Rob Moore

[November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite incorrect. The government has done more to advance human rights in the last two years than the previous Liberal government did in thirteen years.

I will give one particular example of that. What is really ironic is we never hear members from the opposite side, members from the Liberal benches, mention victims of crime. We never hear them mention protection of society. We are doing that. It is what Canadians told us to do. They told us to act to protect Canadians. That is why we brought in justice legislation and that is why we will continue to stand up for the rights of Canadians, both here and abroad.

The Minister of Justice has been very clear on this issue. It will be considered on a case by case basis, but we will not repatriate, in this case, someone who has been convicted of multiple murders.

[November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have the opportunity to address this issue. The Minister of Justice has repeatedly stated in the House that the government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty.

In 1976 Canada abolished the death penalty from the Criminal Code, and continues to encourage countries around the world to do the same. However, the government acknowledges that the legal systems of foreign jurisdictions may have differing views on this issue.

Although the government recognizes the sovereign decision of each state to determine its own laws, the government also continues to advocate for the full respect for international safeguards where the death penalty is still in use. On November 15, the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution that called for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Canada supported that resolution and voted with the co-sponsors against efforts to undermine the purpose of the resolution.

As the House can see, Canada is taking a stand internationally on this issue.

With respect to clemency, as the Minister of Justice has said, our government will deal with the issue on a case by case basis. Potentially, if another country will only grant clemency on the basis of the offender being repatriated to Canada, we may have difficulty inasmuch as an offender who has committed murder abroad could potentially be eligible for parole in Canada and subsequently be free to live in our communities.

As is evident from our ambitious justice agenda, our government's first priority is to protect Canadians. We would be abdicating that responsibility by the potential release of a murderer, particularly one who has committed not one but multiple murders.

I am confident that Canadians do not want murderers free to roam our streets, especially if they have not served a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of their crime.

As the Minister of Justice has said in the House, “This country, and this government in particular, has an outstanding record with respect to human rights at home and abroad. It is a record for which all Canadians can be very proud”.

We will continue to fight for Canadians and ensure that our families are safe.

[November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we all heard today what the Minister of Justice had to say on this issue in response to questions. We heard today in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the testimony of a departmental official which clearly lays out the roles, responsibilities and powers of the minister in this regard, and I read that into the record tonight. I commend that to the hon. member for his review.

The hon. member says that he supports the process that this government has put in place. I would say that we should let that process take its course.

[November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, the hon. member for Mount Royal, in reference to the importance of Mr. Schreiber's testimony before the public inquiry, suggested that the minister had the power to hold the extradition and asked the minister to ensure that the key witness would be available to shed light on the issue.

The member from Mount Royal claimed that in addition to a discretionary power to hold the extradition, there was a supplementary agreement between Canada and Germany that expressly allows the minister to delay the extradition.

Today, in the justice and human rights committee, appearing with the justice minister on the supplementary estimates, a departmental official stated, and I would like to quote to clearly state for the record once again:

...when the act or the jurisprudence refers to a political discretion, they mean...it is no longer in the control of the courts but is in the hands of the minister. But the statute still plays a very big role, and the surrender order must be executed by the minister within 45 days of the judicial decision to commit the fugitive. There is no authority, under the treaty or the act, by which the minister can suspend the execution of that surrender order. If the surrender order is not executed, the fugitive is free to apply for a discharge and the extradition process fails.

There are two limited exceptions to that. The first is where the fugitive is facing outstanding criminal charges in Canada, or where there is an appeal with respect to the committal order.

There is some language being used in the media...with respect to a temporary surrender. That is true that there is a capacity to have a temporary surrender, but that is only where the fugitive is serving a sentence in Canada for a criminal offence.

That statement clearly describes the minister's powers with regard to the summoning of this witness.

Upon receiving the sworn affidavit, the Prime Minister moved immediately to appoint an independent third party to review the issue.

Dr. Johnston is currently in the process of establishing the parameters of the public inquiry. I think it prudent to wait until Dr. Johnston has clearly defined the full mandate of the public inquiry into this issue before commenting any further on this matter.

[November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding everyone in this House, as I had just reminded everybody, that it was under the previous Liberal government that $25 billion was cut from transfers to the provinces for students.

We have pledged to modernize the delivery of Canada student loans. That is why budget 2007 launched a review of this program. We expect the results of this review and the proposed changes to be announced in budget 2008.

We are also continuing to help Canadians overcome barriers to getting the skills and education they require. Last year we gave foreign students studying in Canada the opportunity to work off campus to help finance their studies.

This is our government's record and it is clearly one that we are proud of and should be proud of. After 13 years of inaction, when tuition skyrocketed--and I was a student during that time--attendance stagnated and infrastructure crumbled, Canadians finally have a government that is doing more than just talking--

[November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the comments from the hon. member, because as we all know in this House, it was under his government, the previous Liberal government, that $25 billion was cut from the Canada social transfer. That money is used by the provinces to support post-secondary education, so I would remind the hon. member that he has to look in the mirror a bit and look to the former leadership of his party when it comes to the massive cuts that were undertaken in the past.

In stark contrast to those cuts, this government, our new government, is doing what we have said we would do and clearly laid out in our Advantage Canada plan. This plan pledged to make our country's workforce the best educated, best trained and most skilled in the world.

That is why the government acted quickly to invest over $8.4 billion this fiscal year to support post-secondary education through transfers, direct spending and tax measures and to invest $800 million more per year, beginning next year, to support post-secondary education. This is a 40% increase in a single year.

Of course the good news does not end there. We have also provided $1 billion to provincial and territorial governments through the infrastructure trust fund for direct investments in post-secondary infrastructure and equipment to rebuild and renovate our campuses, which have begun to crumble after 13 years of Liberal neglect and Liberal inaction. That is a $1 billion trust fund.

We have also provided tax measures to help students with the cost of textbooks.

We have exempted scholarships and bursaries from income tax. Clearly, it is shocking that, under the Liberals, scholarships and bursaries were taxed. Under the Conservatives, scholarships and bursaries are not taxed.

Budget 2007 went even further. We will provide $35 million over two years to expand the Canada graduate scholarships program. This new money will give an additional 1,000 students the chance to continue on to graduate level studies.

The Government of Canada helps parents save by adding money to their RESPs through special incentives such as the Canada education savings grant and the Canada learning bond.

As well, this government recognizes that not all parents can contribute to the cost of a child's tuition. This is why we have reduced the amount that parents are expected to contribute to their children's education, because the ability to pay should not be a barrier to access for students who want to go on and attain a higher education.

These investments are an important signal of our belief in the power of education and a signal that stands in stark contrast to the actions of the previous government, of which my hon. colleague was of course a member.

I think that Canadian parents and students know that the Liberal Party has lost all credibility on this issue and that the Liberals are the very last people this government should be taking any advice from.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his work on behalf of his constituents on justice issues.

On the issue of the age of protection, I cannot answer for the negligence of the members opposite over their 13 years in government for not passing legislation that would raise the age of protection so our most vulnerable, our children, would be protected from adult sexual predators.

We know that groups such as Beyond Borders and child exploitation groups are advocating for the protection of children. For years they have been calling on us to raise the age of protection. This bill does that. Let us get on with passing it.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's question. This has always struck me. In the last election campaign, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party called for an increase in mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes. The parties said to the voters that if they elected them, they would bring in mandatory minimum penalties for those who committed a crime with a firearm.

In fact, the Liberal platform called for a doubling of the mandatory minimum penalties, which in some cases would have resulted in an eight year mandatory minimum penalty. However, Canadians have learned not to believe what they hear from the Liberals.

After the election, when we brought in a bill to bring in mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, all we received was obstruction and opposition from Liberals on what we had proposed. It was in effect an incremental change, moving from a four year minimum to a five year minimum on a repeat offence. Someone commits a crime with a firearm is caught by the police, is convicted in a court, is sentenced, serves some time, then gets out and commits another crime with a firearm. Who could argue that this individual should not receive a tougher sentence?

I will address the hon. member's other question dealing with drug recognizance experts. We have put it in place what is necessary for police officers to have the tools they require. Police asked us for the legislative measures contained in the bill.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what I will confirm for the hon. member is what we all saw, even in this House, where our Prime Minister and our justice minister called on the leader of his party, the leader of the Liberal Party, to encourage senators to stop delaying our criminal justice legislation.

It is a matter for the public to see. The public can see the Debates of the Senate just as they can our Debates. They know that these various bills and previous criminal justice bills were delayed in the Senate for literally hundreds of days, away from the eyes of Canadians and away from the debate that takes place in this House which is the most accessible to everyday Canadians.

Canadians are sometimes under the misconception that when a bill passes the House of Commons then it becomes law but in fact it does not. It goes to the Senate, which is where the leader of the Liberal Party refused to, or was unable to, encourage Liberal senators to give swift consideration and passage of the criminal justice legislation.

It brings into question a broader issue. It is not only acting swiftly now but why now? Why is it that over the last decade action was not taken to get tough on people who commit gun crimes? Why was action not taken in the face of pleas from city mayors and from provinces to introduce a reverse onus on bail? Why was there no action taken on raising the age of protection where Canada had a lower age of protection than other jurisdictions?

We do not know why the Liberal government that preceded us was so ineffective in addressing criminal justice issues. What we do know is that our government has been very aggressive. It has taken its clear direction and marching orders from the Canadian people who have said that they want to have a criminal justice system that works, that they want to get tougher on individuals who are recidivists and who are increasingly becoming the problem, that they want to provide opportunities for those who want to get out of a life of crime, and that they want to provide opportunities for those who are addicted to drugs or to alcohol. We are doing all those things. We are bringing in measures to the Criminal Code to update the code to better protect Canadians. I do not know who could possibly be against that.

The one thing Canadians are telling us to do is to get on with the work that we need to do, which is what I am hoping all members will do with the tackling violent crime act.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be keeping my remarks shorter than my allotted time for the simple reason that Canadians have already witnessed what took place in the preceding time.

The bill we are debating passed last night by a vote of over 200 to 1 and yet today the Bloc is delaying passage at third reading. I implore all members of the House to ensure a speedy passage of our government's tackling violent crime act.

There is no greater responsibility for us as parliamentarians and for the Canadian government than to protect the most vulnerable in society. Canadians from coast to coast and probably in all of our ridings have demanded changes to the criminal justice system to better protect victims, to better protect innocent Canadians and to better protect all of us from criminals, those who prey on other individuals, which is why we introduced Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

This bill has been thoroughly reviewed by a committee. It is made up of five different components, most of which were thoroughly considered in the last Parliament and, in this Parliament, the bill was thoroughly considered by a committee and voted on by this House.

The bill tackles the dangerous offender provisions in that it would make our streets safer from those who are the most serious offenders, those who have shown an appetite for repeat violent offences, for recidivism, the very worst of the worst offenders of a violent or a sexual nature.

The bill also addresses gun crimes, bringing in mandatory minimum sentences for those who, in the most serious of cases, use a firearm to commit an offence. I think we should all agree that we need to send a clear message and take seriously gun crimes. Canadians are telling us to do this.

Another component of the bill that we have been hearing from coast to coast in cities across Canada is reverse onus on bail for those who are charged with a gun crime. Too often a serious crime is committed with a firearm and the person is out on the street in a very short period of time awaiting trial. In many cases, the person finds a victim at the local convenience store. Obviously, that shocks the victim and it should shock all of us. We need a reverse onus on bail for gun crimes.

We need to give our police the tools they need to tackle impaired driving, drug impaired driving and to use new technologies to the greatest benefit possible to make our streets safer.

It is also important that we raise the age of protection. It is unbelievable that this was not done over a decade ago. The previous Liberal government always refused to raise the age of protection even though victims' groups and child advocacy groups implored the Liberals to do so in order to protect children. This bill takes action. This bill does so.

Our constituents are asking us to take these measures without delay to make Canadian streets safer. I am asking all parliamentarians to look at the record of what has been done and look at the work that has gone into this bill, the tackling violent crime act. I ask each member to consider the safety of our streets, our communities and our children and to pass this bill as quickly as possible from this place. I also ask the senators to not allow, as we saw in the last Parliament, our criminal justice legislation to be bogged down in the Senate but to allow for a quick study and quick passage of what is a very important bill that is long overdue.