Phil McColeman

[Larry John Rudd, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Brantford, Ontario, big yellow ribbons and Canadian flags lined the streets as thousands of people came out to bid a final farewell to Trooper Larry John Rudd, who died on May 24 serving our country in Afghanistan.

Standing more than six foot six, Trooper Rudd was known among his comrades as a gentle giant. At his funeral he was described as a phenomenal soldier, friend and Canadian. Larry John Rudd is a true Canadian hero who will be dearly missed by his family, friends, fellow comrades and the communities of Brantford and Brant.

Trooper Rudd is one of 147 Canadian men and women who have given their lives serving their country in Afghanistan. On behalf of all Canadians, I salute these brave men and women. Their commitment and sacrifice will remain a source of pride for all.

[Liberal Party of Canada, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, everywhere we turn, the Liberals are talking about forming a coalition. The member for Ottawa South and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine like the idea. The Liberal Party president has come out in support of it. Even Jean Chrétien and Warren Kinsella have said that they like the sound of it.

However, before the Liberals dust off their 2008 website, liberaldemocrats.ca, we should remind them that their coalition is not just with the NDP but also with the Bloc whose goal it is to break up this country.

It is as unacceptable now as it was in 2008 for the Liberal Party to give the NDP co-management of this economy or to share power with a party committed to the breakup of our country.

If the Liberal Party continues with its coalition talk, it should be truthful with Canadians and register the website blocquébécois-liberals-newdemocrats.ca and put that to Canadians.

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government feels it important to bring it into the House for debate and then move it to committee for the proper discussion at committee and hearing the witnesses. We would like the public to know that we are moving in this direction. These pardons have been recently publicized, as was mentioned by a fellow colleague here in the House. We are moving in a direction where we are addressing these issues.

Canadians need to know that. They need to know that there is support from both sides of the House on these issues to ensure that we develop the laws that bring that pendulum back in balance. There are situations, and names have been mentioned, such as the Karla Homolka situation and the Graham James situation, where the public is outraged and rightfully so. Many of the people on the opposite side have said that.

This is a public debate. We want it to be a public debate. We want it to be visible. We want to hear witnesses on this and we want speedy passage at the same time because this is important to Canadians.

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and I know, serving on a common committee, these are the types of debates that need to happen in terms of situations where people can be rehabilitated.

This legislation is geared toward the most grievous types of situations, such as sexual offenders. I can never forget the image of parents coming before the public safety committee, telling us about how they lost their son, who was abducted from a mall, and about how he was tortured, put to death and dismembered. How shocking.

This is what this bill is intended to do. It is intended to take those individuals who are repeat serious offenders, not offenders who can be rehabilitated. Many of these individuals will unfortunately never be rehabilitated. We want to ensure that we swing that pendulum back to protect victims of crime, not the criminals who commit these grievous offences.

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question there, I think I heard a mini speech. I am wondering what the question might be, but let me state very clearly that our government believes that the system needs to be swung back, the pendulum needs to be swung back to protect the rights of victims instead of the rights of criminals. That is what the legislation is about. It is about a government agenda to do that. It is about numerous pieces of legislation.

It seems when we come to votes on many of these issues, the hon. member opposes us on many of these things, so I understand sometimes his party's frustration with the fact that we want to move ahead to get tough on crime. The NDP does not, but in any regard, we are moving forward. This is a good piece of legislation. This protects victims and we urge all members to support the bill.

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, to recap where I was, I was encouraging all hon. member to support our government and Bill C-23 and to work in co-operation with our government to ensure the swift passage of this important legislation through Parliament.

One key element of the bill, which I have mentioned, is a shift in the use of terminology from pardon to record suspension throughout the Criminal Records Act. We need to be clear about what this mechanism does and does not do.

We consider the term “record suspension” to better reflect the purpose of the legislation which is to close off general access to a criminal record in appropriate cases as opposed to expressing forgiveness for the offence. This change in terminology is an important one in terms of reinforcing the role of this legislation and eliminating pardons for serious crimes.

The government is clear in Bill C-23 that in order to be eligible for a record suspension an applicant must not have been convicted of an offence involving sexual activity relating to a minor as set out in the schedule of offences in the bill. This includes those with a conviction, for example, of sexual interference or sexual exploitation of a child or luring a child, all serious and grave offences that we do not believe ever warrant a record suspension.

Further, eligibility for record suspensions will be more restrictive in that individuals convicted of more than three indictable offences will not be eligible to apply for a record suspension. We believe this is a fair balance between those with a few youthful indiscretions and those with serious repeat criminal histories. In addition, the waiting period to apply for a record suspension for summary offences will be increased from three to five years and from five to ten years for indictable offences. We believe this sends a strong message that the ineligibility period must reflect the seriousness of the crime committed.

Bill C-23 also proposes significant amendments to the Criminal Records Act to end what many view as a virtual automatic process of granting pardons. As we have indicated, the legislation will provide the National Parole Board with the discretion required to ensure individuals convicted of serious crimes will not be eligible for a record suspension. It will also establish multifaceted criteria that must be considered to ensure the ordering of a record suspension is appropriate and does not bring our justice system into disrepute. The bill gives the National Parole Board the tools it needs and which are currently lax.

Under the new system, the changes our government is proposing would authorize the board to examine factors such as nature, gravity and duration of an offence when it is considering applications for those convicted of indictable offences. As well, the board may consider the circumstances surrounding the commission of that offence and information relating to an applicant's criminal history in making its decision. We believe these are sensible additions to the legislative scheme.

There is also a new level of accountability built into the record suspension making process. Those convicted of an indictable offence would need to prove to the National Parole Board that receiving a record suspension would contribute to his or her rehabilitation. This places an onus squarely on the applicant to satisfy the National Parole Board that this condition is met.

The proposed reforms in Bill C-23 will also bring about more transparency through a report to Parliament on an annual basis from the National Parole Board, which will include statistics on the number of applicants for record suspensions and the number of record suspensions ordered for both summary conviction and indictable offences indexed by offence and province and residence of the applicant.

Further openness and scrutiny of the decision-making process will be achieved through public access to the National Parole Board's decisions regarding orders or refusals for record suspensions. This will be done in a way that does not compromise the privacy of the concerned individuals unless they consent to such disclosure.

In closing, Bill C-23 contains a comprehensive package of vital amendments and I urge all hon. members to give Bill C-23 speedy passage through the House so that these new measures can be implemented without delay.

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The short title of this bill is “eliminating pardons for serious crimes act”. That is what we believe to be the fundamental objective of these efforts.

With the introduction of Bill C-23, the government has moved forward to significantly reform the current pardon systems and to make good on a commitment to address public safety concerns swiftly and sensibly.

Foremost, these reforms acknowledge that a pardon is not forgiveness. It is an administrative tool to keep someone's criminal record separate and apart, but not erased.

These changes would clearly establish who would not be eligible for a record suspension and, as well, bring about more scrutiny and rigour to the decision-making process for those who apply.

The government has taken action to introduce Bill C-23 because we firmly believe that a pardon is not a right. The commission of serious offences does not warrant a pardon, such as in cases where a sexual offence has been committed against a child. We believe this sentiment is shared by Canadians, in particular victims, who have spoken of the impacts of crime, in particular sexual crimes, and the need for adopting changes to the pardon system.

I urge all hon. members to give their full support for Bill C-23 and work in co-operation with the government to ensure swift passage of this important legislation through Parliament.

One key element of this bill, which I have mentioned, is a shift in the use of—

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the member will no doubt know, whenever a project is put together of this nature, and in this case, the security of the people who will be here, the top leaders of the world who will be here, there have to be contingency funds built in for unexpected circumstances that can happen.

The other context we live in as Canadians and as world players is the constant threat of possible security breaches, security situations that have to be responded to in the proper manner, in a manner to save lives and to secure people. That is not to say that this is going to happen, but certainly those contingencies, as with any good business planning, are going to be built into a budget.

However, as we have stated all along on this side, the actual costs will not be known until the summits are over, and when they are finished, there will be a full accounting of every line item and the bills will be scrutinized of the people who have provided services. We as a government are one of the few governments that are actually showing all the costs up front and not trying to say, for example, that part of the RCMP role could be over in this category and we could keep it out of the limelight with a little bit here and a little bit there, as was referred to by the experts who have hosted other countries, so we are not comparing apples and apples.

Regarding the question of whether unused contingency funds will be factored into the final net cost, absolutely they will be. There will be an absolute net cost at the end and a full accounting for that.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the University of Toronto expert on this, John Kirton, said it most clearly in terms of the answer to the question:

The cost for each of the two Canada summits are more or less within range of what G-8 and even G-20 summits have been costing

It’s a very good investment. Most of the money has permanent benefits, well beyond the G-8.

Certainly we as a country could be very insular and not host these summits, but on a long-term basis, these are the things that build our country. These are the things that give us the international profile in a global economy to create the jobs that we need in this country.

As we showcase this wonderful land we live in and the wonderful land of opportunity that it presents to the rest of the world, and we are on the world stage in both of these summits, we are building our country. We are looking to people across the world to come to Canada, to invest in this great country, and to create the industry and jobs of the future that are so vastly important to our fellow Canadians.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member's question is what are the comparable costs. The one example that I would point out to the hon. member is, in Japan, when it hosted the G8, the costs were $1.7 billion just to hold the G8 in Japan.

Also I think the member should take note of the Auditor General's quote that I used in my remarks, that it is the understanding of the Auditor General that security means preparation over a long period of time, testing and making sure all of the things that we are planning are going to work and we have built in the contingencies for an unexpected situation.

These are all things that at this point are estimated costs and are contingencies built into the budgeting process by our law enforcement experts in this country.

The member has heard in the remarks of the various police service organizations who are coordinating together under a special unit, and have been for a long period of time, and are using best practices from around the world. As I say, using the Auditor General's words, it is a lot of money, as the member has adequately stated, but security costs a lot of money.