contributing happy members of our society. Drug use among all ages, but particularly in children, threatens to rip apart families and entire communities, the very foundation of our society and our country's very future.

These are all facts upon which I know all members of the House will agree. It is our responsibility to offer children the best protection possible in their homes, in their streets and most definitely when they attend school. Drugs are a very real and dangerous threat.

A 2001 study found that over 47% of Manitoba students had used drugs at some point in their lives with nearly 40% reporting that they had used drugs in the previous year. This represented an increase from early studies in that province. The average age at which those students started using drugs dropped to 14.1, meaning children are starting to experiment with drugs earlier and earlier in their lives.

A similar drug survey of students in New Brunswick in 2002 indicated just 36% of students there could say that they never use drugs. In Ontario, just one-third reported no drug use. The Ontario statistics also indicated that one-third of the students had used at least one illicit drug in the past year. Cocaine and crack use, which had decreased during the eighties, is once again on the rise among Ontario students. Alarmingly, both cannabis and cocaine use is on the rise among seventh graders or children as young as 12 years of age.

Parents, teachers, principals, police, social agencies and entire communities work tremendously hard to create and maintain a safe and caring environment for Canadian children at school. It is a monumental task. It requires a constant vigilant and collaborative effort.

This effort to create safe and caring schools takes on many forms. Prevention, education and intervention are all critical to success. Yet so too is enforcement and deterrence.

Just as it would be a recipe for failure to combat drug use in our schools without education and awareness and relying solely upon punishment and enforcement, so too is it ineffective to educate and inform without adequate enforcement. In fact, the government's own national drug strategy called for effective enforcement.

Parents, educators and police forces need all the tools available to combat drug use among children and minors. At the very least, we as a society should be doing everything possible to help them.

At the very least, when parents send their child or teenager off to school each morning, they should have some assurance that all reasonable measures have been taken to keep their child safe from both physical harm and other detrimental influences to their health and mental wellness. This includes measures to restrict their children's exposure to and access to drugs in and around their school.

I readily accept the valid but unfortunate argument that there is no way to completely cut students off from drugs. If they really want to experiment with drugs or find a fix, they will manage to find it somewhere. But, and this is a very important point that underlies the very justification for the bill, that does not mean we have to make it easy for our kids to buy drugs. They certainly should not be readily available in and around the schoolyard.

It is no coincidence when a drug trafficker is hanging out across the street from the school or around the corner. These drug traffickers are purposely seeking out and preying upon our children. As a society, we must send a strong, clear message that this heinous behaviour will not be tolerated. The legislating of mandatory sentences for drug trafficking near a school would also help to send a message to children and teens that drug use is not an acceptable activity.

One of the consequences of the current debate over the decriminalization of marijuana has been a more cavalier attitude toward drug use among teens. It is a very intensive debate that the House has undertaken throughout the past couple of years. Certainly it is an issue of great social importance that should be debated in Canada's Parliament. Yet the debate over the use of so-called soft drugs like marijuana has sent mixed and ambiguous messages to our children about drugs. It is not clear to them that their parents and legislators are debating the decriminalization of possession, not the legalization of trafficking of marijuana. It is a huge distinction, but not one that may be immediately obvious to children and teens.

By legislating mandatory sentencing for trafficking of all drugs, narcotics and illicit substances, it will be made very clear to adults and children and alike that the activity contravenes criminal law. Currently even the Library of Parliament acknowledges that it is very difficult to obtain reliable statistics regarding sentencing in relation to drug related convictions. Furthermore, the Library of Parliament cites a second weakness in that the statistics on drug convictions and sentencing are limited in detail.

This provides yet another justification for Bill C-248. If parents, educators, police and community agencies are to effectively combat drug use among students, they must be equipped with all the facts. Currently the statistics on drug convictions are broken down into only two categories: either possession or trafficking. It would be much easier to identify the incidences of those specifically trafficking drugs to students through the sentencing provisions outlined in the bill.

At this point I would like to take a moment to address one of the arguments made by the Minister of Health against this legislation. Specifically, I would like to make it clear to members of the House that this legislation is targeted toward those adults who intentionally seek to sell drugs to children or minors, and I stress adults. When police conduct drug sweeps at schools, they are not simply seeking out students who are using drugs. These sweeps also help lead them to the adults responsible for getting those drugs to the school in the first place.

For example, a February 2002 drug sweep at a Toronto area school resulted in a number of adults being charged with trafficking. In another school's drug sweep in Victoria later that same year, 10% of those charged were adults and 25% were not even students at the school.

Instead of being charged, students are often brought to the school office by police to be dealt with by school authorities and their parents. The students may then face a suspension and in most cases further drug awareness and educational sessions.

Another of the health minister's arguments against Bill C-248 is his political opposition to mandatory sentencing. I am well aware that the ongoing debate between those who support mandatory sentencing for serious, violent crimes versus those who believe in a more rehabilitative approach to criminal activity has great bearing on this legislation.

However, the minister's doubts over the effectiveness of mandatory sentencing and deterring drug trafficking are just that: they are his doubts. In a study on sentencing, the Library of Parliament says that even criminologists are divided on the effect sentencing has on recidivism, for example.

The library's synopsis of the purposes of sentencing is comprised of seven main aspects. These include deterrence through fear of punishment for the crime and punishments against reoffending, something that Bill C-248 certainly addresses.

Sentencing also prevents crime by removing offenders, or in this case drug traffickers, from our society. A prison sentence also offers an opportunity to rehabilitate drug traffickers. We must not forget the need to hold offenders responsible for their actions, something the federal Liberal government is increasingly hesitant to do.

The government is also loath to consider the concept of punishment as a form of simple justice itself, yet let us ask the parent of a child who was introduced to a drug habit by a drug trafficker whether traffickers should be made to pay for their crime.

The final element of sentencing is denunciation, defined by the Library of Parliament in its study of sentencing as a means to influence public perception of the seriousness of specific crimes through the imposition of a greater or lesser penalty.

Yet in 1996-97, just 64% of those convicted of drug trafficking were sentenced to any jail time, just 64%. Worse, the median sentence was just four months. Probation was the most serious punishment in 24% of drug trafficking convictions, and 9% of drug traffickers got off lucky with just a fine. What kind of message about drugs does this send to our children?

If the health minister's unsubstantiated partisan arguments and his other arguments that are not supported by case law are any indication, then the cabinet appears unprepared to support Bill C-248.

Once again the federal cabinet is not prepared to stand up and protect the most vulnerable members of our society: our children.

In theory, however, it is the intent that each member of Parliament take into account his or her own opinions and those of constituents when considering private members' legislation, as we all know. Therefore, I am asking the members of the House to support Bill C-248 in giving parents, educators and community workers the backing they need to help protect our children from drug use.