Paul Szabo

[Lobbying, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.

Today the Commissioner of Lobbying testified that the Lobbying Act prohibited her from disclosing whether she was investigating any matter. Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister announced that his office was cutting off all communications with the lobbying firm, Navigator Limited, while the Commissioner of Lobbying was investigating ethical breaches by the firm.

Consequently the Prime Minister has undermined the confidentiality required by the Lobbying Act and compromised a potential investigation.

Why did he do this and when did he first find out about it?

[Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act, October 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his insight into the debate.

It is going to be very important to have this matter dealt with at committee. I am sure that many of the questions that have been raised in the debate will be resolved there, things such as cost, and I know the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been engaged to look into the costs of this and other legislation dealing with the Criminal Code.

The member talked about recidivism rates in his speech. I have recently seen a case in a media report that seems to indicate that all of the studies and the literature find that people who are given conditional sentences are substantially less likely to reoffend than those who would are put in jail and have to serve that full term.

It makes an interesting question about whether or not the intent of the legislation that we bring forward should be to reduce recidivism, and conditional sentencing appears to support the action of reducing recidivism.

I wonder if the member has any some comments on that.

[Petitions, October 26th, 2009]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the protection of human life.

These petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South would like to draw to the attention of the House that Canada is a country that respects human rights and includes in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to life. They would also note that it has been 40 years since May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion and that since January 28, 1988 Canada has had no law to protect the lives of unborn children.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

[Petitions, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, deals with animal welfare.

These petitioners would like to point out to the House that there is scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals can feel pain and suffer and that all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering.

They also want to point out that over one billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihood and many others rely on animals for companionship. Finally, these animals are often significantly affected by natural disasters and yet are seldom considered during relief efforts.

Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to support the universal declaration on animal welfare.

[Natural Resources, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, who is sitting there, has refused to answer questions and to be accountable, as required by the Prime Minister's own code of ethical conduct. Now we find out that contrary to federal law, the minister misused the resources of the Toronto Port Authority during her last election campaign.

We also have learned that Colin McSweeney, eastern Ontario co-ordinator for the Conservative Party of Canada and the brother of the lobbyist who ran her recent fundraiser, is actually an employee of the minister herself.

Why does the minister believe that she is above the law and why is she showing such contempt for the rules of ethical conduct?

[Natural Resources, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources put herself in a conflict of interest by allowing a registered lobbyist to organize her recent political fundraiser. Contrary to federal law, she also misused the offices and private information of the Toronto Port Authority for that fundraiser. Now she officially recuses herself from any further contact with the lobbyists to prevent any conflict of interest or further conflict of interest.

When will the Prime Minister accept that his code of conduct for ministers has been blatantly violated by the minister, who refuses to be accountable to Parliament?

[Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that the minister has commented on the cost of the expansion and that there is enough space. The Department of Justice, which is responsible for these matters, said in today's media that, in fact, the jails cannot absorb another 5,000 inmates. There is not enough room. It will take an expansion costing $2.5 billion to $3 billion to accommodate the increase in the prison population. Inmates will be doubling up in cells.

The member knows that, so why is he misleading the House by saying something different?

[Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the silence of the Conservative member, the Department of Justice has confirmed that the passage of Bill C-42 would result in an increase in the prison population by over 5,000 inmates. There is no room in the provincial institutions now. Therefore, expansion and/or the construction of new facilities would be required, at a cost of $2.5 billion to $3 billion.

I saw a recent report in the press about recidivism rates. People who commit crimes, not serious ones, not drug crimes, et cetera, but dangerous driving or fraud over $1,000, are actually less likely to reoffend under conditional sentencing than if they were in that crime school called prison. I wonder if the member is aware of that.

Is he aware of any other information that talks to the recidivism rate of first time offenders of not the most serious crimes but the examples I gave him?

[Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has been here from the beginning of the debate, so I know that he is looking at this carefully. The issue is one of cost versus implementation of the law, as the member is quite aware. I want to know whether the member believes that we should make changes to the Criminal Code if we know that we are unable to provide the funds necessary to enforce those changes.

[Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there are many people who are involved in the administration and the enforcement of the criminal justice system. Police officers certainly are the front line. We hear year after year how many of them lose their lives in the line of duty, enforcing the laws of Canada. So, I do not disagree with the member. I can, however, enlighten him.

The Department of Justice says that 5,000 more people would be put in jail as a consequence of this and it is estimated that the 5,000 additional inmates would cost the provinces in the range of $250 million to $500 million a year. That is not counting the capital costs. There is no way that the provincial systems currently can accommodate these 5,000 extra inmates. It is also estimated that the capital costs for expanding or building new prisons would be $1.5 billion to $2 billion.

This is the dimension of the problem we have to demonstrate that we will be able to enforce the changes in the law that are currently being presented under Bill C-42.