Kevin Sorenson

[Terrorism, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is not compromising our security to warn Canadians about possible terrorist attacks. Despite the ongoing investigation, the United States government has continued to warn its citizens when there are possible terrorism threats. For example, it warned them against crop dusters. It warned them against the potential attack in Boston.

Does the minister not know that it is the duty of the government and the solicitor general to warn Canadians of specific or potential terrorist attacks?

[Terrorism, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Nabil Al-Marabh had a Michigan driver's licence to transport hazardous material. How did he get that licence? He got it by using his Canadian driver's licence for identification.

CSIS and the RCMP are now investigating crop dusting companies which were approached by suspicious individuals asking detailed questions about crop dusting aircraft. Hazardous material trucks and crop dusters are able to deliver chemical or biological weapons.

Will the solicitor general confirm, were chemical or biological attacks either planned against Canada or from Canada?

[Young Offenders Act, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, there is an old saying: “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”. The implication is that if it is broken it needs to be fixed.

I grew up on a farm and have an old pickup. That pickup truck is so old and there are so many things wrong with it that if I tried to fix it I would not know where to begin. It does not run well. It blows oil out the back. The mirrors are broken and the windshield is shot. If I wanted to build the thing into a new truck I would not start by replacing the mirrors. I would not know where to begin.

We have seen over the past period of time that the Young Offenders Act is broken and needs repair. The government has said it is broken. There were things in the Juvenile Delinquents Act that were unacceptable. There were contentious parts of the act that the government and all sides of the House said needed to be repaired.

Bills and proposals have been brought forward such as Bill C-3 and Bill C-7 which the government has tried to tinker with. As we heard from the Liberal member across the way a new bill has been brought forward, but we are looking at it and asking if it will solve the young offender problem we have in the nation.

One of the things we will grow accustomed to in the House through the years is people standing in the Chamber and saying we need to fix the Young Offenders Act. I believe if we were to ask members opposite they would say yes, there are areas of the act that are not what we would like them to be and they should be fixed, changed and repaired. However the act we have in place does not do that.

The Canadian public would say we need to fix the act. They would say we see many repeat offenders and many teachers who go to school not knowing their students are young offenders. Some are violent offenders yet their teachers are not aware a threat exists.

The recidivism rate for young offenders clearly shows that the Young Offenders Act is broken and its provisions are ineffective. They are ineffective in many areas, particularly with respect to violent offences such as sexual assault. The current maximum sentence of only three years does not provide adequate time for rehabilitation to occur. These are, without a shadow of a doubt, young people whom we want to see rehabilitated. We want to see them reintegrated into society as young men or women who can contribute.

It takes years in some cases for an offender to develop a behaviour and it sometimes takes years to reverse it. The maximum sentence of seven years proposed by my private member's bill would provide judges with greater sentencing options for the most severe cases. Currently judges' hands are tied when they feel that a longer disposition is necessary for the benefit of the offender and the protection of society.

The late mayor of Cornwall, Ron Martelle, said:

Sentencing is the key ingredient in stopping victimization. Sentences must reflect public repudiation of criminal acts by swift, substantial punishment.

I do not recommend longer sentences if we do not first ensure that all prison facilities have mandatory rehabilitative programs.

Those who oppose longer sentences point to the high recidivism rate of young offenders who have been incarcerated. They wrongly conclude that increasing sentences would be ineffective. Others say prison facilities do not provide effective rehabilitation and that this contributes to higher rates of reoffending.

They say this is partly due to limited money and resources. Time does not afford me to go on with the list. However, I implore all members of the House and the general public to read my private member's bill and understand that it is a bill of principles. It outlines requests made to me by the people of Crowfoot and the former member for Crowfoot who, as has been noted here, worked diligently in justice issues, especially with respect to young offenders.

The bill would help restore integrity and sanity to our justice system by making the protection of society its guiding principle.

There are many opportunities through social programs to get to the root causes of youth crime. We need to do that. We need to implore our provincial governments to make sure social programs dealing with education, poverty and a vast number of issues are met.

As legislators in the House, it behooves us to bring down laws that first, would protect our society and communities and then would allow young offenders to be reintegrated into society so they may be contributors.

[Young Offenders Act, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, if the member who seconded the motion does not have enough time I would like to forfeit my five minutes and have them tacked on to his time, if that is possible.

[Young Offenders Act, September 25th, 2001]

moved that Bill C-289, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act (public safety), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to my private member's bill, C-289, which attempts to amend the Young Offenders Act and to achieve a number of objectives.

Before I proceed, I would like to point out to the House that I initiated the drafting of the bill before the justice minister introduced Bill C-3, a carbon copy of Bill C-7 that died on the order paper at the dissolution of parliament with the call of the 2000 federal election. Bill C-3 was an act to enact the criminal justice act.

Bill C-289 reflects the sentiments expressed to me by many of the Crowfoot residents during that 2000 federal election campaign, sentiments which have been reverberating throughout the country since the Liberals took power in 1993.

I made a commitment to the people of Crowfoot to restore some sanity to a justice system that has, for far too long, in their opinion, coddled offenders, particularly violent young offenders. Canadians from coast to coast are concerned about their personal safety and the safety of their children.

The Liberals made a promise to Canadians. In successive elections, they promised to make our homes and our streets much safer. It is evident from the lenient justice legislation introduced and subsequently enacted by this majority government, including the subsequent lax amendments to the Young Offenders Act under Bill C-37, that the Liberals have not lived up to those promises; indeed, the Liberals have broken those promises.

The Liberal government's soft on crime position will not enhance public safety and personal security. The Liberal's soft justice legislation, such as that enacting conditional sentences, threatens the safety of all Canadians.

The Liberal justice minister, despite having overwhelming support from people throughout the country, does not have the fortitude to enact the necessary tough measures to hold murderers and other violent offenders, including violent young offenders, fully accountable for their heinous crimes against innocent citizens.

In 1996, the justice minister mandated the standing committee on justice and legal affairs to review the Young Offenders Act following the 10th anniversary of its enactment in 1984. After months of cross country hearings, submissions and presentations by people with vested interest in youth justice, and at a cost of almost half a million dollars, the committee tabled a report in April 1997. The report contained a number of recommendations for the Young Offenders Act.

Despite the committee's report and despite the justice minister's promise in June 1997, immediately following that federal election, to make amending the Young Offenders Act a priority, it took her more than two years to do so.

Thinking that old habits die hard, immediately following the election I requested the drafting of Bill C-289 anticipating that once again the justice minister would move slowly and drag her feet on bringing in changes to the most despised piece of legislation in Canada, the Young Offenders Act.

The minister proved me wrong and did introduce Bill C-3 relatively soon after the 2000 federal election. She did, however, true to her form, bring in a bill with little or no teeth.

At this time, I commend my colleague from Surrey North for repeatedly pointing out the inadequacies of Bill C-3.

The fundamental purpose of Canada's youth justice system is the protection of society, which entails dealing effectively with an offender after a crime has been committed. It was not designed to repair social flaws. It was not designed to deal with dysfunctional families. It was not designed to deal with economic hardships. It was not put into place to deal with the deficiencies of our education system. These root causes of youth crime must instead be addressed through effective social programs, sound economic policies, support for Canadian families and early detection and intervention programs.

By failing to recognize this simple fact, successive federal governments have diluted and weakened the effectiveness of Canada's criminal justice system. Young offenders are no longer being held accountable for their actions in a proper and effective manner. As a result, Canadians have lost faith in their ability to protect their families and their property.

If this all sounds familiar, it is because it is taken from the Reform Party, our predecessor, minority report in response to the justice committee's report on amending the Young Offenders Act. A significant amount of time has passed, actually four years, since that minority report was product. Nothing was different as far as youth crime goes. Therefore, our position has not changed.

The first and perhaps the most important amendment I seek through the private members' bill is to make the protection of society and the safety of others the first purpose of the law respecting young offenders. Appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in October 1996, Victor Doerksen, who was a member of the legislature of Alberta, said:

In listening to Albertans, one lesson became very clear. The protection of society should take priority over all other considerations and there must be some accountability on the part of all offenders...Alberta also recommends that the declaration of principles within the act be amended to give the protection of society and offender accountability priority over all other considerations.

Bill C-3 does not, as recommended by this Alberta member of the legislature and many others who appeared before that standing committee, make the protection of society the first and guiding principle of the youth act. According to the declaration of principles, the safety and security of Canadians is secondary to the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders back into society.

Beside failing to make the protection of society the guiding principle, the new youth criminal justice act effectively enacts the most contentious parts of the old Juvenile Delinquents Act; that is the portion that wrongfully promotes an inequitable application of criminal law, in that it allows or provides far too much discretion to the youth court.

Bill C-289 also serves to support section 43 of the criminal code in that it attempts to reinforce the principle that reasonable force may be used to discipline young persons by those with authority over them. Those in positions of authority over youth, including parents, teachers and police officers, should not be afraid to use reasonable means of discipline or intervention in minor incidents.

Schools are effectively diverting police officers from far more serious matters by calling them unnecessarily to settle disputes that could be handled by teachers or by other students. However, teachers fear that they themselves may be charged if they inadvertently harm a student while trying to stop a fight or dealing with an uncontrollable student. They are reluctant to do anything but standby, stand back and watch until the police arrive. That must be changed.

Bill C-289 attempts to do a number of other things. It attempts to lower the maximum age of the Young Offenders Act from 17 to 15 years of age. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are legally allowed to drive cars. They are allowed to get married. They are allowed to live on their own. They have the knowledge and the capacity to know right from wrong. They also have the physical strength of most adults. In some cases perhaps more physical strength than what most adults would have. For all intents and purposes, in my opinion 16 and 17 year olds are adults and should be treated as such under the criminal law. That opinion is shared by a number of people who appeared before the committee as well. It is shared by the former Attorney General of Ontario, Charles Harnick, who said before the standing committee:

Our first recommendation is that a young offender be defined as a person aged 15 years or under. Until the passing of the Young Offenders Act in 1984, the maximum age for young offenders in Ontario under the Juvenile Delinquents Act was 15-years old. For the purpose of criminal law, 16 and 17-year-olds were considered adults... A 16-year-old can legally drive, work, get married and have a family. If, as a society, we accept a younger person's ability to make serious choices such as that, then we must accept that 16-year-olds have the moral capacity to understand the consequences of doing wrong and should be held accountable for their actions.

My private member's bill also attempts to lower the minimum age limit of the Young Offenders Act from 12 years to 10.

Numerous witnesses appeared before the standing committee, including a city councillor from Scarborough, Ontario. That councillor spoke in support of lowering the age of criminality. Councillor Brad Duguid said:

--I'd like to see the age lowered in terms of the applicability to 10 years or under. And that's not an attempt to try to throw 10 and 11-year-olds in custody or in jail...It's simply an attempt to try to give the police a little more legal ability to intervene, and I think that's the key, is being able to intervene...

Regarding lowering the age limit, Constable Sue Olsen, who is a native resource officer with the Edmonton police service, testified. I loved the quote she gave at the standing committee. She said:

I work in the inner city school. One of the issues that comes up for us as street police officers is that there is a gap with the under 12-year-old children who get involved in criminal activity. We're in a sit and wait process, waiting until they're 12 before we can get them into services and deal with them before they become more of a problem down the road.

The officer was saying that as it now applies we must sit and wait until they are 12 years old so that they can get the help they need.

Some of these young people in inner cities throughout this nation need intervention at an early age. This is not so that people can be incarcerated. This is not so we can take 10 and 11 year olds, hold them in custody and throw them in jail. This is so they can get the rehabilitative programs they need so that they will be successfully integrated into society.

On April 18, 1996, Superintendent Gwen Boniface, a member of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, said in regard to the anonymity of the Young Offenders Act:

--while valuable from the perspective of not labelling first offenders and for all the very valid reasons that we know of, it is often outweighed by the ability of young offenders to deflect responsibility. The flaw with the system is that it countermands the basic principles that all responsible parents attempt to instill in their children--namely, to accept responsibility for one's actions.

In response to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and in response to Albertans, who support a partial lifting of the ban, my private member's bill seeks to allow for the publishing of all the names of all violent offenders. I believe that the public has a right to know if a violent offender has been released or may reside in their community. I believe that knowledge far outweighs any privacy considerations for the offender. Parents have the right to protect their children.

I would submit that they cannot do so if they do not know with whom their children are associating; perhaps with a convicted drug dealer or a violent offender.

In recognition that some youth make minor mistakes that they do not repeat, I believe, as does my party, that their privacy should be maintained.

The recidivism rate for young offenders clearly shows that the sentencing provisions of the Young Offenders Act have been ineffective. Particularly in cases of violent offences such as sexual assault, the current maximum sentence of only three years does not provide an adequate period of time for rehabilitation to occur.

It has taken years for the offender to develop this behaviour and it takes years to reverse it. The maximum sentence of seven years proposed in my private member's bill would provide judges with greater sentencing options for the most severe cases.

When I campaigned in the election the people of Crowfoot said that we needed an act that was not simply there to punish but was also there to rehabilitate. Bill C-289 does that.

[Customs Act, September 24th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to partake in this debate on Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

The bill proposes to streamline legitimate cross border trade and travel through electronic monitoring, self-assessment, advance information and pre-approval.

As already pointed out today, the official opposition hesitantly supports Bill S-23 but does so reluctantly given the government's poor record in maintaining the integrity of our borders, particularly the long, mostly unprotected border we share with our neighbours to the south.

Canada is a trade dependent country and as such the economic viability and stability of manufacturing companies operating within Canada rely on the ease with which goods flow between Canada and the United States. A threat to the openness we enjoy along the Canada-U.S. border is a threat to the billions of dollars of trade and the tens of thousands of jobs we appreciate and have here in Canada. Over 87% of our trade is done with our neighbours to the south, the United States.

This weekend the governor of the Bank of Canada warned that the fallout from terrorist attacks on the United States may push our weakened economy into a recession. David Dodge warned the government against trying to bail out the economy with additional spending or being foolhardy and going back to deficit financing, which Minister of Finance Paul Martin has indicated he may have to do.

Mr. Dodge stated:

--economic growth in the third quarter will likely be close to zero or slightly negative, and we will continue to feel the adverse effects into the fourth quarter.

Furthermore, the governor of the Bank of Canada said that it is certainly possible that the economy will slip into a recession, which as we all know and has been discussed here lately is commonly defined as two quarters of negative growth.

Last week the Minister of Finance said that he will not rule out a deficit if it protects Canada from terrorism. Claiming that the number one priority for the government is to protect Canadians, the finance minister says there will have to be additional spending in terms of our national security.

The official opposition fully supports increased spending for our security and for our intelligence agencies. We have pointed out numerous times in the House, and not just in the wake of the horrific events of September 11, that CSIS and the RCMP are underfunded and underresourced.

Having said that, we would counter that we do not need to be plunged back into a deficit situation if the finance minister and his government would simply prioritize spending, something that should have been done years ago. It is time to put to an end the frivolous spending on such things as fountains and golf courses and reallocate our scarce dollars to support the front lines of defence, CSIS, the RCMP and national defence. These three have been financially starved for far too long.

As stated earlier today, we cannot consider liberalized border procedures without first considering how to best restore the integrity of our borders. A company based right here in Ottawa is developing a passenger screening system that it says could have foiled last week's terrorist attacks. The system developed for the transport department by the Ottawa branch of a United States based corporation, Intrinsix Corporation, combines video cameras, reservation computers, metal detectors and x-ray machines to help identify potential terrorists. The company says that its system, which works by networking all of those elements together, would have triggered security alerts when hijackers boarded four flights in the United States last week.

In last week's Ottawa Citizen , Claude Clouthier, manager of the Intrinsix Ottawa office, said that the strength of the airport security data fusion system is that it displays all the information on one computer screen. Mr. Clouthier reported to the Ottawa Citizen that Transport Canada was funding development of the system through an agreement with the United States to create new anti-terrorism technology but that the project had apparently been stalled over cost concerns. “Cost is always the issue, because it is a very complex problem”, said Mr. Clouthier.

We would agree with Mr. Clouthier. When we deal with national security or when we deal with CSIS and RCMP, funding and resourcing is a problem with the government.

Furthermore, the Intrinsix manager said that he believes Transport Canada has a renewed interest in the project since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon on September 11. Intrinsix received a $140,000 contract in February 1999 to develop a working prototype of the system. The Intrinsix preliminary report on the system recommends that Transport Canada install video surveillance cameras at check-in counters and boarding gates. The report noted that the lack of integration of security machines makes it difficult to track a passenger's bags through an airport without sending a security guard to make a physical check.

It is absolutely appalling that a system such as this one developed by this Ottawa based company has not been used in Canadian airports and that only now, after the attack on America, has our government decided that perhaps it should bring forward some precautionary measures.

The Liberal government's failure to continue funding for such systems is indicative of its relaxed attitude toward security in Canada. Unfortunately we have a government that is reactive, not proactive, regarding the security and the safety of our citizens. It is for this reason that we are reluctant to support a liberalization of our border controls. We are also reluctant to entertain loosening border controls due to the large volume of illegal migrants currently crossing our border so freely, illegals who may ultimately provide a stream of terrorists gaining entry into the United States by circumventing Canadian and United States border controls since we have no exit controls.

No exit controls, as I pointed out in April of this year, mean that it is impossible to calculate how many people remain in Canada illegally, how many have slipped into the United States or how many have returned to their countries of origin or have gone elsewhere.

As of October 23, 1998, there were 6,110 warrants for removal issued against persons deemed to have abandoned or withdrawn their refugee claims. Of these, 640 warrants were executed and the persons were removed from Canada; 240 warrants were cancelled, that is, they were no longer deemed refugees so they were cancelled; and there was no action taken on the remaining 5,272.

Six thousand, one hundred and ten applications and five thousand, two hundred and seventy-two warrants still sit in a dusty, dingy corner somewhere because we do not have the resourcing to deal with those warrants, or the backbone. Quite obviously this is a very serious problem that must immediately be rectified to restore our border integrity.

More than nine million commercial shipments enter Canada each year, 75% at land border ports and the rest at international airports, marine ports, postal facilities and bonded warehouses. Approximately one million marine containers enter Canadian ports annually and another 200,000 enter by truck or rail after being off-loaded in United States marine ports.

I would like to point out that most illicit drugs arrive in Canada by aircraft, marine container and truck. At least 100 tonnes of hashish, 15 to 24 tonnes of cocaine and 4 tonnes of liquid hashish are smuggled into Canada each year.

I do not think I need to point out that drugs are synonymous with organized crime. Drugs and organized crime are very relevant when we refer to the fundraising of terrorist organizations.

An Ottawa Citizen article dated March 3, 1999, under the title “RCMP battles to halt flow of Colombian drugs”, states that Canada is particularly vulnerable to drug trafficking, the principal source of revenue for most crime groups. According to the drug analysis section of the RCMP, smugglers are attracted to Canada because of the low risk of arrest due to limited police resources that “have stymied investigations”:

Smugglers are attracted by the sprawling, largely unmonitored Canadian coastline, the low risk of arrest and the relatively light penalties--

I therefore reiterate that we support measures aimed at liberalizing trade but we do so only as we ensure that all necessary measures are in place to effectively control organizations and terrorists and those who support them.

[Terrorism, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, he is correct. He did commission the report. The department brought the report forward but he has yet to adopt it.

In April of this year the solicitor general was told by CSIS that Canada is not prepared for any terrorist attack. The report recommended that the government develop better threat assessment and intelligence capabilities.

Why is the solicitor general failing to respond to the very report that he commissioned?

[Terrorism, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for years we have stood in the House asking the solicitor general to give CSIS and the RCMP the tools they need to protect Canadians, to protect them from all threats, including chemical and biological threats. CSIS has told us of the risk. The RCMP has told us of the risk.

I ask the solicitor general, why has he failed to act on the very report that he commissioned?

[Terrorism, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what the Canadian public wants to know is that CSIS and the RCMP have the list of 200. It is unfortunate that this suspected terrorist was arrested in Chicago and not in Canada.

Yesterday the minister told the House that she does not need to seek the permission of the court to extradite terrorists. In fact she must ask the court's permission and meet the rigorous test dictated by the Supreme Court.

Will the minister now correct the record and finally admit that it is the court, not she and our justice officials, that can decide whether a terrorist can be extradited?

[Terrorism, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the FBI is currently seeking some 200 suspects, potential associates of suspects and potential witnesses in connection with the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. We know that at least one of them, Nabil Al-Marabh, was a refugee claimant in Canada.

Do the RCMP and CSIS have this list of 200 wanted people and how many others on that list have they identified as having been here in Canada?