Russ Hiebert

[Petitions, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of the residents of South Surrey, other parts of Surrey, White Rock, Richmond, Vancouver and Langley related to the NAV CANADA and the Canada civil air navigation system.

The petitioners are seeking greater input into the decision-making process as it relates to air space changes. I call the attention of the House to the fact that they are calling upon the federal government to revisit the legislative framework of NAV CANADA to ensure that proper consultation takes place with affected communities and residents before air space changes are commenced.

[Truth in Sentencing Act, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.

It is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody).

As members may know, my riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has been directly affected by the shootings and gang war that has erupted in the Lower Mainland. My constituents are extremely concerned about the ongoing violence and complete disregard gang members have in our community. As the police have clearly indicated, much of this gang warfare is directly related to the drug trade. The guns being used are often smuggled across the border and purchased with the profits from the drug trade, or traded for drugs. Ensuring truth in sentencing, as Bill C-25 would help do, is an important step in ending British Columbia's gang war.

Every member of Parliament brings some experience in other professions and trades to his or her job here. Before I was elected, I served as an attorney for the B.C. legal services. I saw firsthand the impact drugs are having on our young people. I saw firsthand how many young people would turn to a life of crime to feed their drug habits and addictions. Drugs are often the gateway to crime for many career criminals. That is why I feel so strongly that we need to crack down on those who attempt to profit at the expense of our young people. Ensuring that drug pushers and gangsters serve a sentence that matches the seriousness of their crime is an important part of combatting the drug trade.

Upon taking office, our government committed itself to tackling crime and making our streets safer. Our commitment included preventing courts from giving extra credit for pretrial custody for persons denied bail because of their criminal record or for having violated bail.

Under the current system, courts typically take into account certain factors, such as overcrowding in remand centres, lack of rehabilitative programs commonly available in sentence custody, and the fact that time spent in remand does not count toward parole eligibility. This has resulted in courts traditionally awarding a two-for-one credit for time served in pretrial custody.

Now, on rare occasions, the credit awarded has been as high as three for one, especially where the conditions of detention were poor, for example, because of extreme crowding. Although also rare, credit has sometimes been less than two for one where offenders were unlikely to obtain early parole because of their criminal record or because of time spent in remand as a result of a breach of bail conditions.

The general practice of awarding generous credit for time spent in pre-sentencing has resulted in correctional authorities straining to cope with the growing number of people who are held in remand. In many cases, the population in remand centres now exceeds the population found in sentence custody in Canada's provincial and territorial jails.

Provincial attorneys general and correctional ministers have expressed concerns about the growing number of people being held in custody prior to sentencing. They strongly support limiting credit for time served as a way to help reduce the growing size of their remand population. Concerns have also been expressed that this practice has been abused by some accused who delay their trials and sentencing to earn double credit for the time spent in pretrial custody, thereby reducing their sentence.

Canadians have told us loud and clear that they would like to see more truth in sentencing.

I want to refer to a case that happened just last month in Toronto. A man convicted of manslaughter in the death of a nearly one-year-old baby found with 38 wounds was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. However, given that he has already served three years in pretrial detention since he was arrested for this killing, the two-for-one credit will guarantee that he is out on the streets within six months of his conviction.

One way of achieving truth in sentencing is to bring the practice of giving double time credit for pretrial custody to an end.

We are listening to the Canadian public in proposing this legislation. It would provide the courts with greater guidance in sentencing by limiting the amount of credit that courts may grant to convicted criminals for the time they served in custody prior to their sentencing. Bill C-25 would limit the credit ratio to two for one in all cases. However, where circumstances justify it, courts would be able to award a credit of up to one and a half days for every day spent in pre-sentencing custody. In such cases, the court would be required to provide an explanation for those circumstances. These circumstances are not defined in the bill. This is so the courts would have the discretion to consider on a case-by-case basis whether the credit to be awarded for the time spent in pre-sentencing custody should be more than one for one.

For example, we would expect a credit ratio of up to 1.5 to one would be considered where the conditions of detention and remand are extremely poor, or there is a complete absence of programming, or when the trial is unduly delayed by factors not attributable to the accused. However, where accused are remanded for having violated bail or because of their criminal record, the credit would be limited to one day for every day spent in pre-sentencing custody no matter what the remand conditions are.

As a result of this initiative, more offenders would now have a federal sentence of two years or more, and an increased number of offenders who would likely have been sentenced to a federal penitentiary would be spending longer time in federal custody. From a rehabilitation perspective, this time in the federal system would present the opportunity for longer term programming that may have a positive impact on the offender.

Bill C-25 also proposes to require courts to note the sentence that would have been imposed without the credit, the amount of credit awarded and the actual sentence imposed. This requirement would result in greater transparency and consistency and would improve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The proposed legislation is part of a series of criminal justice bills that has been introduced since we took office to help ensure the safety of Canadians. To make Canada safer, we have enacted legislation to get violent and dangerous criminals off our streets. We have cracked down on sexual predators, dangerous offenders and those who use guns to commit crimes. We have given the police more tools and resources to combat crime and to deal with those who drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

In the current session we have introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), which will provide law enforcement officials and the justice system a better means to address organized crime related activities, in particular, gang members and drive-by shootings.

Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, was introduced on February 27. It would provide for mandatory jail time for those who produce and sell illegal drugs. The reforms would, however, allow a drug treatment court to suspend a sentence while an addicted accused took an approved treatment program.

We have also introduced legislation in Bill S-4 to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to protect Canadian families and businesses from identity theft.

We will continue to introduce legislation to strengthen the justice system. Bill C-25 is an important contribution to this objective.

I appreciate the support of our provincial and territorial partners for this legislative amendment to provide greater truth in sentencing. I can only hope that we can also count on the support of the opposition parties, who have so often stood in the way of any bill that would actually reflect truth in sentencing.

I note the Liberal member for Vancouver South, who has been a loud critic of this government on law and order issues, recently criticized our approach to the issue of sentencing. In the Vancouver Sun on March 26 he is quoted as saying:

If they were genuinely concerned about public safety, they would have actually gone through the system, including corrections and parole board, and attempted to deal with the issue of organized crime. I believe they have not done their job in that regard.

I have three things to say in response to the member, who is a lawyer and a former attorney general of British Columbia.

First, we have introduced four separate bills in the past two months that will help police and prosecutors to crack down on organized crime, and gang and gun war is being waged in the Lower Mainland right now. Will he and his party support those bills?

Second, since forming government in 2006, we have continually introduced legislation to better achieve truth in sentencing. His party opposed these bills in the House and in the Senate. It was not until the Prime Minister threatened an election that the Liberals finally agreed to allow this measure to pass. Why did his party oppose truth in sentencing for so long?

Finally, let us remember that the member for Vancouver South was elected in 2004 and appointed to cabinet. He said that he is concerned about organized crime. He said that he is serious about stopping gun and gang violence. Why was the legislation we are debating today not passed while he was still in power?

I would call on the member and all parties in Parliament to put aside the partisan rhetoric and join us in supporting this common sense legislation.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Halifax say before the break that whether or not we move certain drugs from schedule III to schedule I is not something most Canadians concern themselves with.

I disagree. One of the things that the bill will do is move GHB and other so-called date rape drugs from schedule III to schedule I, which would mean that those who traffic these kinds of drugs would be subject to higher maximum sentences.

In fact, I think this is one of the most important things about the bill. As the member should know, date rape is something that primarily affects women. I believe it is absolutely essential that we pass the bill so that those who deal in these kinds of drugs, and we are talking about sexual predators who victimize women, are given the appropriate sentences.

Does the member for Halifax honestly not agree with the importance of this step?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports.

The first report is the Canadian branch of Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from August 1 to 10, 2008, and the bilateral visit to Singapore from August 10 to 14, 2008.

The second report is the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the International Parliamentary Conference on International Migration and Human Trafficking held in London, United Kingdom from February 2 to 6.

[Industry, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our government has always maintained that the last thing our economy needs is a job-killing carbon tax. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party continues to consider this irresponsible idea. The Liberal leader campaigned on it during his leadership race and vigorously defended it as a priority of a Liberal government just last fall.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry please tell the House how the Liberal leader's flawed policy ideas risk damaging Canadian industry?

[Dalit Freedom Network, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to welcome to Parliament Hill, Dr. Joseph D'souza, president of the Dalit Freedom Network.

Dr. D'souza testified today at our House Subcommittee on International and Human Rights. Dalits are below the lowest caste in the Hindu religion and have been called “the untouchables”. Traditionally relegated to menial occupations or various forms of servitude, Dalits are frequently denied equal opportunity in Indian society.

Dalit girls and women are often forced into prostitution. Dalit children are the victims of maiming and are forced into begging as so vividly portrayed in the film, Slumdog Millionaire.

The Dalit Freedom Network is working to provide vaccinations and basic medical care to provide Dalit children with education and to provide Dalit women with job skills and micro loans. The network is also striving to ensure equal treatment under the law for all Indians through its campaign for religious freedom.

I thank Dr. D'souza for all that he does.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, reports from the Canadian Branch of Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning four conferences of the Ministerial Debt Sustainability Forum by the World Bank in Washington, DC, April 9, 2008, the CPA UK Branch seminar held in London, June 8 to 20, 2008, the 33rd Regional Conference of the Caribbean, the Americas and the Atlantic held in Anguilla, June 28 to July 3, 2008, and the International Parliamentary Conference on International Development held in London, November 17 to 21, 2008.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague to the House of Commons. I know he considers it a privilege to be here for the first time, and I acknowledge that.

He has asked additional questions about the importance of a common securities regulator. I have to emphasize that having a common securities regulator is critical to Canada's economic future.

At present each of the provinces and territories has its own system. In these unprecedented times, it is imperative for Canada to have a common voice on issues related to financing. A mismatch of different regulations across the country simply does not cut it.

The IMF, as I pointed out in my speech, has considered this as a primary responsibility of our government to alleviate the burden on companies and the reporting requirements they have. Now more than ever we need to respond swiftly and efficiently to changing circumstances. Having a common securities regulator would allow us to do that.

My colleague also raised the issue of crime. I also talked about that issue in my speech, and about my being part of a safe streets and healthy communities task force that crisscrossed the country getting feedback from Canadians on what they felt was most important in addressing this problem. As I said, the one message we heard time and time again was that in the area of youth crime, young offenders no longer felt there was any consequence to their actions.

In this throne speech we committed to addressing that issue. We are going to take a look at the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We are going to make sure it becomes more stringent for those people on whom it does not really work.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I remember very well the trip my colleague refers to. In fact, I am a proud member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Few people understand that Canada has one of the oldest democracies in the world. We have a wealth of knowledge to share with developing nations around the world, and that is what that organization does.

The member spent most of his time talking about climate change. I am sure he has heard it mentioned here more than once, but in case he has forgotten, I want to remind him that as was mentioned in the throne speech, we have a plan, the first plan in Canadian history to address the problem of climate change. The throne speech re-emphasized that we are imposing mandatory reductions on big industries. We have one of the most stringent regulatory regimes in the world. We are committed to reducing Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

While we are proceeding with our commitments and our plan, we are also being prudent during this period of fiscal uncertainty. Unlike the members of the Liberal Party, we completely downplayed and dismissed the irresponsible idea of bringing in a carbon tax, which would have destroyed the economy had the Liberals had an opportunity to form a government. Perhaps the member from the Bloc could at least be appreciative that Canada is not facing the kind of crisis it would have faced had the Liberals been elected to government.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to your position. I also congratulate my colleague for Newton—North Delta for his success. It is a privilege for all of us to be here, and we never take it lightly. It is one of the things that drives all members of Parliament. We recognize the uncertainty that the economy is facing, and we come back here to do the hard work that Canadians expect us to do.

My colleague raised a number of issues. I will not be able to address all of them, but I do want to address a few.

He made some passing reference to the lack of fiscal prudence, or something to that effect, and suggested that we were mishandling the government’s finances. I think the exact opposite is the case. For the last two years I have been very proud that our government has introduced two balanced budgets, budgets that provided tremendous results for Canadians.

In my speech I referred to our cutting $37 billion from the national debt. The interest savings were passed along to Canadians in the form of tax cuts. I mentioned that tax cuts of nearly $200 billion are working their way through the economic system in Canada and that families and businesses are benefiting from those tax cuts. Seniors are benefiting from splitting their pensions. There is no apology on my part, nor on this side of the House, for the steps we have taken to reduce the amount of money the government takes in and the steps we have taken to give that money back to Canadians.

We can never forget that the money the government spends is not the government’s money. That is what the Liberals used to think. It is the people’s money, and we want to be good stewards of that money. That is why we are giving it back in the form of tax cuts, while at the same time being prudent in administering the finances of the nation.