Joyce Murray

[January 31st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising to continue debate on a question that I asked the government in October. That has to do with the mandatory minimum penalties in Bill C-10. This bill removes a judge's discretionary power to determine an appropriate sentence based on the crime and circumstances. Since that question was asked, this bill was rushed through the House with time allocation and closure. It is on its way to being the law of the land, unfortunately. This is another expression of the government's disrespect for Parliament, parliamentarians, Canadians and stakeholders who are represented in the House of Commons.

Bill C-10 had no consultation on some of its elements. They were new. They were not bills that had been previously discussed. Worse than that, the bill had many aspects that had been discussed, debated and brought forward in committee. It had input from stakeholder groups and experts across the country, and all of that expert testimony was ignored. The vast array of troublesome aspects of Bill C-10 had no modifications, no amendments permitted and, essentially, the expert advice from Canadians who knew about these issues was brushed off.

It is not my word on this. I want to put on record the voices of people who know about these issues. While the government claimed that Bill C-10 would make Canadians and streets safer, that is clearly completely false. It is a marketing ploy by the government. In fact, the vice-chair of the Canadian Bar Association's National Criminal Justice Section said:

We believe the substance of this legislation [Bill C-10] both to be self-defeating and counterproductive, if the goal is to enhance public safety. It represents a profound shift in orientation from a system that emphasizes public safety... rehabilitation and reintegration to one that puts vengeance first.

The executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute stated:

Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs. If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs.

The Assembly of First Nations' national chief said:

—the Conservative government's tough-on-crime bill will hurt First Nations people, who are already disproportionately represented in federal, provincial and territorial jails.

In fact, it will hurt first nations people and discriminate against them, as well as youth and people with mental illness.

The justice minister for Newfoundland and Labrador was clear that “incarcerating more people is not the answer”.

The bill's approach is contrary to what is known to lead to a safer society.

That was a statement made by the Canadian Bar Association.

I have pages and pages of testimony, all ignored by the Conservative government in Bill C-10, which is going to create more crime, greater costs and less justice.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With respect to Canada’s Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative, what are the total authorities used in any and all federal programs and activities for fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 (inclusive), including authorities granted by statutes other than Appropriation Acts and any partner or other government contributions in support of the initiative, broken down by specific initiative, including (i) the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat, (ii) the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Transportation Infrastructure Fund, (iii) the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative Research Consortium, (iv) Canadian Tourism Commission marketing and sales programs focused in the Asia-Pacific, (v) any other government programs or activities that are part of this initiative?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With respect to Western Economic Diversification (WED) Canada, for fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 (inclusive), what are the total authorities used on the following programs and activities, including authorities granted by statutes other than Appropriation Acts, broken down by individual budget categories or subcategories: (a) community economic development, (i) initiatives to facilitate economic recovery from depressed economic circumstances, (ii) initiatives designed to foster community growth and economic development, (iii) investments in community infrastructure; (b) innovation, (i) knowledge infrastructure, (ii) basic and applied research and development, (iii) personnel, (iv) investments to improve access to adequate patient financing, (v) technology commercialization facilities, (vi) support systems and mechanisms to link those elements to each other; (c) business development, (i) initiatives to enhance business productivity and competitiveness, (ii) initiatives to support trade and investment attraction and penetration of western Canadian technologies, services and value-added products into international markets, (iii) initiatives in priority sectors to introduce new products, technologies, or innovations to existing production and processes, (iv) programs and services designed to improve access to risk capital and business services for entrepreneurs and small businesses; (d) policy, advocacy, and coordination, (i) initiatives to advocate for Western Canada in national policy discussions, (ii) leading federal and intergovernmental collaboration, (iii) research and analysis to inform policy and program decisions; (e) internal services, (i) management and oversight services, (ii) communications services, (iii) legal services, (iv) human resources management services, (v) financial management services, (vi) information management services, (vii) information technology services, (viii) real property services, (ix) materiel services, (x) acquisition services, (xi) travel and other administrative services; and (f) any other general categories or sub-categories of the above used in WED’s own management and accountability of its programs?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to injuries and fatalities attributed to firearms in British Columbia: (a) for each year from 2001 to 2010 (inclusive), what are the number of injuries and what are the number of fatalities attributed to firearms in British Columbia in each category of non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms and any firearm prescribed under the Criminal Code and associated regulations (including long guns); and (b) what number of the injuries and fatalities in (a) involved (i) suicides, (ii) accidents, (iii) incidents involving domestic violence, (iv) incidents involving women as victims, (v) incidents involving Aboriginal Canadians as victims?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With respect to executive recruiting firm Odgers Berndtson and the recent selection process for a new Auditor General: (a) who was responsible for selecting the recruiting firm; (b) was there a competition for the contract awarded to the firm and, if yes, what was the nature of the competition; (c) if there was no competition, who suggested or recommended Odgers Berndtson; and (d) what was the total cost incurred by the government in employing Odgers Berndtson to manage the Auditor General selection process?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member speak to Bill C-10, for which he has not much respect and which we in the Liberal Party call the “more crime, less justice and spiralling costs” law. There is much I would say in agreement with the NDP member.

I want to return to Bill C-26 with my question. The member is probably well aware that on Tuesday a 30-year-old man in a Tim Hortons restaurant in Vancouver was shot on the spot but managed to survive. It is possible that someone might have intervened to protect the person in that situation.

One of the controversial parts of Bill C-26 is the broadening of the allowance from just protecting one's own life to intervening to protect another person's life. In the situation I mentioned, we can see that it would have been a positive thing if someone had disarmed and held the shooter, but there is also a concern that it could lead to vigilantism.

I would like to hear the member's comments on that provision in the new law.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the personal stories shared during the debate were very interesting and very meaningful, and they illustrate various aspects of the bill. I would like to thank the hon. member for sharing his experience.

I have a specific issue. The member just noted that he would look forward to a variety of witnesses and a thorough discussion. I know he is aware that many members feel it is important that there could be amendments that would be respected and included.

One of the concerns that we in the Liberal Party have was laid out by the member for Mount Royal in his initial speech. It is that contrary to the earlier version of the bill, Bill C-26 adds the phrase “threat of force” to this part of the Criminal Code as being a legitimate basis for civilian action. “Threat of force” could be seen as quite subjective. It could be that this term overbroadens the bill to the point that we could have people putting themselves in harm's way.

I would like the member's comment on where his party stands on this issue of threat of force and what they may be proposing in that regard.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that both aspects are necessary.

The rate of homicide in a neighbourhood, research shows, is directly correlated with the life expectancy in that neighbourhood for reasons other than homicide, which are things like suicide, accidents, health problems, child mortality and high income inequality. That is the direct correlation with homicide as a crime. We can do everything to dump people into prisons, but we need to be addressing the root causes of crime, which are unsafe neighbourhoods and high income inequality. The government is going backwards on both of those measures.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government in Britain has just that kind of approach right now. It has a goal of reducing the number of prisoners by half through prevention and treatment programs. In our prisons, according to the prison ombudsman, 85% of prisoners cannot get the treatment programs that they are required to take by their own correction plans. That means they stay in prison longer, they plug it up more, and end up with greater re-offending rates. This is a backward approach. The Conservative Bill C-10 is making things far worse.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

I agree that it is more important to prevent crime. I am favour of making clarifications, but this should not be the government's main goal when it comes to crime. In fact, there are many things that need to be done, as the hon. member mentioned.

I was very disappointed when I found out that the government invested $122 million over five years in prison security—dogs, technology, experts—because prisons are too full. Yet the government cut $2 million from rehabilitation programs for drug users. That does not make sense. The Conservatives are doing things backwards.