Stephen Woodworth

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments. I hope he was listening closely to my remarks.

The member will see in them an acknowledgement by me that in fact rehabilitation, reintegration and prevention are important measures. I know, because I have spoken to our justice minister, that those are also important measures to our government. In fact, our justice minister often remarks to me that we are the only party that actually has a balanced program which does take those things into account.

With regard to the American experience, I really hope that my friend has an opportunity to study our legislation because he will see it is entirely dissimilar to what the Americans have been doing for the last 30 years. Our legislation is targeted, focused only on the worst cases, the worst offences, and with nowhere near the kinds of consequences, in terms of three strikes and you are out, and lengthy imprisonments that the Americans have experienced.

He will see that what we are doing is really quite dissimilar from what the Americans have done.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be in the House today to talk about the important changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are included in the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Since coming to power in 2006, our government has been working hard to ensure that Canadians can feel safe and secure in their communities. A key part of this ongoing work has focused on improvements to our youth criminal justice system. In particular, the government is taking action to strengthen the ways in which the system deals with serious, repeat and violent young offenders. My remarks today will focus on some of the key proposals that address those concerns.

First, the proposed amendments ensure that protection of society remains a key goal of the youth criminal justice system.

While the principles of the youth criminal justice system currently identify the long-term protection of the public as an objective of the act, the bill before us would make it clear that the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by holding young offenders accountable, by promoting their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and by preventing crime by addressing the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour.

A youth justice system that fails to protect society fails Canadians. Canadians have the right to be protected from crime, including youth crime, and the Government of Canada is committed to achieving that goal.

During our committee hearings on the former Bill C-4, some witnesses expressed the view that this change to the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act would move us toward a more punitive youth justice system and away from a system that emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration.

In fact, if members look at the full statement of principles in the amendment, it is clear that this is simply not the case. Indeed, the proposed amendment specifically states that rehabilitation, reintegration and crime prevention are key to the protection of society.

Furthermore, the bill also proposes amending the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding a fundamental principle of justice already articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, namely that the youth criminal justice system must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or diminished culpability.

Therefore, the proposed changes to the principles reflect a balanced approach that, together with the preservation of the existing principles, will guide those working within the youth criminal justice system to respond to youth in a more effective manner.

The proposed amendments also make important changes to the principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The amendments add specific deterrence and denunciation as principles to guide a judge in sentencing young offenders. Right now, deterrence and denunciation are not even included as objectives in youth sentencing decisions, even though many Canadians believe that young offenders' sentences should be designed to deter further offending and to send a message to that particular young offender before the court that criminal behaviour is simply not acceptable.

However, the proposed amendment would also make it very clear that a sentence must still be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence. That means, for example, that judges will not be able to give a young offender an extra-long sentence just to send a message to other youth that the unlawful behaviour was wrong.

Once again, in my view these changes, taken together with the existing principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, represent a balanced approach that will allow courts to respond to youth crime in an appropriate and effective way.

The package of reforms also includes several significant changes to the definition sections of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The amended act would define “serious offence” as any indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty in the Criminal Code or in another act of Parliament of five years or more.

This definition includes both property offences, such as auto theft and theft over $5,000, and violent offences, such as common assault, sexual assault and robbery.

Right now there is no definition of “serious offence” in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This new definition will have important implications for pretrial detention, and I will touch on them in a few moments.

The amendments also expand the meaning of “violent offence” under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The current scope of “violent offence” under the act was interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as including offences in which a young offender causes or attempts to cause or threatens to cause bodily harm, but not to include other offences that endanger someone's life or safety. An example is dangerous driving.

The proposed definition includes offences in which a young person actually endangers the life or safety of another person by creating the substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm. This new definition would have application in a number of areas, including the imposition of custodial sentences and the lifting of publication bans.

The proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act modify the restrictions on the use of custody as a youth sentencing measure. Apart from exceptional cases, currently a court cannot impose a custodial sentence on a young offender unless that young offender has committed a violent offence, failed to comply with previous non-custodial sentences, or committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, and also has a history that demonstrates a pattern of findings of guilt.

The proposed amendment pertains to the third circumstance, namely to cases in which a young offender has committed a non-violent indictable offence for which an adult is liable to more than two years in prison. The amendment would simply allow and give discretion to a judge to impose a custodial sentence in such a case if the youth's history demonstrated a pattern of findings of guilt or of extrajudicial sanctions or both.

This means that custody could be an option for a young offender who has been found guilty of a non-violent offence and who has in the past engaged in criminal behaviour for which the youth has admitted responsibility, but which was dealt with through extrajudicial sanctions. This simply allows the court to take the youth's full history into account to help determine the appropriate sentence.

The bill also creates a requirement that records be kept when extrajudicial measures are used by law enforcement, which will make it easier to find patterns of repeated reoffending that the police and others may take into account in deciding on appropriate interventions, such as whether to use another extrajudicial measure or proceed through the courts.

Changes to the publication provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act are also contained in this package of reforms. Currently the identity of a young offender is protected, and identifying information can be published only in limited circumstances; for example, the publication ban is automatically lifted if a youth receives an adult sentence. The publication ban could also be lifted by the judge in cases in which a youth has received a youth sentence for an offence that falls within a very narrow category of the most serious violent offences.

The new law requires judges simply to consider lifting publication bans whenever a youth sentence is imposed on a youth found guilty of a violent offence. The publication ban could be lifted, but only if the judge finds that the young person poses a significant risk of committing another violent offence and only if the lifting of the ban is necessary to protect the public. It will always be up to the prosecution to convince the judge that lifting the ban is necessary.

As the title of the bill indicates, the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act contained in the safe streets and communities act would make violent and repeat young offenders more accountable for their actions and better protect Canadians. This is what Canadians expect of their youth justice system, and it is an important priority for our government.

I ask all members of the House to join together with me and the government to focus on the concerns common to all Canadians.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen, often with amazement, to some of the things my friends across the way say. I want to begin by saying as emphatically as possible that the suggestion that this legislation will result in any boat being sent away from Canada's shores is complete poppycock. That is the most polite word I can think of for that. The suggestion that any church group would be found criminally responsible for helping a refugee is again poppycock.

The fact of the matter is that recently Canada let some 35,000 refugee applicants into our country in a single year. No one can suggest that Canada is not doing its fair share around the world.

I am interested in my friend's old adage. However, there is another adage, that being that the very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Canadians want us to do something different.

Canada cannot possibly solve all of the refugee problems of the world on its own. Would my friend join me in calling on the United Nations to get its act together and properly deal with the worldwide refugee crisis?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather intrigued by my friend's comments that somehow this bill creates categories of refugees.

I wonder if the member is aware that many of the boats that bring refugees are inherently unsafe. Does the member think that we should try to discourage unsafe passage to Canada?

I wonder if the member is aware that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the world, real legitimate refugees who have been waiting in very poor conditions in refugee camps and following the procedures that we set out with the UN to get them into Canada, who get pushed back to second place when we have unexpected arrivals and mass arrivals of large boatloads of people?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to raise this point of order until my colleague across the way was done speaking, but he continues to harp back on it. My point of order is in relation to the member's comment that the Minister of Labour misled the House in saying this dispute had anything to do with a strike. The member opposite keeps going on about how we are here because of a lockout.

It is quite clear that the Minister of Labour did not mislead the House. It is quite clear that the Minister of Labour was simply pointing out that the union bosses, who my colleague across the way supports, initiated a rotating strike, which led the postal service to lock out members. Both the strike and the lockout brought us to the point we are at today.

I would like the member to withdraw his accusation that the labour minister misled the House. It is a totally inappropriate and unparliamentary thing to say. A lockout, in any event, is just as legitimate a negotiating tactic as the strike was, and they are both involved in this dispute.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, what this bill really says is that the arbitrator should be guided by the need for terms and conditions consistent with those in comparable postal industries. I wonder if the member opposite disagrees with that. It says that the arbitrator should be guided by the need for terms and conditions that will ensure the short- and long-term economic viability of Canada Post. I wonder if the member opposite disagrees with that. It says that the arbitrator should be guided by the need to maintain the health and safety of workers. Does he disagree with that? Does he disagree with the need to sustain the pension plan?

What is it about those guiding principles the member opposite disagrees with so vehemently?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when I sit in the House and listen to members opposite, I wonder if they are even reading the same bill that I am reading. It seems that they talk about everything else except what is in the bill.

It is important for Canadians to know what is in the bill. In particular, I would like to refer the member opposite to subclause 11(2) and ask her what it is she finds so objectionable in the guidance that this bill gives the arbitrator. It gives the arbitrator four principles on which to base a contract between these parties: first, that the terms and conditions should be consistent with those in comparable postal industries; second, that the terms provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure short- and long-term economic viability; third, that the terms maintain the health and safety of the workers; and, fourth, that the terms of the contract ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.

I would like to know which one of those four guiding principles that this bill sets out is the opposition so vehemently opposed to.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the constituents of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for sending someone, for whom I have a very high regard, to this House. I cannot think of any better member, more hard-working, more intelligent or more serious.

My colleague gave us a very good description of a lot of the infrastructure investments that were made in phase one and, indeed, those have been made in my riding of Kitchener Centre with aquatic facilities and so on.

In Kitchener Centre, my constituents are very much aware that we now have to put the brakes on. We cannot go on with big spending policies. We need to pay down the deficit. I wonder if my colleague has had similar discussions with the people of his riding.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way might be aware that in my community of the Waterloo region, we lead the world in high-tech innovation. So I want to assure him that all that that is going to happen with the change he referred to is that calls will go electronically from one place to another. All of the search and rescue equipment that exists regionally will remain and will be capable of being directed.

Believe me, in the 21st century, as I am sure my friend knows, electronic communications make the problem he is referring to virtually negligible, particularly given the BlackBerry from the Waterloo region and the many other digital innovations out of my community of Kitchener where, by the way, Google Canada now has its head office.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his kind and generous comments. I have noticed him to be a gentleman in this House throughout and I am happy to thank him and encourage him in that, as I would all members.

I think my hon. colleague across the way knows very well, as all Canadians do, that if there is one thing they can count on this government to do, it is to keep personal income taxes low. That is why members will not find any increase in tax rates if they examine the budget. They will not find any reduction in personal exemptions. In fact, they will just find that we are doing more of the same with tax credits, for example, for children in the arts and for family caregivers of infirm dependants.

I would remind my friend that since 2006 our government has cut taxes 120 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in over 50 years.