Robert Goguen

[New Democratic Party of Canada, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the NDP asked our government members to make youth job creation a key part of the upcoming budget. I can tell the leader of the NDP and his party that on this side of the House, our priority is jobs, growth and economic prosperity. That is why we have stood firmly opposed to the NDP leader's $20 billion job-killing tax that would kill jobs and stall economic growth. In fact, the NDP leader's $20 billion job-killing carbon tax would raise the price of everything including gas, groceries and electricity. The NDP's 2011 election platform planned to raise over $20 billion from its carbon tax scheme. The NDP leader said that this “will produce billions”.

While the NDP leader is working on a plan to raise billions of dollars of revenue from Canadians with his job-killing carbon tax, our government will remain focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to participate in the debate on Bill C-444, which has to do with personating a peace officer or public officer.

This bill is nearly identical to the former Bill C-576, which died on the order paper during the previous Parliament. Bill C-576 made it to second reading and was passed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The bill has to do with the existing offence of personating a peace officer or public officer. More specifically, it suggests that the fact that an individual personated a peace officer or public officer for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence should be considered an aggravating circumstance during sentencing. The only difference between the two bills is that the current bill also includes the term “public officer”.

Personating a peace officer or public officer is a hybrid offence punishable under indictment by a maximum of five years in prison. Before 2009, this offence was only a summary conviction offence. At the time, it was punishable by a maximum of six months in prison or a maximum fine of $5,000, or both. It was obviously not considered to be a very serious offence.

In 2009, our government changed this offence to a hybrid offence and increased the maximum prison term to five years in the former Bill S-4, the identity theft bill, which came into force on January 10, 2010.

The five-year maximum prison term takes into account the fact that the offence requires only that we establish that the accused personated a peace officer or public officer. There is no requirement that there be malicious intent to specifically do so or that something malicious be accomplished in doing so.

Some individuals may decide to personate a police officer, for example, simply to feel powerful or as a way to do something else that may or may not be serious, such as getting information or gaining access to a location. Personating a peace officer or a public officer so that others believe that one really is such an officer can, in itself, lead to a conviction. No other evidence is required.

In a few instances, personating a police officer or a public officer will be directly associated with other offences. It is a way to enable the commission of other crimes. Since most people in our society have faith in the police and in other public institutions, they may, because of that faith, submit to the authority of an individual they believe to be a peace officer or a public officer.

Cases where people's trust in police and public officers is abused are very troubling. They must be condemned by sentencing courts and by Parliament. Bill C-444 addresses these cases. The bill would require that personating a peace officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

We could think of many situations where someone would voluntarily get into a police officer's vehicle, or let an officer into their home, before realizing that this person actually means them harm. Such cases are rare, fortunately. However, they are extremely serious, which justifies including them specifically in the Criminal Code.

It is also important to recall that in determining a fit sentence, the court must in all cases take into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code describes a number of aggravating factors that apply to all offences. These include, for instance, evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. But in addition to these factors which are specifically listed, the sentencing court always retains discretion to determine if additional circumstances revealed by the evidence are aggravating or mitigating factors that should affect the sentence.

It is already the case that a sentencing judge can take into account the aggravated nature of this form of police or public officer personation. What Bill C-444 does is essentially codify this practice in the text of the law.

Bill C-444 deserves serious consideration in this House because it addresses a truly horrific form of criminality which has so many negative consequences on the public at large, on the ability of police to carry out their functions, and especially on any individuals whose trust in public institutions and authorities was used against them to facilitate their victimization.

While this form of conduct continues to be rare in this country, there have been a number of incidents reported in the media in the last few years. One case involved drivers being stopped by a police impersonator and requested to pay immediately for an alleged speeding offence. Another case involved motorists who were followed after leaving a casino, and then pulled over and robbed of their winnings. There have also been profoundly disturbing cases involving police personation so as to get someone into a car to facilitate their kidnapping.

There was the tragic and devastating incident involving the kidnapping and sexual assault of a teenager in the riding of Red Deer, the riding of the member who is sponsoring this bill. No doubt, this incident is what prompted him to introduce this bill.

All Canadians should be aware that such things can happen and should be encouraged to be vigilant. Citizens should trust the police, but they should also recognize that criminals are not above exploiting that trust. It is a difficult balance to achieve. The exercise of a little bit of caution is a good thing. It is reasonable to ask to see the badge of someone who appears to be a police officer, especially if you are being asked to go with them or to allow them to enter your premises. This kind of verification process must be done respectfully and cautiously.

As Parliamentarians, we can help educate and inform Canadians about these risks. That is exactly what the debate on Bill C-444 is allowing us to do.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point. Of course, as regards discussions, there is a federal ombudsman for victims of criminal acts to whom one can refer or make comments and ask for some consistency in the provision of services. Also, all our counterparts, all the provincial justice ministers, meet regularly. They have the responsibility to develop best practices, based on the needs of their respective provinces.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot surmise exactly what the opposition members will do faced with such a circumstance. We certainly know that they have opposed, by and large, just about every aspect of trying to protect the public from crime and basically standing up for victims.

However, I will leave it to the opposition members to make their decision about whether they, like most Canadians, want the government to stand up for victims and do everything possible to protect them.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the willingness of the federal government to permit the provinces and territories to impose a fine option program suited to their needs should not be confused with a lack of leadership. It is simply recognizing the ability of the provinces to know what their needs are.

The Liberal Party has a different way of doing things. We believe the provinces are more than capable of administering justice, as the Constitution provides for the administration of justice in their realm.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there but, as to the logic of the bill, it is very simple. It is to provide funds for victim services.

Victims, by and large, have their entire lives disrupted and oftentimes do not have the resources to try to piece their life back together. This is an attempt, whether it be monetarily or through community services, to try to assist the community and the victims as a result of the crime perpetrated upon them.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the third reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability act. The bill proposes amendments to the victim surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code, which would address longstanding issues with the operation of the victim surcharge.

I am also pleased to say that Bill C-37 was reported back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without any amendments.

All members of the House who believe that responsibility for crime begins with the offenders who commit those crimes should applaud the reforms included in the bill. Bill C-37 is not a long bill, nor are the amendments it proposes overly technical or complicated. However, we must not be misled into thinking that the proposed amendments are not of vital importance. Indeed, Bill C-37 is a small bill that will have a big impact. It will have an impact on offenders, who will be held accountable for their actions, and it will have an impact on victims of crime who need services to help them recover from their victimization.

The current victim surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code have not met their intended goals. The requirement for an offender to pay a victim surcharge dates back to amendments made to the Criminal Code in 1988. Ten years later, amendments to those original provisions were proposed in the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled, “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”.

The government response to that report described the original victim surcharge provisions as having two goals. First was to make each offender accountable in a small way to victims of crime as a group. Second was to generate revenue for victim services. The government response to the committee's report also noted that the original victim surcharge provisions had fallen far short of expectations. The amendments to the victim surcharge provisions that followed in 2000 also failed to address problems with the operation of the victim surcharge. How do we know this? The victim surcharge is still not being applied in all appropriate cases and it is not generating the revenue that it should for victim services.

There are two very important consequences that flow from the problems with the victim surcharge provisions. The first is that offenders are not being held accountable for their actions. Currently, a sentencing court may exempt an offender from paying the victim surcharge if it will cause undue hardship to the offender or the offender's dependants. However, overly high waiver rates have revealed that the victim surcharge is not being imposed as it should. The victim surcharge is being routinely waived without the required supporting evidence showing that it would cause undue hardship to the offender or the offender's dependants.

The money from the victim surcharge is used by the province or territory where the offender is sentenced to fund services for victims of crime. This is how the first goal of holding offenders accountable to victims of crime as a group is intended to be met, by having each offender contribute a small amount to victim services in their province or territory. As many offenders are inappropriately exempted from paying the victim surcharge, it is clear that this goal is not being met.

The second consequence flowing from the problems with the current surcharge provisions is that revenues from the victim surcharge have never realized their potential. The provinces and territories have reported this problem since the victim surcharge provisions were first created. Therefore, we also know that the second goal of the victim surcharge, that of generating revenue for victim services, has not been met either.

This is why we introduced Bill C-37, to ensure that for the first time the victim surcharge would meet its goals. Bill C-37 would address the problems with the victim surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code in three ways. First, it would ensure that the victim surcharge is applied to all offenders by removing the ability of the sentencing court to waive the victim surcharge for undue hardship. This is a crucial step in reforming these provisions.

During the committee hearings for Bill C-37, a number of witnesses testified that they considered this to be the most important element of the bill. Why? If offenders are not required to pay the victim surcharge, then no amount of reform in this area will be able to effectively address the problems with these provisions. Therefore, the first step in ensuring that the victim surcharge makes offenders accountable and generates revenue for victim services is to make it mandatory in all cases without exception.

The second step taken by Bill C-37 is to provide alternatives for those offenders who are truly unable to pay the amount owing. The victim surcharge amounts are not high, however, we recognize that there will be cases where offenders simply will not be able to make the payment.

Currently, an offender may not discharge the victim surcharge through a fine option program. Bill C-37 would address this by allowing offenders who cannot pay the victim surcharge to discharge the amount owing by participating in provincial or territorial fine option programs. Providing this option for offenders is a reasonable alternative that would ensure the victim surcharge is applied in all cases while allowing offenders who are not able to pay the amount owing to demonstrate their accountability for the harm they have caused to victims by performing community services associated with fine option programs. This is a fitting compromise that meets the first goal of the victim surcharge.

These two proposed amendments of removing the court's ability to waive the victim surcharge and allowing offenders to discharge the victim surcharge through the fine option programs are companion amendments. They work together to make offenders accountable.

Victims' advocates who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-37 gave their views on offenders participating in fine option programs in cases where the offender is unable to make contributions to victim services. All agree that this is a reasonable alternative for these offenders.

The third area of reform proposed by Bill C-37 is to double the amount of the victim surcharge. Currently, the victim surcharge is 15% of any fine imposed. Under Bill C-37, this amount would be raised to 30% of any fine imposed. In cases where an offender is not sentenced to pay a fine, Bill C-37 would double the victim surcharge from $50 to $100 for summary conviction offences and from $100 to $200 for indictable offences.

At first glance, it might appear that these elements of the bill serve only the second goal of the victim surcharge: to generate revenue for victim services. However, this is not the case. In fact, this reform would serve both the goals of the victim surcharge as it would make offenders accountable to victims as a group by ensuring that the offenders contribute meaningful amounts to victim services.

As I noted earlier, the victim surcharge has not been increased since 2000. Twelve years have passed since the last increase. Twelve years have passed with victim services not receiving the revenue they expected and needed. Twelve years have passed with victims not being able to access the range of services that they require because the funding simply was not available to expand those services to meet victims' needs.

Once again, I will refer to the testimony presented by the victims and the victims' advocates at the committee hearings for Bill C-37 because they said it best. They shared their first-hand experiences about the need for victim services and how unrealized victim surcharge revenues have affected the availability of those services.

We heard about victims who had gone into debt and remortgaged their homes in order to pay the cost of their victimization. We also heard about victims who hired specialized counselling to help them deal with the aftermath of crime, but who had to pay for those services themselves because these services were either unavailable or only available on a short-term basis under provincial-territorial victim service programs.

This testimony was not offered to lay blame on provincial-territorial victim service programs. We know that those programs are staffed with dedicated individuals who are committed to helping victims and who accomplish great things with the limited resources they have. This testimony was offered to illustrate the need for more resources so that victims would be able to access the help they need without going into debt.

The increases proposed by Bill C-37 are not extreme. These are not huge sums of money. For most offenders, they would be manageable amounts. However, for those offenders who cannot pay the victim surcharge, the fine option programs would be available to discharge the amount owing.

Despite the documented need for reforms to the victim surcharge provisions and the many benefits of the approach proposed by Bill C-37, questions have been raised about the potential impact of these amendments on impecunious offenders. In fact, it has been suggested that we did not consider this issue when developing Bill C-37.

As I noted earlier, Bill C-37 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to allow the victim surcharge to be satisfied through an offender's participation in a fine option program. Despite this, it has been suggested that removing the option of waiving the victim surcharge in cases where payment could cause undue hardship to the offender or the offender's dependants would result in the imprisonment of offenders who are unable to pay the victim surcharge. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the reforms in Bill C-37 would result in a return to the debtors' prisons of Dickensian times. This is simply not true.

Fine option programs exist in all but three provinces. Therefore, in the majority of cases, offenders who are unable to pay the victim surcharge would be able to avail themselves of a fine option program to discharge the amount owing. Fine option programs are not offered in Ontario, British Columbia or Newfoundland and Labrador. However, all three of these provinces offer alternative mechanisms for offenders who are unable to pay a fine in full at the time of its imposition. All of these mechanisms would be available to offenders who are unable to pay the victim surcharge.

For example, British Columbia offers an offender who is unable to pay a victim surcharge the ability to make an application to a judge to have it converted to a community service. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the fines administration division provides financial counselling to debtors. The division may either enter into a final payment agreement with the offender or the court may grant an extension of time to pay fines ordered if the offender is unable to pay immediately.

Other mechanisms, such as licence suspension or revocation, are available in all three provinces to encourage offenders to pay. I should also note that any sentencing court in Canada may order a payment plan or an extension of time to pay for an offender who is ordered to pay the victim surcharge. This has always been the case and it would not be changed by Bill C-37.

Bill C-37, therefore, would ensure that there are alternatives for offenders who cannot pay the victim surcharge and this would satisfy the first goal of the victim surcharge, which is to make offenders accountable in a small way to victims.

Finally, I will mention one last point made so eloquently by victims and victim advocates at the committee hearings for Bill C-37. They noted that, over the past 25 years, the potential undue harm to offenders who must pay the victim surcharge has received a great deal of consideration. However, no one has considered the undue harm to victims from the waiver and non-payment of the victim surcharge. Their point is significant and deserves our attention.

Victims need help in dealing with the aftermath of crime. Its effects are far-reaching and may last a lifetime. Victims, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a situation where they require services to put their lives back together. Those services are essential and they require appropriate funding. The victim surcharge is one way of adding to the funding provided by the provinces, the territories and the federal government.

Through the federal victims strategy, we provide $11.6 million annually through the victims fund for grants and contributions to create and enhance services for victims of crime. This government remains committed to holding offenders accountable for their actions and to assisting victims of crime.

Ensuring that offenders pay the victim surcharge as a way of demonstrating their accountability through contributions to victim services is one way to achieve this goal. It is a goal that is supported in Bill C-37 and which deserves the support of all members of this House.

I trust that all members agree that these reforms would further our collective goal of ensuring that the victim surcharge provisions finally reach their potential.

We have waited 25 years. Victims have waited 25 years. Let us not wait any longer. The time to hold offenders accountable is now. I hope we can count on the support of all members to ensure swift passage of this very important crime bill.

[Abortion, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat in French that the government has no intention of reopening the debate on this issue. We are opposed to reopening the debate on this issue and that has already been voted on. We believe that the matter is closed.

[Abortion, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The government is opposed to reopening the debate on abortion. The issue has already been voted on by Parliament, and we do not believe that the issue should be reopened.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favour of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).

I would like to begin by noting that Bill S-209 is a private member's bill that was introduced in the other place by Senator Runciman. It proposes to amend section 83 of the Criminal Code. Currently, section 83 makes it a summary conviction offence to engage in a prize fight, to promote a prize fight or to attend a prize fight as an aid, second, surgeon, umpire, backer or reporter. Section 83 then carves out exceptions to the prize fighting offence for certain amateur boxing contests and for certain professional boxing contests.

The exception for an amateur boxing contest arises if each glove used meets the minimum weight of 140 grams. An amateur boxing contest where the gloves to be used do not meet the minimum weight specified in section 83 of the Criminal Code can still be excepted from the prize fighting offence if the province issues a licence for the contest. Similarly, any professional boxing contest is exempted from the section 83 prize fighting offence if the province issues a licence for the contest.

Bill S-209 contains proposals to extend the exemption in section 83 for amateur boxing contests to cover other amateur combative sport contests, including contests in sports such as judo, karate, tae kwon do, kick-boxing and mixed martial arts. Bill S-209 would also clarify that the exemption in section 83 which covers professional boxing contests would include professional mixed martial arts contests.

It is important to underscore that Bill S-209 contemplates provincial decision making with respect to both amateur exceptions and the professional exceptions to prize fights that are found in Bill S-209.

First, I will speak about the amateur combative sport contest aspect of Bill S-209 and then I will turn to the professional boxing and professional mixed martial contest aspect of the bill.

The reforms to the amateur prize fighting provisions of the Criminal Code found in Bill S-209 replicate those that were found in former government Bill C-31 introduced during the second session of the 40th Parliament, which died on the order paper. However, Bill C-31 proposed reforms only to the amateur prize fighting aspect of section 83 of the Criminal Code. Former Bill C-31 did not propose to extend current exemptions to the prize fighting offence for a professional boxing contest that held a licence from the province to any other professional combative sport contest.

Bill S-209 would extend the exemption for amateur prize fights in a way that would respect provincial decision making.

First, it would allow any amateur combative sport event in a sport that is on the Olympic or Paralympic program. If the province chooses, it can require that the Olympic or Paralympic combative sport contest obtain a licence from the province.

Second, Bill S-209 would make an exception to the prize fight offence for any amateur sport contest that would be on a list of designated amateur combative sports by the province and the province could choose to require that a licence is necessary for the designated amateur combative sport contest.

Third, Bill S-209 would make an exception for any other amateur combative sport contest for which a province had chosen to grant a licence.

As I have said, these amendments for amateur exceptions to the prize fighting offence were found in the government's previous bill, Bill C-31. They reflected consultations between federal and provincial officials at a time when professional mixed martial arts had not developed to the point where it is today in terms of its fan base and its rules.

Turning to the current professional boxing exemption from the section 83 prize fighting offence, Bill S-209 would clarify that a professional mixed martial arts contest that was licensed by a province would be an exception to the prize fighting offence in section 83 of the Criminal Code. British Columbia has requested that the code be amended to clarify any doubt in the matter. I note that there are other provinces, for example, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, which have licensed professional mixed martial arts contests as professional boxing contests. Bill S-209 would bring clarity in respect of professional mixed martial arts contests.

The professional exception in Bill S-209 does not extend to professional combative sports other than professional boxing and professional mixed martial arts. Perhaps this is because these two professional combative sports have television coverage and it does not appear that any other combative sports are on the verge of developing in Canada a professional aspect with such a fan base and television coverage.

We can see that where Bill S-209 would contemplate licensing, it is a provincial licensing that is identified. Bill S-209 would not try to go around the province by exempting a prize fight licensed by a municipality, for example, because a municipality is in fact the creation of a provincial legislature. If a province wished to establish a municipal body as a licensing body, it could choose to do so, but it would be for the province to decide.

As I noted earlier, the amendments to section 83 of the Criminal Code would respect provincial decision-making in the area of permitted exceptions to the prize-fighting offence. In my view, the provinces are best placed to determine public acceptance of combative sports within the range set by the Criminal Code. No province would be forced to permit an amateur combative sport or to license a professional boxing contest or a professional mixed martial arts contest. The province might decide that it did not want to permit any or all of these contests, and if such were the case, the province would not be obligated to license them.

Provinces are also best placed to determine what rules and safety measures they want to see in place prior to having a combative sport contest occur in their jurisdiction. With professional mixed martial arts, there has been tremendous development over the past decades, both in terms of fan support in Canada and the rules of the sport. There is a medical doctor who now decides when a fight should stop, rather than the referee or the coach. There are rules related to striking and holds that are barred. There are rules that permit an athlete to tap an opponent on the mat, which are not present in professional boxing, for example.

The reforms in Bill S-209 regarding amateur combative sports and professional mixed martial arts are long awaited. The amendments in Bill S-209 would modernize the amateur combative sport contest exceptions in section 83 of the Criminal Code. They would also clarify that a province could license a professional mixed martial arts contest as an exception to the prize-fighting offence in section 83 of the Criminal Code.

I urge all members to support Bill S-209.