Kevin Sorenson

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of different conditions lead to crime. Parliament has to lay down the structure of what is acceptable in society and what is not. We have to be guided by certain principles. The protection of society is the responsibility of our criminal justice system. When drafting this type of law, politicians need to be aware of the fact that the protection of our society is very important.

My colleague is right. There are many conditions that lead to criminal activity. Where appropriate, governments must step in and be aware of the factors that could lead to crime. Governments must get involved.

Bill C-9 does not deal with all of the background. Those are areas at which governments have to look. Bill C-9 indicates what would happen when individuals put themselves in that position. Are we going to go back and start diluting everything that has been done here? Are we going to allow people to be victimized because an individual was brought up without all the things that perhaps would have allowed him or her to contribute to society? Although we have to look at departments, social services and other things, and the government is, there needs to be balance when someone crosses the line. There has to be a system in place that says this is unacceptable.

There have been cases where criminals walk through the prison doors back out on to the streets before the victims are out of the hospital. That is not acceptable. Bill C-9 would provide incarceration for some of these offences.

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-9. I note that over the number of years I have been in the House and serving on the justice committee, we brought forward bills like this as private members' bills. That happened a number of times. There were four or five private members' bills dealing with conditional sentences and dangerous offenders.

There were many different bills that came forward, bills that the people of Crowfoot, Alberta and Canada asked for, and then we watched as the government of the day slammed the door on legislation. That would basically tell Canadians that the responsibility for governments and for our law, for the justice system, was not to protect society.

That is what bills such as this are here to do.

My constituents have always brought forward their concerns over the release of violent offenders back into society. My efforts were to do something about the Liberal Party's neglect and its reckless treatment of conditional sentences, but yet again doors were slammed.

The frustration was felt not just by members of Parliament. The frustration was felt not just by the Conservative Party of Canada. The frustration was felt by victims. Time after time, calls and letters came in from people who had been victimized. They were not always from the primary victim, not always from the one who had been assaulted, not always from the one who had an offence committed against them. Sometimes the families of those victims felt that they personally had been victimized. They felt it especially when, a number of days after the trial, they would meet the individual who had committed the offence against them and see the individual released onto the streets of our communities.

I applaud the justice minister and the government for keeping their commitments and bringing forward the priorities they said they would and for making it clear that criminal justice system changes and changes to bills would take place. We are seeing that happen.

This morning I want to talk about a number of cases that we could perhaps learn from. Let us take a look at some of the past decisions, decisions that might have been an encouragement for this government to make the changes it is trying to implement here.

In one case from 2001, R. v. Bratzer, the offender committed three armed robberies in a period of a week. For those three armed robberies, he sat down, calculated what he was going to do, picked up the weapon of choice and decided to carry out these criminal offences. He went out and did it.

In reaching the sentence, the court considered as aggravating factors the fact that the accused had committed a series of planned robberies, that the offender had calculated, that he was masked at the time of the robbery, and that the offender admitted to the rush the robberies had given him, the sense of gratification, excitement and enthusiasm as he carried them out.

The court also mentioned the fact that the offender had no remorse. He placed the mask over his head. He picked up the weapon of choice. He knew that he was going to get a feeling of excitement and enthusiasm and he went out and committed the offences. The court looked at the circumstances and sentenced the accused to house arrest, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

Canadians are concerned when we watch our young men and women and those in society who say that they get a rush from perpetrating criminal offences and victimizing Canadians.

Another example of the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing can be found in the case of R. v. Bunn. In this case, the accused, a lawyer, was retained by a Russian lawyer to recover and remit inheritances of money, an estate, from six deceased Manitoba and Saskatchewan residents. In all cases, he converted part of the trust money received from each of the beneficiaries from his trust account to his general account. In other words, he was absconding with the money. Approximately $86,000 was converted through 145 separate transfers or transactions after he had already taken 10% as fees for his services.

At times I have dealt with lawyers and have thought their fees were astronomical on certain occasions, but in this case, after he received 10%, he then went back in and was able through fraud and other ways to abscond with $86,000 from the accounts. The accused was disbarred. He was convicted of six counts of breach of trust. He was sentenced to two years' incarceration.

After trial, but prior to the appeal, Bill C-41 and the conditional sentencing regime came into force. The Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal of the sentence and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. However, it is interesting to learn what Justice Bastarache said in the dissenting opinion:

It is well established that the focus of the sanction for criminal breach of trust is denunciation and general deterrence...In the past this has required that, absent exceptional circumstances, lawyers convicted of criminal breach of trust have been sentenced to jail...This emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence is, for a number of reasons, particularly important when courts punish lawyers who have committed criminal breach of trust. First, the criminal dishonesty of lawyers has profound effects on the public's ability to conduct business that affect people far beyond the victims of the particular crime...Second, as officers of the court, lawyers are entrusted with heightened duties, the breach of which brings the administration of justice into disrepute....

Judge Bastarache was right. Judge Bastarache realized in his dissenting opinion that what the courts were going to do was minimize one of the fundamental institutions that every democracy depends on, and that is the institution of rule of law and a criminal justice system. Confidence that those who would stand in such a place to represent an individual should not be, on the same hand, victimizing that same individual.

This last example shows that since their creation conditional sentences have been applied in cases where they were not intended by Parliament to be applied and where they certainly should not apply. That is why I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for bringing out in his speech the fact that when we stand in these halls and in this House and talk about the intent of law, the courts and the justices say, “Is this what Parliament meant?” We need to be very clear so that the justice system and the court system recognize that when this was put in place we did not intend much of what the courts are allowing to happen now.

Bill C-9 originally intended to restore confidence and permitted this use in appropriate cases only. However, as amended, Bill C-9 does not offer any guarantee that conditional sentences will not be given in serious cases of violent crime, property crime and drug crime. The bottom line is that the Liberal amendment to Bill C-9, supported by the Bloc and the NDP, does not answer the concern of Canadians. It does not make their homes safer. It do not make their streets safer. It will not restore confidence in the conditional sentence sanction or the administration of justice generally.

If Bill C-9 passes in its present form, this House will have missed an extremely important opportunity to do its duty to ensure greater respect for the law on the part of ordinary Canadians and to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

[Petitions, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents of mine from Camrose, Ferintosh and Kelsey, Alberta.

The petitioners call on Parliament to investigate the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China, and specifically for Parliament to work toward the goal of convincing the Chinese government to allow the coalition to investigate the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

[Petitions, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first is signed by nearly 700 constituents of mine requesting that Parliament raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. These petitioners support Bill C-22, the new Conservative government's age of sexual protection bill.

The constituents are all from Alberta, including: Acme, Big Lake, Beiseker, Calgary, Camrose, Castor, Coronation, Consort, Craigmyle, Edberg, Erskine, Irricana, Hanna, Linden, Stettler, Three Hills and Trochu. I am sure I missed some towns.

[Growing Alberta Leadership Award, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of one of my constituents, Acme, Alberta resident Doug Miller, who has won the annual Growing Alberta Leadership Award for community spirit.

Doug Miller provided leadership, communication, dedication and encouragement to his community. He was the constant guiding force in rebuilding the Acme Community Centre after it was destroyed by fire. Acme is a town of just over 600 people. Doug and his team rebuilt this $1.9 million facility debt free in only nine months.

Doug is sharing the credit for this award with the town of Acme, the Alberta Barley Commission and others on the team. They include: Jim Northcott, who did the fundraising: Phyllis Deines, who did the paperwork: Viv Hannah, who liaised with the construction crews: Jane Allen, who kept the website up and running; and Acme Mayor Glen Rieger, who played a huge part. All of these folks were directly involved, but the people of Acme raised the cash and exemplified the spirit it took to get the job done.

This success story is a reflection of the passion and perseverance that rural Albertans have come to know in an industry that has known its share of obstacles.

Congratulations, Acme and congratulations, Doug.

[Committees of the House, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on the situation in Darfur.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[Development Assistance Accountability Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that was certainly one of the concerns that our parliamentary secretary brought out at first reading. We appreciate the ruling on that.

I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-293. I also want to thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for introducing a bill, flawed as it may be, to create legislation for Canadian development assistance. Indeed, the bill introduces proposals that are very close to some of the issues that have been raised by the government.

Development is a moving target. Today, more than ever before, we have a better grasp of what works. As an individual country and with the international community, we have embarked on a complex journey that is leading to more effective aid, aid that can better harness the energies and talents of developing countries, and that can truly make a difference in the lives of the poor. There is a vision in Canada for aid programs.

We have a vision of donors and partners working together to achieve the reduction of poverty, of mutual accountability, of trust and respect, and of good governance which makes all of these things possible. However, visions must also be practical if they are going to work. Canadians want us to be certain that this bill in fact actually does guide us to the delivery of that vision.

We have already heard in the first hour of debate in the House on the bill that there are many members of Parliament who do not feel that the bill facilitates Canada's vision of our federal government's aid program. I would remind members of the House that the Speech from the Throne stated that the government is committed to “a more effective use of Canadian aid dollars.”

The government wants to ensure that we do the right thing with our aid money in putting this vision into practice. We will ensure that aid dollars are provided to the countries that have created a climate in which progress can be achieved. We will ensure that such progress can be achieved as efficiently as possible and that the people who most need the help will receive the assistance they need to find their way out of poverty.

I have yet to be convinced that Bill C-293 will allow us to build a dynamic and effective development assistance program, but we are keeping an open mind and we are anxious to participate in the committee that perhaps will study the bill in the event that it is passed at second reading. We want to ensure, and I know all members of the committee want to ensure, that it gets a fair hearing in committee.

The bill is very complex and seems to contain a number of mixed messages that may not bring precision to Canada's development assistance. If our assistance is going to be effective, our objectives must be simple and clearly defined. Yet, this does not appear to me to be a simple bill.

As I said, in the first hour of debate we heard comments that some are concerned about the possibility of escalating administrative costs as the result of the bill. Development assistance should reach the people for whom it is intended. We need to be careful that Canada's aid dollars, which ultimately are Canadian taxpayers' dollars, are not being tied up in lengthy process or procedures in Ottawa.

The bill's proposed petition system, reporting requirements and advisory committee would add layers of bureaucracy into an already well-developed system. They could, quite conceivably, turn current consultative processes into cumbersome Canada-focused procedures.

The system, as proposed in the bill as I read it, would risk the focus or could risk taking the focus off of the recipient country and put it back onto Canada. I would argue that the recipient nation's particular circumstances, that of poverty or need, should always be the focus in terms of what is needed.

Our new Conservative government has made the enhancement of accountability within government one of our highest priorities. We are committed to strengthening the rules and institutions that ensure transparency and accountability to Canadians.

I am concerned that the bill may bring considerable confusion to those accountability rules and institutions that we have created in government.

I hope that the foreign affairs and international development committee, the committee that will conduct the hearings on this bill if it is passed by the House, will study carefully the roles and responsibilities of the Minister of International Cooperation. In my view, the minister's extensive roles and responsibilities are worthy of great consideration. I have not seen that reflected in this bill.

The bill adds to the already considerable reporting requirements of the minister and may not help clarify in legislation what she does in practice. We do not want to simply add to her administrative responsibilities without demonstrating real value-added to Canada's aid program.

This bill would give considerable oversight to a committee of unelected individuals who would function on the basis of complaints from aggravated individuals in other countries. I am not sure of the extent that this may be really counter to the letter and the spirit of the democratic process and whether or not this comes close to making the minister responsible or accountable to an advisory committee rather than being accountable to Parliament and ultimately to Canadians.

The bill would require the minister to report on how she has implemented the guidance of this advisory committee rather than how she has implemented the guidance of the will of Parliament. I am not sure Canadians support having our cabinet ministers accountable to authorities outside of the parliamentary precinct and in reality outside of our country.

The bill would remove from Canada the authority to define development assistance and would place it within the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, a high level, multilateral organization not based in Canada, not based in Ottawa, but based in Paris.

While Canada values highly the role of the OECD and is an active supporter of greater collaboration between OECD members, it is clear that the current formulation would result in Canada having reduced control over where it targets development assistance.

The last time I checked, Canadians want control over the taxpayer dollars we send around the world as foreign aid. Under this bill Canada's development assistance program would be subject to the rules of an unelected institution. Such a move could potentially restrict both programming and the countries to which development assistance may be given.

For accountability purposes, it is extremely important that Canada be able to choose where its development assistance can be most effectively utilized. Experience has taught us that countries that promote sound governance, democracy and human rights, are more likely to be able to make good use of Canadian aid dollars and that we can make a true difference in those countries.

Canada's aid program has had results by taking this approach. We should be careful about undermining the effectiveness of the aid program that already is working. Someone said that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I would suggest that there have to be some changes. Our committee is looking at that and has looked at that. We do not want to diminish the effectiveness of our programs.

CIDA has concentrated on implementing the principles of aid effectiveness in our bilateral operations and has worked effectively with countries that are committed to improving governance and making effective use of resources. With our assistance, countries such as Tanzania and Ghana are beginning to show results. There is more to be done in these countries. There is more to be done in other countries in terms of improving and focusing Canada's aid program.

I welcome the intent and the spirit of this bill. I believe the member, as he puts this forward, will recognize the concerns we have with this bill. If it passes the vote at second reading in the House, the foreign affairs and international development committee will look forward to working on this bill.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents from Castor, Round Hill as well as many from Killam and Lougheed area.

This petition recognizes the fact that protection of children from sexual predators is a top priority of the federal government. It recognizes that the Canadian Police Association, a number of provincial governments, and parliamentary committees favour raising the age of consent.

The petitioners call on our government to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Certainly, that is something about which the House has heard a lot and we will continue to keep bringing it forward.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by more than 50 of my constituents from Hanna, Alberta.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation to include exercise gym fees as a deductible tax exemption under the medical expense tax credit section of the Income Tax Act. They feel that this would be an incentive for Canadians to get fit, to prevent disease and to improve their quality of life.

[Citizenship Act, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the bill forward. He is correct. The bill lives up to an election promise made by the Conservative Party of Canada, one with which many of my constituents are very happy.

I have a case at the present time involving a young couple who have been married for four years. They have found they cannot have biological children so they will go the route of adoption. They are trying to pay for a house and make payments on a car and are now facing the possibility that the adoption could cost them $20,000 by the time everything is said and done. Over and above that, they are facing roadblocks.

My wife and I have adopted two children. I know what it is like, as a young married couple, to go through this and face the added costs. The response from my constituents is very positive with respect to the bill.

Part of the bill talks about prior to 1977 and those individuals who perhaps may be here already. Are there still many, who have come from other countries who, who have to deal with these roadblocks, yet they contribute to our economy? We recognize them as citizens of our country, but they do not have that piece of paper.