Paul Szabo

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his input. He is certainly knowledgeable. I want to ask him about the input I have received from a couple of agencies. Certainly, it has to do with the timing and it also has to do with the safe country of origin issue.

The solution to this may be found in committee if it is deemed that it is not beyond the permitted scope of the committee. Once a bill is passed at second reading and gets approval in principle, it may close the door in terms of the latitude to make certain changes at committee. It was asked, and I wanted to make that representation, in good faith, that because of the important subject matter of this bill, the bill be referred to the committee before second reading so that all of these facts and discussions could be taken into account by the committee in determining the propriety of certain changes to be proposed. That would have been desirable, but that did not occur.

Does the member believe, therefore, that if we pass this bill at second reading we will be able to address some of the substantive issues at committee with the concurrence of the minister?

[Points of Order, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a usual practice of the House with regard to points of order. One of them, on a question of whether a matter is a point of order, has to do with whether it is inconsistent with our usual practices of the House. I would like to refer to an incident that occurred at the end of question period prior to routine proceedings when the Minister of the Environment rose and stated, and I am quoting from the blues:

“I rise on a point of order relating to a matter before the House and before one of its committees. I would like to inform the House that on Tuesday evening of this week, April 20, I was advised that in April 2009 a member of my staff in Calgary, Mr. Scott Wenger, was approached by Mr. Rahim Jaffer. Their discussion involved representations by Mr. Jaffer on behalf of a company. On my instructions Mr. Wenger has forwarded the details of those discussions and the documents relating to them to the Commissioner of Lobbying. The material was transmitted late yesterday, April 22. The same material is being transmitted today to the Ethics Commissioner. No contract was ever awarded to the company. I was not involved in those discussions in April 2009. Nor was I aware that they took place. As I have previously stated publicly, the only discussion I have had with Mr. Jaffer in the past one and a half years consisted of a 30 second discussion in this very building in early 2009, when I told him that I was not responsible for the administration of the so-called green funds. I felt it was my obligation, Mr. Speaker, to so advise the House today.”

What the minister rose to do was not to raise a point of order, but rather, in my view, to make a ministerial statement, which is a specific item under routine proceedings. Mr. Speaker, as you know, ministerial statements are usually accompanied by a notice to the other parties so that representatives of the other parties can make due representations and equivalent statements in the House related to the matter of the ministerial statement.

My point of order is that I believe the matter that occurred was in fact not a point of order, but rather, a ministerial statement, that it should be corrected and that the opposition parties should be given the opportunity to make representations to this place with regard to the statement by the Minister of the Environment.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised some interesting perspectives on an approach to crime prevention and the related public safety issues.

I want to remind him of a comment by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. His characterization was that the government is not interested in reducing crime, but rather in trying to win votes by using slogans like “We are tough on crime”.

The member is well aware of what the government has done. We have seen these bills circulating and circulating and then Parliament is prorogued and the government introduces them again at different stages. The government is not really attempting to get any of them through. There does not seem to be a commitment.

I must admit that if a slogan were to be adopted by this place, it should not be a matter of being tough on crime but rather of being smart on crime.

The member gave some examples of the experience of the United States versus Canada in terms of its incarceration rates, its level of public safety and the quality of crime prevention.

I wonder if the member would care to comment.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, earlier there was a speech by one of the members, which referred to some statistic that about 40% to 50% of the inmates in the prisons across Canada suffer from what is now called fetal alcohol spectrum disorders or alcohol-related birth defects.

If that is indeed the case, and this is an incurable but preventable affliction, there should be something in the legislation dealing with youth criminal justice issues to address those individuals for whom rehabilitation is not possible because of brain damage. There should be that other option of the courts and provincial jurisdictions to provide supports to those families and those individuals as to how to cope and to deal with permanent brain damage.

I wonder if the member is aware of any interventions or initiatives in Quebec in this regard.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, near the end of her intervention, I think the member made a plea to the House to consider other priorities, which are related in terms of crime prevention such as the reduction of poverty and the linkages between poverty and crime. The last time that we had a recession if we were to look at the charts tracking unemployment and property crime, they tracked almost perfectly. So that should tell the government that there are many approaches to crime prevention.

Unfortunately, when the bill talks about prevention, it talks about prevention with programs after the young offender has committed an offence. It appears that a bill such as this cannot really go forward with that kind of an approach to crime prevention without having other legislation directed at crime prevention, which is a more efficient dollar spent. I wonder if the member would like to comment.

[Committees of the House, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, your committee has considered vote 15, under Parliament, in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, and reports the same less the amounts voted in the interim supply.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health produced a report called, “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: The Preventable Tragedy”. It concluded that maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy is the leading known cause of mental retardation and other alcohol-related birth defects.

As the member said in his speech, there is clear evidence that 40% to 50% of the inmates in our jails across the country, both federal and provincial, in fact suffer from what is now called FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, because it is much broader than we thought. It is incurable, but it is 100% preventable.

The bill purports that we need to deal with youth crime. Yet with the causes of this being related to the environment and the early conditions related to a child, why is it that the courts are sending people who suffer from FASD to jail where rehabilitation is not applicable in their case? How can there be rehabilitation when that is not possible?

The real question is, why do we not have the funding for programs to prevent the incidence of FASD? More important, should that occur and crimes occur, where are the programs for dealing with the lifelong tragedy of FASD?

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member laid out some history which leads to the conclusion that the government is not intent on becoming tough on crime, but, rather, to recycle bills continuously so it can continue to use the slogan. We have not seen legislation delivered in some key areas.

The government does not buy into the fact that all the experts say that longer sentences are not a deterrent to crime. As for the recidivism rate, we know from the experience in Canada that recidivism is lowest when people get out of jail and into a supervised lifestyle, as opposed to serving out a full sentence. House arrest is gone, parole is being phased out and provincial funding is non-existent for crime prevention programs.

I would ask the member to comment on paragraph 3(1) of the bill where it refers to supporting the prevention of crime. It states, “by referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community”. The prevention the government is talking about in this bill is not preventing crimes from occurring. It is talking about preventing a crime after the crime has been committed. There seems to be a disconnect in terms of the approach to crime prevention and public safety on behalf of the government. I would like to hear the member's comments.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I did not get a lot of new information from the member about the bill or about the foundations of the bill.

All of the evidence indicates that sentencing is not a deterrent. Recidivism in fact is lower when there are early release programs, such as house arrest, to which the government is opposed. Crime rates are lower when there are proper supports for the police and in the provincial jurisdictions programs for crime prevention before the first crime happens.

The member seems to have repeated the platitudes of the government that the Conservatives are just tough on crime, a slogan without a foundation. Throwing more people into jail for longer periods of time will make them even less able to be rehabilitated or reintegrated into society and will not end the cycle of crime and recidivism. The Conservatives simply want to win votes. Why is it that the member has not given one example of where the bill improves the situation to reduce crime or prevent it before it happens?

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the hon. member for participating in this debate and bringing the experience he has in this House. He always brings an enlightened view to important legislation.

The member made an allegation that the government was not trying to reduce crime but rather to win votes, if I quoted him correctly. That certainly does lead to a sloganeering approach to the justice system, let us get tough on crime, but he is correct in identifying that being smart on crime makes more sense from a legislative standpoint.

As a layperson, I have come to find, from members like him and from some of my committee work, that sentencing does not appear to be an effective deterrent to crime, that recidivism rates are lower for those who get early release or house arrest, that provincial governments do not get the resources they need to properly police or to provide for the facilities, and that longer sentences are more expensive to the system, therefore taking resources away from some of the other important social supports that people need to keep away from a life of crime.

I wonder if the member would care to share with the House some further thoughts about being smart on crime.